Monday, July 23, 2012

The Marriage Gap--Single Women Favor Obama, Married Couples Prefer Romney

An interesting column by Jeff Jacoby posted at Jewish World Review points out that the best forecaster of whether a woman will vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney is whether there is a wedding ring on her finger. Singles, especially single women, will tend to vote to re-elect the President; but among married persons Romney enjoys a healthy lead. Jacoby notes:
A Quinnipiac University poll this month suggests just how important the marriage gap has become to President Obama's reelection hopes. Among voters nationwide, it found, Obama's advantage over Mitt Romney is narrow, 46 percent to 43 percent. Drill beneath the surface, however, and a sharp divide appears. Among married voters, Romney has a robust 13-point lead, 51 percent to 38 percent. But Obama enjoys an even larger lead among singles, 54 percent to 34 percent. Unmarried women in particular are in the president's camp: They support him 2-1 over Romney.
Could the biggest weapon in the Romney arsenal be Eharmony? And do the readers recognize the happy couple pictured above?

Monday, July 09, 2012

Breathtaking Samson Mosaic Discovered in Byzantine Era Galilee Synagogue

A monumental synagogue building dating to the Late Roman period (ca. 4th-5th centuries C.E.) has been discovered in archaeological excavations at Huqoq in Israel’s Galilee. The stunning work of art, made with tiny colored stones much finer than those normally found in mosaics of that era, depicts the Biblical story of how Samson harrassed the Philistines by tying torches to the tails of foxes and setting them to run through Philistine field crops. (Judges 15:4-5) Read more about it at the Israel Antiquities Authority website.

Of course, Palestinians will probably react to the find by claiming it is a mosque, even though the synagogue predates the birth of Mohammed by a century or two. If you think I am exaggerating, witness the reaction of Hamas to the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Kotel, the Western Wall, which is the foundational wall of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, constructed by Herod or one of his heirs during renovations around the beginning of the Commone Era.

President Putin was clearly moved by his visit, stating, ""Here, we see how the Jewish past is etched into the stones of Jerusalem." Hamas and its minions were apopletic. As reported by Israel National News:

Attorney Zahi Najidat, spokesman for the Islamic Movement in "the Palestinian Interior" (i.e. – the state of Israel), denounced Putin for allegedly siding with Israel, and mentioned Russia's support for Bashar Assad "who is slaughtering his own countrymen."
The Al Aqsa Institute issued a statement to the press in which it said: "We tell Putin and people like him that the Al-Buraq Wall is exclusive Muslim Waqf property, is an inseperable part of the blessed Al Aqsa Mosque and non-Muslims have no rights at this wall or at the blessed Al Aqsa Mosque, and all historic facts and international documents stress the fact that the Al Buraq Wall is Islamic…" "We stress that every stone in the Al Aqsa Mosque and its buildings shows is evidence that it is Islamic and every stone in Al Quds is testimony to Al Quds's Muslim and Arabic nature."

Now if the Kotel, built between 10 B.C.E. and 20 B.C.E, is Arabic and Islamic, even though it predates the Muslim Arab conquest of Palestine by over six centuries, can there be any doubt that the so-called Huqoq synagogue must also be a mosque? As for that Hebrew writing clearly visible in the mosaic, it was no doubt inserted in place of the original Arabic by the Zionist archaeologists.

Will Mitt Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory?

The 2012 Presidential Election is Mitt Romeny's to win or lose, and he seems to be demonstrating that he is more than capable of losing it. That harsh assessment is not mine alone. Conservative pundits such as Bill Kristol, George Will and Charles Krauthammer, and New Jersey Governor (and possible GOP Vice Presidential candidate) Chris Christy are all wondering why Governor Romney is not coming out swinging at a stunned and staggering Democratic opponent. Instead he seems to be pursuing a rope-a-dope strategy, leaving himself open to a lucky knockout punch from the President.

Heck, let's pile on the sports metaphors and cliches. The Romney Campaign has gone into a prevent defense. They are stalling, playing out the clock. They are playing for the tie in regulation, not the win. They are going for the field goal instead of the touchdown that would seal the victory. And finally, back to boxing--Romney is trying to win on points.

The flaw with this stragegy is best illustrated by the January 2012 Fiesta Bowl. The game was tied 38-38 when Stanford took possession on its own 20 yard line with two minutes and 35 seconds left in the 4th quarter. Quarterback Andrew Luck moved Stanford down the field; he was unstoppable; he was 5 for 5 on passing in that closing drive. For the game, he had been 14 for 14 passing to his tight ends. It was third down and two yards on the Oklahoma State 17. Stanford had two or three time outs remaining; Oklahoma had none. Instead of going for the first down and then perhaps for the winning touchdown, Stanford Coash David Shaw ran the clock down to three seconds and then took the ball out of the hands of the best quarterback in college football and handed it to his sophomore field goal kicker. The kicker missed. The kicker missed again in overtime. Oklahoma State kicked a touchdown in overtime and won the game.

Yes, readers, I have not gotten over it. I had to stick that last paragrah in this post, even though it deals with the Presidential election.

Back to boxing for the closing cliches, I mean lesson: When you have your opponent on the ropes you hit him hard with your best weapon. Eye of the tiger, killer instinct and all that.

Governor, you are too cautious, too afraid to offend. It is not enough to say you have a plan to make the economy better. Tell the people about it. Give them some details. It is not enough to say that you will end ObamaCare your first day in office. Explain how you will protect people with pre-existing health conditions who are afraid to switch jobs or start a new venture, because they may not be able to get medical insurance.

And when they lie about you, call them on it--call them out. In short, give 'em hell, Mitt. You will win.

Sunday, July 01, 2012

From Marbury to Obama Care: John Roberts Channels John Marshall

S.G. Finefrock

Federalists v. ‘Republicans’ has become Democrats v. Originalists, in the SCOTUS decision on health care.  All this argument about the role of the Court began tangentially in the Constitutional Convention, and subsequently in the Federalist Papers’ arguments to get the document ratified.  Among the most ardent advocates for the Constitution’s move to a more central government was a hard core Federalist, John Marshall, later the third Chief Justice [or fourth, counting one appointed but never confirmed by the Senate], but not until he was secretary of state under Adams.

General agreement was considered toward some ‘judicial review’ for the Supreme Court, but the third article of the document is quite scant in guidance.  Hamilton branded the judiciary “the least dangerous branch” of government.  He went head-to-head with Jefferson, who returned from Paris six months into Washington’s presidency to take the secretary of state slot, finding that something akin to a coup was brewing, or so he thought of Hamilton and the Federalists who dominated Washington’s core crew.

Soon, Jefferson jumped Washington’s ship, with his enthusiasm for the French Revolution fully intact, founding his party to run against Adams but losing, to see Adams move the presidency into some realms which the ‘originalist’ Jefferson found troubling.  Jefferson had formed the ‘republican’ party in opposition to the Federalists, in order to protect the republic he felt was in dire risk of becoming too centralized.  See a pattern forming here, my liege?

In 1800, the nastiest presidential election in history, Jefferson re-challenged the incumbent Adams, and won handily and took office to find Federalists everywhere, being given ‘midnight commissions’ – including one to an office seeker named Marbury.  Jefferson denied the commission to Marbury, in the person of his new secretary of state, James Madison, for the actual paperwork had not been delivered, still sitting among other such commissions in Madison’s office.

Awaiting in the SCOTUS wings was Marshall, appointed Chief Justice late in Adams’ term, and watching the controversy arise as Marbury sued Madison, in the Supreme Court itself, seeking for the Court issue a writ of mandamus to require his appointment be recognized by Madison.

Madison served his ally well, as the Court accepted the controversy onto its docket, filed directly as an ‘original jurisdiction’ case, meaning the Supreme Court would consider it in its original presentation, rather than on appeal after a trial court had rendered a finding.  And here Chief Justice John Marshall triumphed, in a finesse of the law that comes back to mind on seeing current Chief Justice John Roberts finesse the ‘tax’ versus ‘mandate’ issue this week.

Marshall wanted to establish a principle of judicial review as a recognized prerogative, and yet not also irritate Jefferson, for any ‘order’ issued by a Federalist chief to the feisty redhead would be summarily ignored, making the Court look impotent as a vital time.  SCOTUS was a wee tiny sapling, or more like a struggling institutional seedling, not yet the tall oak tree it would become over the coming decades, so the Court had to give Jefferson what he wanted – deny Marbury his office in the government – and also lay down a principle of law that later would hold muster in appellate cases.

As John Roberts finessed this week to get his principle enshrined in a decision which his liberal haters on the Court and in the Oval would embrace, so Marshall ruled that, yep, sure enuf, Marbury, you are entitled to your remedy, BUT: ya filed your petition in the Wrong Court.  For the third article sets the original jurisdiction in plain language, which does not include a mere citizen suing the president for a writ of mandamus; and Marshall ruled that the original jurisdiction could not be increased by an act of Congress, but was fixed by its place in article three without any provision for it to be expanded.  Thus, in declaring the Court had the power to rule against the other two branches, Marshall got a judicial-review seedling planted, and presented Jefferson with a triumph.

Years later, as Marbury v. Madison was cited more and more frequently in briefs before the Court, Jefferson bristled at that case standing so tall, when he thought it so puny, almost worthy of dismissal in any intellectual discussion.  Far far more than Marbury’s wee tiny job was at issue – Judicial Review had been quietly planted in fertile soil, and that tree grew to today’s power of judiciary power, unquestioned by any liberal of the past four generations, unaware or uncaring how ‘political’ had been Marshall’s logical and political maneuvers.

As Jefferson went from being for small government to expanding it remarkably, so the party he founded became the so-called ‘democratic’ party [‘cardcheck’ anyone!], whose hero FDR packed the Court to get his way, intimidating it so that one critical Justice switched his vote, to suddenly give sway to FDR’s New Deal programs – the “switch in time that saved nine” justices from further attacks by FDR.  The liberals have been running in high gear since, authorizing massive government interference in farmers’ work and even a New York butcher shop’s process of customers’ selection of live chickens before they would be slaughtered.  That case brought by the butchers revealed such stupidity before SCOTUS that the Justices openly laughed at the insanity of the government’s over-reach.

There was no laughter this week, as Obamacare was finessed by Roberts’ reasoning that the commerce clause is being over-stretched, by the so-called ‘elastic clause’ that the elastic is about to wear out.  And like Marshall, he infused that concept inserted into language allowing Obamacare to survive.  So, like Jefferson, Obama accepts the overall ‘victory’ and can do nothing about the subtle verbiage which can be used later to establish restraints on government overreach. 

“Marbury” in reverse! Or, the ghost of Marbury returns, at the hand of a different John in the Chief’s Chair.

Noteworthy in correcting the record of history is to emphasize that Jefferson’s overwhelming 1904 re-election gave him well over two-thirds in each chamber of Congress, so he went after the judiciary, specifically the Federalists justices, impeaching one in particular, certain he would convict the first one, then another, and ultimately John Marshall.  This is as vital history as the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson; both tales are in Chief Justice Rehnquist’s book, “Grand Inquests,” which was apparently read by liberals only in the second half.  Give it a look-see, and see how political the democrats’ Holy Saint was in his attempt to intimidate the Court, 130 years before FDR tried a much tamer Don Vito Corleone stunt.

Today, the liberals will whine – their greatest intellectual talent – that there’s politics going on in the Court, and that it has been so since Bush v. Gore.  Nope, nothing new under this sun.  It will be interesting to see how they flinch at Roberts’ finesse, and conveniently ignore the Original Finesse which gave the first vital ‘seedling’ its push toward ever-greater judicial power, to the “least dangerous” branch.  Which it was, for a while – until liberals found it a pathway to ‘amending’ the Constitution without all that bother of both houses of Congress voting by two-thirds to submit language to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

Nope, going the ‘third-article amendment’ route, through the judges, is so, so conveeeenient; that fifth-article pathway is so, so cumbersome.

Maybe some of the more known ‘analysts’ of the Court will take note of how Marshall-like is Roberts.  Starting with our own ‘advocates’ to correct the lies and half-truths which are already popping up from fertile liberal intellectual soil.

Roberts’ reasons and reasoning and rationale are yet to be known, but any accusation that his ‘stunt’ is something new can be characterized as either expression of ignorance, or stupidity, or mendacity.  Which is always a trifecta trait of all liberal ‘reasoning’ on the Court.  Or in the Washington Post.  And NY Times.  Plus NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, et al.

Maybe Lawrence Tribe & Co. will be honest and admit this is just ole John Marshall’s spirit being channeled by the current Chief.  HA-HA-HA – but at least some of our own ‘advocates’ might take notice and be prepared.

For it’s an ugly fight, that is only beginning.  We’re past atomic intellectual warfare, even thermonuclear – it’s photon torpedoes being primed for the coming contest, well beyond November, into the far, far future.  We better master warp-drive engines to keep up with the Left.  Our Chief on SCOTUS has shown some deftness akin to John Marshall.  We better be as deft ourselves.

By the way, Jefferson lost his attempt to impeach and convict the first Justice so targeted – several of his super-majority defected, Zell Miller-like, and the judiciary’s independence was saved.  Any democrats today likely to stand up to Obama?  Any honest brokers at MSNBC, PBS, NPR, CNN?

HA-HA-HA… ask Corey Booker.