Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    July 2009
    S M T W T F S
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Archive for July, 2009

At least some people are supporting democracy in Honduras

Posted by Richard on July 10, 2009

The Obama administration, which could hardly be bothered to comment on the brutal repression and slaughter in Iran, was quick to interfere in the internal affairs of Honduras. Immediately after would-be President-for-Life Manuel Zelaya was (quite legally) removed from office, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton allied the U.S. with leftist thugs like Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and the dictators who control the United Nations in efforts to overturn the will of the Honduran people and subvert their constitutional democracy.

Seventeen senators have sent a letter to Clinton objecting to the administration's one-sided support of Zelaya and disregard for Honduran law. Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson praised the letter (emphasis added): 

“These 17 Senators deserve the praise of all who believe in the rule of law, and the people of Honduras deserve the support of all Americans who value freedom and democratic, constitutional rule,” Wilson added.

Yesterday, an urgent letter was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging her to meet with the current government of Honduras, stating [PDF], “While you have already met with Mr. Zelaya, we find it discouraging that you are unwilling to meet with Honduran officials that have simply followed their constitution.”

The letter was sent by Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), John Ensign (R-Nevada), Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska), Kit Bond (R-Missouri), Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), James Risch (R-Idaho), Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), John Thune (R-South Dakota), and Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama).

Attached to the letter are the charges that were filed against former Honduran president Manuel Zelaya by the Attorney General of Honduras, Luis Alberto Rubi, to the Supreme Court of Honduras. Also attached is the order by the court to arrest Zelaya for “acting against the established form of government, treason against the country, abuse of authority, and usurpation of power in detriment of the public administration and of the State of Honduras.”

“The official documents of the Honduran Attorney General and Supreme Court, along with the vote of their Congress to impeach and remove Manuel Zelaya from office, prove irrefutably that Zelaya was properly removed from power in accordance with the Honduran Constitution,” said Wilson.

Of the 370-odd articles in Honduras' 27-year-old constitution, seven are protected from amendment or repeal. One of those, Article 239, limits the President to one term and calls for the immediate removal from office of any official who attempts to violate that provision or even proposes that it be changed. Octavio Sánchez explained the reason for this: 

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.

The Supreme Court and Congress did not act hastily. They ordered the military to arrest Zelaya only after he personally led a mob that broke into a government warehouse. The mob seized the ballots that were confiscated to prevent Zelaya from holding an illegal "referendum" to abrogate the constitution — ballots, by the way, that were provided to him by Hugo Chavez. (I wonder how many of them had been conveniently pre-marked. I wonder if Jimmy Carter was scheduled to vouch for the outcome of the voting.)

Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.

I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.

I am extremely disturbed by the behavior of my government in toward Honduras. It's attempting to coerce that sovereign nation into returning to power a leftist thug who tried to overturn the country's constitution and who was legally removed from office in order to preserve democratic government and the rule of law. 

It seems that at every possible opportunity — Israel, Iran, Honduras — the Obama administration has either turned its back on or actively opposed the forces of democracy and freedom.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Gun rights leaders oppose Sotomayor

Posted by Richard on July 8, 2009

Leaders of several gun rights groups and activists supporting the Second Amendment have jointly informed the Senate of their strong opposition to the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (emphasis added):

“It is extremely important that a Supreme Court justice understand and appreciate the origin and meaning of the Second Amendment, a constitutional guarantee permanently enshrined in the Bill of Rights, ” said a letter from the group, which was hand-delivered to every member of the U.S. Senate. “Judge Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment causes us grave concern about her treatment of this enumerated Constitutional right.”

Included among the signators were Sandra S. Froman, former president of the National Rifle Association; Alan M. Gottlieb, CCRKBA chairman; Joseph Tartaro, SAF president; Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGUNS Foundation; several current or former NRA directors; Robert Corbin, former Arizona attorney general and past NRA president; former Congressman Bob Barr; Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League in Massachusetts; John T. lee, president of the Pennsylvania Rifle and Pistol Association; Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association; Robert E. Sanders, former assistant director of law enforcement for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and several others, 25 in all.

“The Supreme Court is almost certain to decide next year whether the Second Amendment applies to states and local governments, as it does to the federal government,” they wrote. “While on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms in Maloney v. Cuomo, a case decided after Heller, yet holding that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right, that it does not apply to the states, and that if an object is “designed primarily as a weapon” that is a sufficient basis for total prohibition even within the home. Earlier in a 2004 case, United States v. Sanchez-Villar, Sotomayor and two colleagues perfunctorily dismissed a Second Amendment claim holding that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." Imagine if such a view were expressed about other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, such as the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.”

“We joined in this effort,” Gottlieb said, “because our nation stands at point in history where we either defend all civil rights, or begin to surrender them one by one until none are left. It would be unconscionable to stand silently as the Senate deliberates confirmation of a new associate justice with such evident disregard for a key tenet, if not the critical element, of the Bill of Rights.”

“The Second Amendment survives today by a single vote in the Supreme Court,” the letter notes. “Judge Sotomayor has already revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms and we believe they are contrary to the intent and purposes of the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights.”  

Considering what we already know about Sotomayor's racist ideas, I can't help but wonder (tongue in cheek) whether her opposition to gun rights is absolutist or relative. Does she, perhaps, think that a Hispanic woman in possession of a handgun is likely to use it more wisely than a white male, and thus should be given a pass?  

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rediscovering Frederick Douglass

Posted by Richard on July 7, 2009

Jonathan Bean:

Some 157 years ago, in 1852, the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass delivered his “Fourth of July Oration” condemning America for practicing slavery and thereby failing to live up to the humane ideals expressed by the Declaration of Independence.

“What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?” Douglass thundered. “I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”

Douglass’s words might seem passé on Independence Day 2009, with Barack Obama occupying the White House, several black Americans serving as governors, and others running everything from the Republican National Committee to Fortune 500 companies. But the words of the Sage of Anacostia remain not only relevant, but essential. Why? Douglass unfailingly opposed any man’s exercising control over another, and he would be appalled, his writings suggest, by the new spirit of dependency and control ushered in with the Age of Obama. Douglass championed limited constitutional government, colorblind law, capitalism, hard work, and self-help. His principles are not the stuff of “New New Deals” but rather a brief for a “New Independence Day” based on small-government principles.

Read. The. Whole. Thing.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Happy Independence Day!

Posted by Richard on July 4, 2009

Note: This is a near-duplicate of last year's Independence Day post. Because every bit of it is something that we should all read and think about every Independence Day, and there's no point in trying to update or improve it. One change: Rush Limbaugh, bless his heart, never did move his father's fine speech, "The Americans Who Risked Everything," to the subscriber portion of his site. It's still available to everyone at the link below, and I assume it will continue to be. So go read it!

 Old Glory

Perhaps the finest words ever penned by man, from the document that changed the world for the better like no other before or since:  

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Last Independence Day, I posted an excerpt from "The Americans Who Risked Everything," a wonderful speech by Rush Limbaugh, Jr. (father of talkmeister Rush Limbaugh III) about the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Please go read that excerpt.

(Note: Through the weekend, you can read the whole speech in the public portion of Rush's site; after that, it will again disappear into the subscriber-only portion of the site.)

After the portion I previously excerpted, Limbaugh went on to provide specific details about the price paid by some of the signers for their courageous act. Then he summarized:

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.

He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No."

The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

His son then added the following postscript:

My friends, I know you have a copy of the Declaration of Independence somewhere around the house – in an old history book (newer ones may well omit it), an encyclopedia, or one of those artificially aged "parchments" we all got in school years ago. I suggest that each of you take the time this month to read through the text of the Declaration, one of the most noble and beautiful political documents in human history.

There is no more profound sentence than this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…"

These are far more than mere poetic words. The underlying ideas that infuse every sentence of this treatise have sustained this nation for more than two centuries. They were forged in the crucible of great sacrifice. They are living words that spring from and satisfy the deepest cries for liberty in the human spirit.

"Sacred honor" isn't a phrase we use much these days, but every American life is touched by the bounty of this, the Founders' legacy. It is freedom, tested by blood, and watered with tears.

If you don't have a copy of the Declaration handy, you can find the entire text here. I, too, suggest you take the time this Independence Day to read it. Better yet, if you're celebrating with a crowd, have the best speaker in the group read it out loud to everyone. While they're enjoying a brew and waiting for the burgers and brats to cook. Then, all of you raise a glass.

To Liberty, my friends! To Liberty!
 

John Trumbull's "Declaration of Independence"

John Trumbull's "Declaration of Independence"
(from ushistory.org)

The painting features the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence — John Adams, Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson (presenting the document), and Benjamin Franklin — standing before John Hancock, the President of the Continental Congress. The painting includes portraits of 42 of the 56 signers and 5 other patriots. The artist sketched the individuals and the room from life.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Iran recount news

Posted by Richard on July 2, 2009

They did a "partial recount" in Iran, and Ahm-a-doin-a-jihad actually gained votes! So the Guardian Council declared him the winner and said the issue was closed.

But in a little-noticed related story, today the mullahs expressed their thanks to volunteer DFL election workers from Minnesota for helping them with the recount.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Conservatives aren’t credible on scientific matters

Posted by Richard on July 2, 2009

Dafydd at Big Lizards has identified the greatest weakness of the conservative movement, the one that cripples them in debates over some of today's biggest issues (emphasis in original):

… What do all these contemporary issues hold in common?

  • Cap and Trade — rather, Cripple and Tax
  • The expansion of nuclear power generation
  • The EPA's attempt to outlaw CO2 (and now NO2 as well; hat tip to Hugh Hewitt)
  • Missile defense, both theater and strategic
  • Nationalization of major industries
  • Nationalization of health care to a single-payer, government-controlled system
  • The promiscuous proliferation of "endangered species" that are, in fact, not endangered

First, each of these controversies is a wedge issue by which Republicans and conservatives can oust Democrats and liberals from Congress — and potentially from la Casa Blanca, as well.

Second, each is fundamentally a scientific question, from climate science, to nuclear physics, to aeronautics and cybernetics, to the optimal pursuit of medical research, to economic science, to the biological sciences.

And most important, for each of these wedge issues, the Right can only win if it is more credible when speaking about scientific matters.

It's not good enough merely to be no less credible than, on a par with the Left — in this case, a "tie" in rationalism goes to whoever is best at slinging emotional arguments; and in that arena, the Left always has the home-field advantage.

All of which leads me, by a commodious vicus of recirculation, back to the hubris-flaw of conservatives; and that is, of course, the squirrely refusal of so many prominent conservatives to accept the findings of a century and a half of evolutionary biology.

Read the whole thing.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »