This Week: Marriage, and Democrats' Bizarre Response to President's Rejection of Appeasement
Yesterday we got a clear picture of just what the Left has in mind for America in both foreign and domestic policy.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT REDEFINES MARRIAGE. On the domestic side, the California Supreme Court re-opened the issue of same-sex marriage with its 4-3 decision substituting its will for the will of the people on the matter (vote for Proposition 22: 61%). This is certainly an emotional issue for many people, and understandably so. Yet, Republicans can agree that it is not the role of the judiciary to fundamentally redefine the basic tenets of society. That is a function appropriate for the legislative process, and Governor Schwarzenegger has consistently vetoed bills aimed at reversing Proposition 22. (See today's Wall Street Journal editorial.)
It will be interesting to see how Barack Obama tip-toes around this issue. Make no mistake: the activists behind his campaign insist on rewriting the definition of marriage as a beginning, rather than an end point, on their agenda of social engineering.
When we witness judicial activism, it's worth noting that the legislative branch -- that closest to the people -- is outlined in the Constitution's Article I, while the branch most removed from the people, the judiciary, is described in its Article III. The judiciary is intended to interpret laws, not make them, as the California Supreme Court in his case has chosen to do.
Significantly, the state Republican Party has already endorsed the November constitutional amendment ballot initiative that would reverse this court decision by putting Proposition 22 into the state constitution, as other states have done.
IN ISRAEL, PRESIDENT BUSH DECRIES APPEASEMENT, OBAMA ASSUMES HE'S TALKING ABOUT HIM. On the foreign policy side, yesterday we witnessed Barack Obama's bizarre overreaction to President Bush's comments before the Israeli Knesset where the President rightly articulated the dangers of a policy of appeasement, noting that "the false comfort of appeasement" has been "discredited by history." He's right, of course.
Barack Obama, apparently inferring that the President must have been talking about him and his own stated goal of negotiating with state sponsors of terrorism, lashed out and attacked the President.
Having watched the speech, it's clear the President was making points that are important, appropriate, and principled -- but not new. To assume President Bush "must" have been talking about Obama is another reason why a growing number of Americans see Obama as arrogant and elitist. (Text of President Bush's speech)
Later, Senator McCain made the case very clearly as to why Obama's foreign policy worldview is naive, questioning Obama's desire to negotiate with state sponsors of terrorism, like the Iranian leader, who wants to see Israel wiped off the map, and even denies the Holocaust. Watch Senator McCain in this excellent ABC News clip.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT REDEFINES MARRIAGE. On the domestic side, the California Supreme Court re-opened the issue of same-sex marriage with its 4-3 decision substituting its will for the will of the people on the matter (vote for Proposition 22: 61%). This is certainly an emotional issue for many people, and understandably so. Yet, Republicans can agree that it is not the role of the judiciary to fundamentally redefine the basic tenets of society. That is a function appropriate for the legislative process, and Governor Schwarzenegger has consistently vetoed bills aimed at reversing Proposition 22. (See today's Wall Street Journal editorial.)
It will be interesting to see how Barack Obama tip-toes around this issue. Make no mistake: the activists behind his campaign insist on rewriting the definition of marriage as a beginning, rather than an end point, on their agenda of social engineering.
When we witness judicial activism, it's worth noting that the legislative branch -- that closest to the people -- is outlined in the Constitution's Article I, while the branch most removed from the people, the judiciary, is described in its Article III. The judiciary is intended to interpret laws, not make them, as the California Supreme Court in his case has chosen to do.
Significantly, the state Republican Party has already endorsed the November constitutional amendment ballot initiative that would reverse this court decision by putting Proposition 22 into the state constitution, as other states have done.
IN ISRAEL, PRESIDENT BUSH DECRIES APPEASEMENT, OBAMA ASSUMES HE'S TALKING ABOUT HIM. On the foreign policy side, yesterday we witnessed Barack Obama's bizarre overreaction to President Bush's comments before the Israeli Knesset where the President rightly articulated the dangers of a policy of appeasement, noting that "the false comfort of appeasement" has been "discredited by history." He's right, of course.
Barack Obama, apparently inferring that the President must have been talking about him and his own stated goal of negotiating with state sponsors of terrorism, lashed out and attacked the President.
Having watched the speech, it's clear the President was making points that are important, appropriate, and principled -- but not new. To assume President Bush "must" have been talking about Obama is another reason why a growing number of Americans see Obama as arrogant and elitist. (Text of President Bush's speech)
Later, Senator McCain made the case very clearly as to why Obama's foreign policy worldview is naive, questioning Obama's desire to negotiate with state sponsors of terrorism, like the Iranian leader, who wants to see Israel wiped off the map, and even denies the Holocaust. Watch Senator McCain in this excellent ABC News clip.
posted by Ron Nehring at
5:17 AM
<< Home