Conservative Donnybrook

Soren Kern, based out of Spain and a writer for numerous blogs, wondered about the present status of Euros’ love affair with the “The One” at Pajamas Media earlier this week.

Not surprisingly to the sentient, even the hard-left media on the Continent has continued their anti-Americanism despite having their Messiah-of-choice in office. European disdain is, of course, ignorant and hypocritical. And you need not be a historian to understand that — even though most “post modern historians” still do not. The “restoring our place in the world” line, used by Bush haters of the left, is such a cliche that it may be answered with three simple facts:

1. Like the Yankees, Lakers, Donald Trump and other power groups, we Americans will always be “hated.” Despite freeing Europeans from totalitarianism twice, since the end of the Spanish-American War, this has sadly been the case. It’s no more or less under Bush than Obama or vice versa. When my friends and family went to Europe under a Johnson or a Reagan or a Clinton presidency, we were despised by the urban Euro (like Americans, there are two types of Euros, of course) just as much as in 1967 as 1987 or 2007. No one likes admitting a nation across the pond has to act as their daddy and fight their wars, free millions from tyranny and so on.

2. We’re actually NOT hated in western Euro nations like Italy, Portugal, Belgium and some of the Scandinavian nations either — so it’s basically Britain, France, Holland and Germany that worries people, I suppose.

3. We’re actually NOT hated in the vast majority of the world. We’re “hated” by a cadre of apathetic and brainwashed western Euros, who, proving many actually do understand world events deep down, have elected more conservative leaders than we have in the past few years. They’re also far less “tolerant” of Muslims and “minorities” than we are — with many being pure, uneducated racists, despite what Gwyneth Paltrow mused yesterday.

To clarify, we’re hated in the Muslim world. Good. They hate freedom of speech, press, religion, women’s rights, open markets and classical liberal values.

But we Americans are liked, admired, or even loved in:

Israel: our only ally and the only liberal democracy in a region of half a billion religious fanatics who practice terrorism.

Most of South America, especially Colombia, though Nancy Pelosi and the congressional Democrats have ruined that — due to their political need to placate unions for votes here at the expense of Colombian safety there — have ruined much of that recently.

Japan and most of the far east, including much of China, and of course, non Muslim Southeast Asia, have no issue with us.

Australia and Oceania are pro-America.

Africa (Even CNN confessed earlier this year that more than ten million lives via the Bush Administration’s AIDS work there)

Eastern Europe (and most nations that have people who have suffered or are suffering love America. Recall how well-received Bush was in eastern Europe and Africa.)

Related:

Victor Davis Hanson schools Obama on how to handle thugs and tin-pot dictators.

On the same day that Michael Jackson beat it for the great beyond, Pelosi and her cohort passed the largest tax increase in the history of history. Perhaps you missed it; the news tended to focus only on the passing of a pop singer of doubtful moral character to the exclusion of a number of other stories. Can anybody tell me what ever happened with that North Korean freighter that the U.S. Navy was bird-dogging? Anybody hear about the AMA revolting against Obama’s healthcare scheme? You might have heard that we won the war in Iraq. Maybe not. Did anyone hear that an American soldier was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan this week? How about that Barack Obama’s nominee for the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy was overturned this week by that same Court?

If you can’t beat ‘em, I suppose, you join ‘em. So, I will show how even the the Michael Jackson estate would be affected by the Cap and Trade bill that the House of Representatives passed last week. But first, a little about the bill itself. The bill itself states that its purpose is ”[t]o create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.” Some of that may need to be explained. For instance, global warming pollution is carbon dioxide – the same stuff you exhale. Indeed, each respirating organism on earth is now categorized as a polluter. For an idea of what “transitioning to a clean energy economy” looks like, take a look at Spain. Apparently, if we look at Spain, it is possible to create clean energy jobs, but each one will cost between $750,000 and $1.4 million and will cost 2.2 jobs in other areas per job created. On other hand, we will be saving the planet, right?

But, how do they propose to do it? The bill is designed to increase the price of energy in order to drive down consumption.

During the campaign, Obama also pledged that he would never raise taxes in any form on Americans making less than $250,000 per year. But his cap and trade tax is estimated to cost American families almost $2,000 a year when it becomes effective, growing to almost $7,000 a year for a family of four by 2035. That will be paid through higher prices for electricity, oil, gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil, coal, food, and every product that is produced or transported using energy.

In short the Cap and Trade proposal passed out of the House last week is a “Tax on Everything” – everything that uses energy. An interesting exercise is to try to think of anything that you purchase that requires no energy to produce, deliver, sell, or consume. The increased costs associated with that energy usage will be embedded in the price of every consumer good and service that Americans utilize. As a result, Americans will purchase fewer goods and services. If Americans purchase fewer goods and services, then companies who provide those goods and services will be forced to cut production (read: jobs). But, hey, we’re saving the planet.

One of my “favorite” provisions of the bill is in sections 201-203, which requires every State to adopt the building codes of California. (See ACES Sec. 201(c)(3) which reads “COMPLIANT CODE — For the purposes of meeting the target described in subsection (a)(1)(A) [which required that State's become compliant within one year of enactment] for residential buildings, a State that adopts the code represented in California’s Title 24-2009 by the date two years after the enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 shall be considered to have met the requirements of this subsection for the applicable period.”) The code then goes on to dictate to State legislatures the legislation it is required to pass and the timeline on which it is required to pass it.  The States are to be denied federal funding from the Act if they are found to be noncompliant. Indeed, if  the State fails to enforce compliant building codes within 2 years, the Secretary of Energy shall enforce the codes within that State.

The bill requires not only new buildings to satisfy whatever arbitrary standard the Secretary chooses, but it also places the burden on homeowners of existing houses to “retrofit” their property before they are allowed to sell them. This provision alone will place an incredible economic burden on homeowners whether they earn $250,000 or not.  Their mobility, their choice of where to live, their ability to change jobs will be affected by this single onerous provision. But, we will gladly sacrifice our freedom because it’s saving the planet, right? I hope MJ installed new windows and an EnergyStar compliant furnace before he died, otherwise his estate’s going to get hit with a gigantic bill to retrofit Neverland Ranch before they can sell it and distribute the proceeds to his heirs.

There is plenty more where that came from in the bill that has nothing to do with the actual Cap and Trade bits and which are sure to raise the eyebrows (or ire) of anyone who loves his freedom. For instance, there is an entire section regulating outdoor lightbulbs to be brighter and last longer. There’s even a provision regulating the type of bulb one can use to illuminate their artwork, including mandating its color spectrum and power factor.

As mentioned earlier, outrageously, this bill passed the House of Representatives 219-212. Now the bill goes to the Senate. If the Senate passes the bill, it will become law. If the Senate passes any kind of compromise bill, it will go to conference and will become law in some form. The only hope now is that the Senate stops this bill dead. “Obi Wan Senati, you’re our only hope!”

After all that, I apologize, but I don’t really care how this bill will affect the Jackson estate. I can assure you it would be bad. But, thanks for all the MJ Googlers for stopping in.

…our newest contributor: Doughboy.

Born and raised along the coasts, but now happily residing in the Heartland, Doughboy is a former teacher who now freelance writes and works full-time as a military historian.

In his first election, he voted for Bob Dole, then made the biggest political mistake of his life by voting for Al Gore. On 9-11, he woke up and made national security his priority, leading to his admiration for Pres. Bush and his current career.

A fervent Zionist and Patriot who works with the military daily, he therefore considers himself a 9-11 conservative or “neo con,” though he disagrees with some tenets of the latter.

Aside from national security funding, he concurs with much of libertarianism.

I think most of readers will recognized that Doughboy brings a fresh voice to the Donnybrook. While he is likely aligned with the neoconservative contigent, his approach will almost certainly depart from the neoconservatives that currently contribute. He should add to a hearty and robust debate, offering a new persepctive that heretofore was missing on the Donnybrook.

To Doughboy, let us all welcome you to the brawl with the advice: keep your chin in, your hands up, and come out fighting!

I received an email from a buddy of mine this morning and did not immediately respond. My buddy describes himself as a “9/11″ conservative. Though he always leaned right on most issues, brainwashed by the media and just out of college (also brainwashed), he voted for Al Gore in 2000. (He now despises Gore) On 9-11, he woke up, realizing which party took the terror threat seriously and acknowledged George W Bush was the right man to be the first post 9/11 president. Following is the exchange between him and me:

Doughboy writes:

“Obama celebrates Iraqi sovereignty”

George W. Bush will be a top 12 president. Many of you owe him, and those of us who stood by our country the past few years, a big apology. We won the War in Iraq. Time to admit it. Just like Mr. Obama finally did last night.

He was wrong on the war every step of the way. But here was one of those rare occurrences where, as the US president, he comes to grips with facts, and for PR purposes, praises our nation rather than bashes it. Thank you Dick Cheney, George W Bush, John McCain, David Petreaus.

Good day,
Doughboy

As I mentioned, I did not immediately respond – partly out of concern for alienating my new friend, but also because I am not comfortable in the position in which I now find myself. Many of our readers will discern a change in my stance, as I have written previously about my support for the War on Terror. In my defense, I will simply say that anyone who is honestly seeking the truth and approaches a debate with that level of honesty will find, from time to time, that his mind is changed. I have drifted over time to the position in which I now find myself. The exchange was as follows:

Doughboy writes:

About two and one-half weeks ago the Empire State Stem Cell Board voted to spend some of its $600 million budget, which is funded by the state, to pay women $10,000 for the opportunity to harvest their eggs. The eggs would then be used to create embryos from which stem cells would be harvested. The story does not indicate that men would be paid for donating their sex cells.

If you stick with the story, the ethical question is raised (buried) toward the end of the article.

Amazon, the online retailing giant, has preemptively shut down its Affiliates program, that is, the sector of their business whereby online referrers to their products receive a portion of the income from the sales, in North Carolina as the company expects the North Carolina legislature to pass (and the governor to sign) a bill reequiring Amazon to collect taxes for them on such sales. Amazon emailed all of its NC affiliates earlier this month to warn them it would not stand for such tactics, even if it meant both they – and their affiliates – would lose revenue, as well. Hit ‘em where it hurts, Amazon.

Remember when the United States used to stand for democracy and the rule of law?  Those were the days!  The United States used to support smaller democratic states going as far as to help craft constitutions, federal laws, judicial systems and legislatures.  Not any more.  Now the U.S. has signaled that we stand for left-wing tyrannts, socialist dictators and the rise to power through illegal means.  Constitutions, courts and legislatures be damned.  Now we stand with Fidel, Hugo, Evo and Rafael in supporting those that would disregard a democratic constitution, government and the rule of law.  Now Obama will have the United States return to supporting dictators in Latin America.  Now we support Zelaya and his clearly illegal and undemocratic methods.

The United States must end the cycle of supporting tyrants in Latin America.  Zelaya is/was a socialist and a dictator in the making.  This was no coup, the military in Honduras arrested the president after he illegally solicited assistance from the dictator Chavez to illegally hold a referendum which would have allowed him to run for election indefinitely.  Furthermore, the military arrested Zelaya upon request from the Honduran Supreme Court after its judgement was dismissed by the would-be dictator Zelaya.  Zelaya actively attacked a military installation with leftist supporters.  His goal was to distribute illegal ballots in an attempt to forever control the nation.  Only the legislature can call for a constitutional referendum. 

So, the legislature condemned Zelaya, the Supreme Court condemned him and the military defended democracy and the rule of law by abiding by the constitution and the wishes of the other two branches of government by arresting the hack. 

And Obama calls for a return of the socialist would-be dictator in defiance of democracy and the rule of law.  Mr. Obama, one’s character can be determined by the company he keeps.  Fidel and the mini-communists in this hemisphere are not good company.

Spare a couple of minutes for an interesting presentation of our national debt.

This was just too funny for me to not re-post.  John Ziegler is a radio personality in Los Angeles.  Here he is “discussing” the Lettermen-Palin feud with Contessa Brewer. 

H/T Leslie H. at Augur’s Well for the link.

Can you guess which Carolinian will be president in 2012?

A.  John Edwards

B.  Mark Sanford

C.  Jim Demint

D.  Lindsey Graham

E.  None of the above

I have to choose E.  For two small states they sure have a lot of politicians shooting themselves (or their spouses) in the feet.

The House and now the Senate have passed near unanimous resolutions “Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the protection of the rule of law.”  Only one Member of the House voted “Nay,” Ron Paul.  The House Resolution states:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the protection of the rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran, pro-government militias, and affiliated entities against the people of Iran, which has escalated since the June 12, 2009, process of selecting Iran’s next political leader; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

In his statement of opposition, Paul said:

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made.  

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

It is amazing that Paul inspires anyone at all… other than the Iranian dictatorship.  I mean, refusing to express support for democracy, freedom and the rule of law for all Iranians simply because the House has not done so for Egyptians or Saudi Arabians is childish.  And “meddling resolutions?”  Seriously?  declaring support for the oppressed is now “meddling?”  Jeesh, I suppose Paul would rather the U.S. to turn a blind eye to all atrocities committed around the world.  What a bum.

The Drudge Report is reporting that ABC will sponsor “news” programs for the president endorsing his socialism.  Having caught wind of the bias, the RNC contacted ABC to obtain airtime to voice Republican opposition to the socialization of American medicine.  The request was denied by ABC.  No opposition to the Dear Leader will be tolerated by ABC. 

Is this it for ABC?  Is this the end of one of America’s oldest networks even trying to appear independent?  I for one have liked the news with Charles Gibson.  No longer.  Throw it on the pile with GM, AIG, etc….

President Obama has threatened to respond to nuclear proliferationwith a stern finger wagging.  That’s right, on Friday the Obama administration said it is prepared to confront ships near North Korea which it believes to be carrying contraband.  However, in no event will the United States Navy attempt to forcibly board the suspected contraband ships nor will it blockade or force a diversion of the ship’s course.  Instead, Obama will wag his finger and point: a time tested nuclear deterrent.

Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (ugh), said “There’s reason to believe they (North Korea) may respond in an irresponsible fashion to this.”  Hmm, more irresponsibily that the Obama administration?  Rice said the administration was “very pleased” with the sanctions. She called the new resolution, which was supported by China and Russia, an “unprecedented” position by the Security Council.  Right, unprecedented because Russia and China did not veto new sanctions.

Rice also said Obama’s wagging finger should scare the Hell out of Iran.  “I imagine that they have been following this closely.”  She said Iran will observe that “the response from the international community has been very clear, very firm and very meaningful.”  Oh, indeed.

UPDATE:

It appears the United States Navy has encountered its first suspect ship!  Start wagging, Mr. Obama.  I am sure the NoKos wont threaten Hawaii…AGAIN.  Looks like we might have to santion North Korea.  God, I am sure they aren’t ready for that!

On the way home from work this evening I was listening to talk radio (as I do) and there was a PSA that came on during one of the programming breaks that concerned mortgage debt. There was a woman talking about how she got behind in her bills and how she was afraid to talk to bill collectors. In the background there was the sound of someone using a shovel to dig a hole. At the end, the announcer said let whatever organization it was “dig yourself out of the hole.” It is this phrase which I object to. If one is digging a hole and has found themselves at its bottom, the last thing that person should do in order to escape is to “dig.” The advertisement should have said something like “let us help you climb out of debt (or the whole you’ve dug).”

In light of this stupid ad, I thought I would open a discussion. Are there other stupid phrases which nettle you? Digging oneself out of a hole is certainly one for me. The phrase itself suggests exactly the opposite of a solution which might work. Anyway, give me your phraseological pet peeves.

The floodgates are being cracked ever so lightly. These examples of State sponsored death are alarming, but not at all unanticipated. When a society embraces a pervasive Culture of Death, there will be fewer and fewer brakes on its moral degeneration.

An elite pilot of World War II has passed away at the age of 88.  Mr. Charles Donald Albury flew in the 509th Composite Group led by Col. Paul Tibbits, Jr.  On Aug. 9, 1945 Albury co-piloted the Super-fortress “Bockscar” that dropped the second nuclear device on Nagasaki.  His heroic actions helped save an estimated 1 million plus lives by ending the war with aggressor Japan.  Without the bravery of men like Albury, the United States may have had to invade the home islands of Japan.  Such a move would have ensured a far greater loss of life on both sides than the dropping of both bombs.  Mr. Albury once commented about his role in World War II by saying “Everyone should be prepared to fight for liberty.  Our laws give us our freedom and I think that’s worth fighting for.”

After the war, Mr. Albury worked for Eastern Airlines as a pilot and trainer.  He is survived by his wife Roberta.  In memorializing her husband she remarked “My husband was a hero. He saved one million people … He sure did do a lot of praying.”

Rest in peace, Mr. Charles Donald Albury.

Earlier today Obama and Hillary Clinton arrived in Cairo. Apparently someone was pulling the SecState’s leg and told her it was a costume party. She went as a Teletubby.

“We are acting as reluctant shareholders.” 

“Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM.” 

“We cannot, and must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish. This industry is like no other, it’s an emblem of the American spirit … And we cannot continue to excuse poor decisions. And we cannot make the survival of our auto industry dependent on an unending flow of taxpayer dollars.”

“I’m confident that the steps I’m announcing today will mark the end of an old G.M., and the beginning of a new G.M..”

These are the words uttered by our President while gleefully taking a 60% ownership in General Motors and handpicking new executives.  Let’s assume for a second that Obama is truthful in his statement that he has no desire to run or manage GM.  Why, then, did he take a 60% interest in the company before bankruptcy?  Why has the Bush-Obama administrations (they really are very similar) given a failed corporation over $60 billion so far?  Why not simply let GM go into bankruptcy and let the trustee restructure with private equity?  Why do the taxpayers have to bail out yet another failed multi-national corporate giant? 

And why are self-described “anti-corporate dissidents” around the country so silent as all this has happened?  Where are the free-market champions?  Where are the fiscal conservatives?  Where are the average American taxpayers? I want answers, real one not flimsy “too big to fail” nonsense. GM did fail, no matter how much cash is thrown down that Detroit rat hole.  GM did fail and Obama took a 60% cut of that rotting corpse and called it a taxpayer responsibility.

Meanwhile, Obama’s emissions control orders (clearly a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause) will cost Americans roughly $1,300 more while receiving remarkable less from their vehicles.  The cap and trade debacle, as proposed, all but assures that Americans (and even the illegals Washington so loves) will pay more for electricity, gas, household products…you name it.  of course, Obama denies these truths.  Instead, he sugar coats his power grab while telling the American taxpayer sweet little lies.

Part I can be found here. Part II can be found here.

Conclusion: A New Glorious Judicial Revolution

Because conservatism is ill-equipped to correct the problems the United States faces as a result of nonoriginalist, activist Supreme Court decisions, there needs to be a countering force that will return the country to its traditional foundation. The failure of conservatism means that this countering force must itself be “activist” in the sense that the doctrine of stare decisis cannot be an impediment to restoring tradition. However, I contend that, properly understood, it is not “activist” at all. A judiciary operating in the Neo-Whig fashion would be restoring to the Constitution, its lost unwritten half, returning it to the previous understanding that the document traditionally has enjoyed. For the written Constitution, this will mean the return to the “historical experiences, conventions, customs, the complexities of political compromise, and long-received principles of morality” that Americans have known for nearly 220 years. For the unwritten constitution it will mean a return to those values known to the Anglo-American tradition for nearly 800 years. Once again Professor Calabresi provides an excellent example of Neo-Whig reasoning:

For example, in Apprendi, Blakely, and United States v. Booker, the U.S. Supreme recently revived the notion that mandatory sentencing guidelines could not give judges the power to adjust upward a prisoner’s sentence unless the charges justifying the upward adjustment were proved to a jury. Under Professor Merrill’s conventionalism, these cases are certainly wrongly decided because for about 20 years, since the adoption of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, we have gotten quite used to a reduced role for the jury in finding all the critical facts leading to a sentence. For Merrill, I assume, the fact that thousands of cases have been decided this way for twenty years means the Court’s Apprendi line of cases is clearly a violation of conventionalism.

I think, of course, that the Court in the Apprendi line of cases rejected twenty years of wayward practice and restored an 800 year old fundamental right to jury trial under English and American law. Was this “revolutionary” decision consistent with a general skepticism about the powers of human reason? You bet it was. The innovation of the last twenty years in cutting back on the right to jury trials was the effort of the Sentencing Commission to give us a more rational world, and it was that effort which smacked of the French Revolution. In rejecting, the practice of the last 20 years and restoring the practice of the previous 800 years, the Apprendi Court was leading a conservative revolution, a coming full circle if you will and returning to the point where we started.[1]

Returning to the “right to privacy” example and illustrating how a Neo-Whig Court would approach a case in that line is profitable. If we suppose, as is likely to happen in the near future,[2] that one of the states passed a prohibition on abortion and that a challenge to that law was heard by the Supreme Court, how would a Neo-Whig’s approach look? First, the Neo-Whig would look to the text of the Constitution (anew) to see if a right to abortion or some other right (like a right to reproductive privacy) could be found there. As noted above, Justice Stewart was unable to find any wording in the Constitution that could be read to make the right to privacy into an enforceable right let alone would anyone have been able to find a right to abortion, which is an extension of the right to privacy. The presumption, at this point, would be against there being such a right.

However, the Ninth Amendment says that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”[3] Since a Neo-Whig believes in the existence of an unwritten constitution, there must be a mechanism for reading it into the written constitution. There are a few places where this might be done. The first is the Ninth Amendment. Unenumerated rights are just the sort of thing one might expect to find in an unwritten constitution, therefore it is only natural that one would use the Ninth Amendment to import them since they have been neither denied or disparaged. The second place where one might be able to import some of the content of the unwritten constitution might be the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[4]

Therefore, the Neo-Whig would have to look to the “historical experiences, conventions, customs, the complexities of political compromise, and long-received principles of morality”[5] to see if such a right has been historically enjoyed by Americans. Upon such an examination, the Neo-Whig would discover that there is no such long-standing custom or principle of morality that supports the right to abortion.[6] A Neo-Whig may very well conclude that there is an historical acknowledgement of some sort of right to privacy, but it would almost certainly not extend to sexual behavior that has historically been considered immoral through the centuries.[7] Therefore, a Neo-Whig would conclude that since there is no text supporting the proposed right to abortion, and since abortion is not a right that finds long-standing expression in the historical experiences of Americans, that the Federal Constitution has nothing to say on the matter. This outcome would incidentally support the long-standing American values of limited government, the writtenness of the Constitution and Federalism by the simple fact that the decision of whether or not an abortion would be legal, limited or illegal would be left to the states.

Similarly, each of the other cases mentioned above[8] would be approached in the same way. Contraceptive use and homosexual sodomy would likely be found to be issues for the several states to decide and not an occasion for federal intervention.

But how does this differ from the originalist approach? Let us take Justice Scalia as an example. In Troxel v. Granville, Scalia wrote “the Constitution’s refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.”[9] Likewise, Judge Bork has likened the Ninth Amendment to an indecipherable “inkblot.”[10] However, with nearly 800 years of evidence to draw from, the content of those unenumerated rights is really not so hard to discern for a Neo-Whig. There is no harm in protecting the traditional rights of Englishmen, passed down through the Constitution to Americans. Rather, the harm would be in disparaging those rights that the founding generation risked so much to defend.

A Neo-Whig revolution in the judiciary, where Traditionalists (formerly conservatives) take back the reins of the Courts is America’s only hope for a return to the values, customs and morals that made this country the greatest to grace the earth. No longer can the country afford to have innovation upon innovation ratcheted in place by a conservative judiciary lacking the tools to turn the tide. It is time to take over the laying of the track, to make a 180 degree turn, and, if the conservatives still desire, they can pound in the spikes behind the Neo-Whigs.