FEW MOURN TILLER, GM, OR CHRYSLER (BUT MITT “SLICK WILLARD” ROMNEY IS STILL ABSOLUTELY WRONG)

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The rule of law is supposedly a hallmark of the American system. Yet the events of the past few days have shown that the rule of law is under virulent attack.

As expected, the nationalization of General Motors has now moved into the friendly confines of bankruptcy court.

As expected, the Indiana Pensioners and other creditors got steamrolled in Chrysler’s Obama administration-orchestrated “show bankruptcy.” Now the Treasury Department is partners with FIAT and the U.A.W.


Capitalism, anyone?

And on Sunday, May 31, 2009, the heinous and vicious late-term abortionist George Tiller met his Maker somewhere in the aisles of the Reformation Lutheran Church of Wichita, Kansas. Tiller was murdered at the hands of a rogue anti-abortion zealot who cast off the essential philosophy of the pro-life movement to mete out vigilante justice that was “above [the assassin’s] pay grade.”

Meanwhile, President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court a liberal, pro-abortion, “policy making” identity politician masquerading as a jurist. Judge Sonia Sotomayor has expressed a belief that neutral questions of law and constitutional interpretation are better decided by an inarticulate, brusque, unquestionably liberal, Ivy-league-educated, Puerto Rican woman who grew up in the ghetto, than by any Caucasian male: “ I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

In each of these events, pragmatic, ends-justifies-the-means rationales were clearly at work.

And each of these events is an indicator that the impartial rule of law is dying in America.

Few seem to be mourning that.

The average Obama voter certainly doesn’t.

Deeply imbibing the mellifluous snake oil of “hope and change,” the average Obama supporter blithely wheels her non-union-made Japanese car and sheds no tears for the government-union-regulatory nexus that mostly destroyed GM and Chrysler’s competitiveness over the past seventy years. Instead, she demands increased environmental and organized labor intrusions into the business of American manufacturers, even as she personally consumes products made in dirty overseas sweatshops at record rates.

And as long as the government checks keep coming, the mobs of special interests that support Obama and the power-mad Democrats will scarcely question the costs of current deficit spending spree, or the de facto nationalization of our most basic industry, or the sacrifice of what’s left of the free market and success-through-merit on the altars of forced redistribution, “fairness as justice,” and climate change.

Few will mourn that the creation of “Government Motors” will have the unintended consequence of driving many more short-sighted, selfish consumers into the arms of the predatory Japanese invader automakers in retaliation for the perceived largess toward the U.A.W. and the recent federal interference in the business of GM and Chrysler (notwithstanding that decades of federal interference mostly predicated the crisis to begin with).

Few will mourn the loss of American industrial muscle and of vehicular freedom-of-choice that will result from the polarizing events of the government effectively running over half of the domestic auto industry.

Few will mourn the thousands of family-owned automobile dealerships which will be forcibly closed in “reorganization” (and some will even celebrate that these losses fall most prominently upon Republicans).

Few will mourn that an emerging Climate-Industrial Complex is becoming poised tocontrol or affect virtually every aspect of life in America.
Likewise, few will truly mourn the premeditated murder of an unrepentant, cold-blooded killer-for-hire who crushed the skulls of defenseless children sometimes just days or hours before birth and vacuumed out their innocent brains like some sort of fetal parasite. Many will see the irony that Dr. Tiller’s end was as unwilling and violent as the untold numbers of unborn children he dismembered for profit.

A few misguided souls will attempt to rationalize that Tiller’s quantum of moral evil somehow justified the moral evil of his murder. Such a result would indicate a profound misunderstanding of the underpinnings of the pro-life movement.

Undoubtedly, the Planned Parenthood lobbyists, abortion mills, “pro-choice” activists, and grandstanding leftist politicians (many with politically-motivated crocodile tears flowing) will attempt to elevate Wichita’s most infamous baby butcher into some sort of sick, fetid “martyr” for the pragmatic cause of the “right” to murder unborn children for convenience -- or in the sanitized P.C. vernacular of the pro-abortion movement: for “choice.” Some may even try to link the special-interest campaign to confirm the “Wise Latina” and budding constitutional vandal Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court as the necessary response to Dr. Tiller’s slaying. Yet, few will mourn that the rule of law and valid, transcendent principles of conscience failed to constrain both Dr. Tiller and his assailant.

Few will mourn that an allegedly “Christian” church – the so-called Reformation Lutheran Church – was apparently so devoid of the Gospel and of sound doctrinal teaching on matters of life that a horrific, rebellious, unrepentant serial murderer such as Dr. Tiller could peacefully thrive within their congregation and was even reportedly permitted to assume a leadership role. Certainly, the pragmatism of such a“church” has blinded them to God’s laws and has lead them into an unholy union with the “god of this age.” The inherent idiolatry of popularity has seemingly caused their salt to lose its savor (if it ever had any).

Few will probably mourn that the unlawful, yet sickly “pragmatic” act of murdering Dr. Tiller will distract and detract from decades of righteous, non-violent, law-abiding opposition to the unspeakable horror and manifest injustice of abortion-on-demand.

However, the pragmatists on both sides of the aisle will be out in force maneuvering. A prime example is “Slick Willard” himself, Willard Mitt Romney.

Romney is ever the pragmatist, and is seemingly unguided by consistent principles. Previously, Romney has repeatedly demonstrated his permutability on the abortion question.

And now Romney has conclusively shown his lack of insight on the automobile crisis. On Fox News Sunday, “Romney suggested that the roughly 70 percent of GM that the government could own after it emerges from bankruptcy should be immediately distributed to taxpayers, and the 17.5 percent that will go to a UAW trust fund for retiree healthcare should be handed out to UAW members.”

Romney’s “pragmatic” grandstanding makes absolutely no sense. It is simply transferring ownership of GM to people who have done nothing individually to merit it. The billions of dollars in GM debt held by the Treasury Department that purportedly justify the government acquiring an ownership stake would not flow with the distributed stock under the Romney Plan. Certainly, the only hope for recovering any of the taxpayer money spent thus far is the remote possibility of GM and Chrysler recovering (against the crushing load of Obama’s carbon-reduction, environmental, foreign, and labor policies) and a sale of the new stock to investors. Romney’s plan would be nothing more than a windfall to people who did nothing much to deserve it. Moreover, it compounds one abuse of the rule of law with another one.

The events of the last few days show that the rule of law in America is in grave crisis. And there is no shortage of charlatans, such as Barack Obama, Sonia Sotomayor, and Mitt Romney, who are poised to “pragmatically” take advantage of the crisis for their own benefit. And few will join Truth With Speedzzter in mourning that.

THE DANGER OF AN OBAMA-PACKED SUPREME COURT

Professor Erwin Chemerinsky seems to be running here for a slot on an Obama-picked Supreme Court. In an opinion column for the Los Angeles Times, Chemerinsky attempts to generate fear among liberals about the Supreme Court:

Although the candidates' mentions of the issue have been few, it is clear that there is a sharp difference between them as to what type of individuals they would name to the Supreme Court. John McCain has said that he would appoint individuals like Roberts and Samuel A. Alito Jr., and that he admires the judicial philosophies of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Barack Obama voted against the confirmation of Roberts and Alito and has said that he would appoint justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.


The issue of judicial appointments is particularly important in this election because there are almost sure to be vacancies on the Supreme Court during the next presidential term. It seems unlikely that Stevens will remain on the court until 2013, when he would be 93. Ginsburg is 75, and there is speculation that she might retire. It also has been widely rumored that David H. Souter wants to retire and go home to New Hampshire.

However, it's the prospect of an Obama-packed federal judicary that ought to scare all Americans who trust in the rule of law.

Obama -- a radically liberal former lecturer in Constitutional law -- does not believe that the Constitution (as amended) should be interpreted as written and based upon the intent of the drafters. Instead, Obama will appoint radical activist justices who will read into the Constitution liberal ideas that lack sufficient support to be enacted by the people through the democratic process and which are the opposite of what the drafters of the Constitution intended. This wholly circumvents the electorial process. We do not need five unelected and unaccountable liberal activist Justices ruling America for the next three decades.

Obama will also pack the lower federal courts with a phalanx of liberal special interest activists and trial lawyers. Left-wing groups such as the ACLU and ACORN will have an unfair advantage in an Obama judicary.

Given the fact that the majority of cases are decided in courts BELOW the Supreme Court, the activist judges appointed by Obama will continue to damage the law for decades, even if his appointments to the Supreme Court merely replace one activist liberal for a younger one.

Professor Chemerinsky claims that:

There are almost certainly four votes on the current court -- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito -- to overrule Roe vs. Wade and allow the government to prohibit abortion. In light of McCain's emphatic opposition to abortion rights, he likely would appoint the decisive fifth vote to end constitutional protection of those rights.

Professor Chemerinsky is intentionally deceptive on the abortion question. First, the Casey decision, not Roe v. Wade, is the controlling decision on abortion. Second, at most Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito would return regulation of abortion to the states and to the political process -- where it properly belongs.