E!!

NR editor Rich Lowry wrote a great piece on Friday.  You should read the whole thing, but here are the opening paragraphs of his column entitled “Our Founders the Realists”:

As a nation, we were extraordinarily blessed in our revolutionaries. It wasn’t just that they were brave and determined. So were the avatars of revolution throughout the 20th century who wrecked nations and peoples. No, what makes them so wondrously distinct is that they were also just and wise, grounded always in a clear-eyed view of human nature.

“There is a degree of depravity in mankind,” James Madison wrote in The Federalist, “which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust.” When revolutionaries talk of depravity, it is often to brand their class or ethnic enemies for destruction. Gas chambers, prison camps, and killing fields inevitably follow.

The depravity of which our Founders spoke was different. It ran through the hearts of all men, themselves included. It tempered their expectations of what they could achieve and what they should attempt. No secular millennium, no perfectly harmonious republic — because, as Madison wrote, “the latent causes of faction are sown in the nature of man.”

“Enthusiasm there certainly was — a revolution is impossible without enthusiasm,” Irving Kristol writes of 1776, “but this enthusiasm was tempered by doubt, introspection, anxiety, skepticism. This may strike us as a very strange state of mind in which to make a revolution; and yet it is evidently the right state of mind for making a successful revolution.”

The Revolution was institutionalized in the Constitution, an inspired exercise in leveraging human failings against one another — “ambition counteracts ambition” — to create a stable structure of liberty.

I often wonder what the Founders would say if they could be brought forward in time and witness the modern American scene.  I think it would make an excellent screenplay, if done right.

During the course of his campaign, Obama has often said that differing judicial philosophies among Supreme Court justices don’t matter in “ninety-nine percent of cases” because the “the Constitution…a statute…or congressional intent is…clear.”  Conversely, he says it is only in about 1% of cases that differences in judicial bent really count.

What a giant crock of intergalactic BS.

As Obama very well knows – Harvard educated constitutional attorney that he is – and as Ed Whelan points out here (and I quote below), the ratio of unanimous decisions on the Supreme Court is nowhere near 95%:

According to the Harvard Law Review’s statistics for the past three terms, cases with dissents accounted for 64.4% (2006 term), 45.7% (2005 term), and 62.0% (2004 term) of all cases.  Indeed, last term, cases dividing 5-4 accounted for over a third of all cases, and the three justices that Obama cited as justices he likes—Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter—agreed in the disposition of non-unanimous cases only 61%, 60%, and 63% of the time, respectively.

Yes, fellow citizens of the Republic:  Obama-Wan Kinobi knows his claims are false.  He knows the appointment of Supreme Court justices is crucial; he knows the fundamental changes he wishes to see in the Constitution and the court; and he knows that if elected he will probably have the opportunity to appoint at least two justices to the federal bench.

So, he passes his hand before our eyes and utters his lie with a smile.  

Will his attempt at a Jedi mind trick lull Americans into thinking the appointment of Supreme Court justices is not really important, and they can therefore let him pass, unquestioned and unhindered?

We will know in four days’ time.

May the Force be with US.

Like Andrew McCarthy, I’ve largely been ignoring the allegations and rumors about the possibility that Obama’s birth certificate was faked or forged (and related questions of citizenship).  I figured if there was any truth to it, someone would have routed it out and proved it by now.

Pamela Gellers at Atlas Shrugs has raised the issue multiple times (interesting stuff if you choose to click through) and then more recently Philip J. Berg, a former Deputy AG of Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit claiming Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president.

Oddly, Obama’s lawyers moved to dismiss the suit and also failed to file a timely answer.  (How hard would it have been to just quickly produce the needed docs?)

Berg claims Obama wasn’t really born in Hawaii, but others say he was. 

Then apparently there’s also a question as to whether he was also a citizen of one or more other countries (Kenya, Indonesia) and whether that means that he could not be a “natural born” citizen as required by the Constitution.

I’m still waiting to see what comes of it.