Paris for President

As everyone knows, celebrity heiress Paris Hilton recently made a video response to that McCain ad likening Obama's celebrity status to that of both Ms. Hilton and Britney Spears. (If you missed the McCain ad because you have been hiding under a rock, you can view it here.) McCain's commercial which calls into question Obama's glittering fame as a criteria for leadership has gained the McCain camp some serious publicity and a jump in fundraising. But Hilton's video response has also caused quite a stir. Not only is it mildly humorous and definitely entertaining. It also proposes an energy policy that combines the best elements of the rival presidential contenders.

Hilton's "hybrid" energy policy calls for offshore drilling just long enough to buy us time to begin creating alternative energy vehicles that could be produced in Detroit--thus helping to revive the one-time vibrant automobile industry there. See the video for yourself.

I never thought I would say this, but on energy policy, I vote Paris Hilton. Though to be fair, the policy she is outlining is closer to McCain's than Obama's plan--and my suspicion is that in coming months the Obama camp will move closer to the Hilton plan... who knows, they might even chose her for Veep.

I wonder what Britney Spears will have to say about this.

SF Mayor flunks civics

"They don’t like our Constitution," asserted Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco. That incredible remark, uttered on television the other day by the chief executive of "Baghdad by the Bay," referred to the supporters of real marriage, who qualified a constitutional amendment for this November’s general election ballot to reaffirm what the voters decided with Proposition 22 in 2000. Suddenly, the California Constitution that never—repeat, never—protected any "right" by persons of the same sex to marry each other becomes "our Constitution." How did this happen and what does it mean? There are no more intense and full-fledged opponents of constitutional government than liberal politicians like Gavin Newsom. The purpose of a written constitution is to check the exercise of political power by the government and the abuse of liberty by the citizens. Just as every legislator, executive and judge is obliged to uphold our Constitution and laws, so too is every citizen. Constitutional government is all about restraining passions.

But there is no evidence that Mayor Newsom believes this. The same man who solemnly intones that "our Constitution" is not liked by those who disagree with him about marriage, has publicly stated that he will not comply with any federal legislation that criminalizes efforts to help illegal immigrants.

Such defiance is not out of character for Newsom, who began the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage by defying openly state laws which restricted marriage to one man and one woman. Remember all those "gay marriages" at San Francisco City Hall that had to be nullified because they were illegal? "Our Constitution" then had not the slightest connection with same-sex marriage, but somehow the Mayor knew all along that it did.

The question for us is whether Newsom "knew"—in a theoretical or a practical sense—that the ultimate outcome of his then lawless actions would be a State Supreme Court decision giving a fantastical interpretation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause. That is, was he merely another "idealist" who believed so strongly in his judgment that he was willing to defy the law? Or did he have inside knowledge of the Court’s deliberations and intended decision?

One difficulty with the first possibility is that Newsom is a government official, just like those southern politicians who appealed to "states’ rights" for 60 years before the Civil War to defend slavery, or to impose racial segregation for a century afterwards. The claim of civil disobedience seems a sham when one government official is simply defying another set of government officials.

The merits of civil disobedience aside, the only proper name for Mayor Newsom’s planned defiance of federal laws on illegal immigration, and his already demonstrated disregard for state laws on marriage, is lawlessness. For the same man piously to invoke "our Constitution" now that the state’s highest court has reached the same pernicious decision that he has, is enough to engender outrage in any law-abiding citizen.

Newsom’s public embrace of "our Constitution" following a history of lawless behavior should also make us very suspicious. What does "our Constitution" really mean? The old one that upholds the rights of all citizens to do what the law permits or does not forbid? Or is it the new one that invents rights whenever a majority of the Supreme Court reaches that conclusion? What did Newsom know and when did he know it? We are unlikely ever to know.

Our republican government is as wary of judicial tyranny as it is of legislative or judicial tyranny. Abraham Lincoln was severely critical of a United States Supreme Court decision which held that Congress had no power to restrict slavery in federal territories and that black persons had no rights which white persons were bound to respect. While not challenging the ruling between the parties in Dred Scott v. Sanford, (1857) Lincoln refused to accept the Court’s ruling as the last word on the subject. As he said in his First Inaugural Address (1861):

"[I]f the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

The citizens of this state who seek to overturn the decision of our highest court to defy thousands of years of sound practice, based on "the laws of nature and of nature’s God," are acting in the spirit and following the good example of our nation’s sixteenth president. They understand, as he did, that the people—not the mayors, not the judges, not even the legislators—are the sovereign rulers.

Unlike Mayor Newsom or the California Supreme Court, these citizens understand that the Constitution is based on what Thomas Jefferson correctly referred to as the "moral law." The whims of mayors and judges cannot be permitted to corrupt marriages and families.

Hick's weakness shows again

"Thank you, Miss Marie, that was beautiful. And now, since it's important to honor our country and our flag on such an occasion as this, I invite all of you to stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance." That's what Mayor John Hickenlooper could have said, but didn't, when the self-aggrandizing singer "switcheroo'd" her political message song for the national anthem on July 1. When I was Senate President in 2003-2005, presiding daily over formal ceremonies much like the Mayor's State of the State, I wouldn't have hesitated a heartbeat before reclaiming control of the proceedings with some such polite but firm words as those, had someone tried to hijack the occasion as Rene Marie did.

But not only did Hick assert no such leadership in the moment, it clearly never even occurred to him that he should have, judging from his clueless, shrugging comments to the media later on Tuesday. (Dave Logan on KOA was one recipient of those that I know of; there may have been others.)

Not until the anthem affair became a local and national storm did the Mayor finally muster up some "anger" a day later. Even then it seemed to be more about the embarrassment of finding himself out of step with an aroused public, than about the "disrespect" (Gov. Ritter's word on KOA Wednesday morning, and a good one) shown by Marie to America itself.

This blunder by Hickenlooper is much like the mess he made of Christmas a couple of years ago -- initially announcing that Yule greetings would no longer appear on the lighted City and County Building, then hastily reversing himself after an outcry arose.

Hick has shown us once again that under the boyish exterior he's a doctrinaire liberal, and in cultural matters a rather leftish one. Likable and capable as he is, the man is instinctively captive to PC globalism and secularism, tone-deaf to the deeply held patriotic and religious beliefs of most Americans.

As for Rene Marie, the only time I ever heard, or heard of, her until this week was when she performed at the Colorado Prayer Luncheon last May. She talked the Christian talk quitely glibly on that occasion, but we now know her beliefs have the same anti-American slant as those of Jeremiah Wright.

At the luncheon she sang (and, significantly, modified on the fly) Reinhold Niebuhr's famous Serenity Prayer. You know the one: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."

In this instance neither the weak-kneed mayor nor his headstrong guest lived up to those sentiments (which are as much a personal code of behavior as they are a petition for divine help). After Marie rudely arrogated to herself the role of change agent, Hickenlooper was timid and passive when he could have courageously taken command. Nor did either have the wisdom to even realize how badly they both had disgraced themselves.

One American's Credo

I am of Scottish and Danish stock: what could be sterner stuff? Yes, Braveheart and Norsemen. My people made Europe with their blood and sweat–and the Faith that elevated the Continent and the British Isles. That point in time came in the early 1700’s when my people felt and bore the crushing weight of religious persecution. As Scots and Danes imbued with the Love of God burning deep within, they faced the stormy dangers of the unpredictable Atlantic to leave Europe behind and come here, Philadelphia and Omaha respectively. They forged iron and steel to make their homes, churches and schools.

They fought for Independence and then for Freedom of the Slaves. They fought to rescue Europe from tyranny twice, only to be faced with World-wide Communism. By their efforts, because by their sides were thousands and thousands of other Americans of like-mind, the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its Evil Empire.

Now, our Great Nation is being fed the pap that all that should be forgotten and replaced with the very fallacies, weaknesses, and “-isms” from which our forefathers had fought and freed themselves.

I am proud of America and I have devoted my life, as have my brothers and sisters in Faith, to preserving and improving Our Nation within a framework of respect for the Fact that “we are standing on the Shoulders of Giants” !! Europe needs us more than we need its profound exhaustion and declining birthrate, which are the natural consequences of their diminishing Faith.

Let us all grasp the fact that Europe’s reliance on faithless solipsism and nihilism cannot endure long and even now is being pulled from beneath their complacent feet. Healthy societies are either moving forward responsibly or they are sliding into chaos, confusion and inescapable vulnerability. One would have thought a Lenin, a Hitler and a Stalin sufficient to warn Europeans “to stand guardians at the doors” of their Freedoms.

Our Faith, Our People, Our Land and Our God-Given Inalienable Rights as Citizens of this Great Nation (as confirmed in and meant to be preserved by the U. S. Constitution) are the most solid reasons for relentlessly protecting and exercising to the fullest Our Freedoms. Turn back the assault by going on the offensive !!

Jim Ritchie is a practicing attorney in the Atlanta area, and President of Georgia Media Matters, Ltd.

Dare your graduate to read

(Denver Post, June 1) It was a graduation to remember. Our grandson and his classmates looked great in their blue mortarboard caps with gold tassels. Parents beamed and cameras flashed. The speaker was brief, taking his text from Psalms: “Children are a gift from God.” Ian’s dad caught the whole thing on video. Did I mention that Ian is five, and this was preschool commencement at Hosanna Lutheran? There was hardly a dry eye in the place as the graduates gave a fine choral rendition of “Kindergarten Here We Come.” Our little crown prince won’t recall much about that day as the years pass, but be honest: What do you recall of substance about the graduation days you or your children went through? If you remember who spoke or the advice they gave, you’re a savant. If you can name, let alone still have, the gifts you got, you’re a packrat. It all fades.

What I still have and still treasure from completing junior high, high school, and eventually college, is some books my parents and other adults gave me. I felt honored that they took me seriously enough at this educational milestone to present me with the tools of further learning, formally inscribed and signed.

We of the gray hair, rattled by things like texting and tattoos, grouch that schools are being dumbed down and youth are going to the dogs. Sure, that’s been the complaint of every generation since Plato, but this time (we fret) it’s really happening. Then why not push back and compliment your graduate with a gift that will last, a book?

I don’t mean just any book. Ixnay on the latest from Oprah or Starbucks. Go for something more timeless, serious but short, not heavily political or religious yet edgy enough to reward the reader. If you’ve read it yourself, the personal connection will flatter your young friend. A bridge of ideas between you will span the coming decades.

“The Abolition of Man” by C. S. Lewis is less than 100 pages, delphically silent on the author’s beloved Christian faith, and came out long before Obama was born. Yet its powerful treatment of what truth is, how the world works, and what it means to really think, is as fresh as tomorrow’s headlines. It has changed many lives. I recently sent it to Ben Steiger, graduating from Bentonville High in Arkansas.

Equally sparkling in their brevity are “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat, a French parliamentarian who wrote in 1850, and “Introduction to Citizenship for New Americans” by Thomas Krannawitter of the Claremont Institute. The graduate who’s soon to be a voter will find them thoughtful guides to understanding the free society, without a speck of partisanship.

Bastiat was that rarity, a reflective statesman. A father of the breed was Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor in the 2nd century, who penned his remarkable “Meditations” while on military campaign. “My Early Life” by Winston Churchill is another example, closer to our own time. Either makes a memorable gift at this season.

Character forged in the fire seems to be the theme of my recommendations here. That wasn’t planned; I just grabbed some favorites off the shelf. It’s fitting, though, for the Class of 2008 as they ask themselves, “What now?” Help set their moral compass with books like Elton Trueblood’s “Abraham Lincoln: Theologian of American Anguish” or Robert Bolt’s unforgettable play about Sir Thomas More, “A Man for All Seasons.”

Whatever book you give, inscribe it with three A’s. Jot your affection for the person he or she is, your admiration for the summit reached with this diploma, and your anticipation of higher peaks the graduate will climb. Then sign it, date it, and feel great about it. You’ve given a gift that will last.