Supreme Judge of the World

Slated on Backbone Radio, July 5 Listen every Sunday, 5-8pm on 710 KNUS, Denver... 1460 KZNT, Colorado Springs... and streaming live at 710knus.com.

Imagine a Congress with no party labels, no limos, no spin, the courage to risk the gallows, and the humility to submit their work to judgment by Almighty God. Such were the men who met at Philadelphia in defiance of the strongest empire on earth and enacted the Declaration of Independence, 233 years ago this week. By that action, and with Americans' representatives "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions," the crown colonies of June 1776 became the "free and independent states" of July. All that then remained was for George Washington's army to make it stick and for the signers to face paying the ultimate price. Some did, rest their souls.

** This Sunday on Backbone Radio, we'll talk about what July 4 really means with Bill Armstrong, President of Colorado Christian University... and Brian Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute.

** With deadly enemies still seeking America's downfall, Matt Mayer of the Heritage Foundation, formerly of Gov. Owens' staff, will describe his new book on homeland security and federalism.

** And proving the Spirit of '76 isn't gone, we'll hear from a darkhorse Republican candidate for Governor, Dan Maes, and from a couple of citizen activists out to repeal the recently imposed car tax, Lou Schroeder and Freda Poundstone.

Oh, by the way, imagine state legislators unafraid to anger the executive by "opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people" - another line from the Declaration. The present Colorado General Assembly specializes in such invasions and would tolerate no reference to "manly" anything. The times that try men's souls are still with us.

Yours for the self-evident truths, JOHN ANDREWS

“Born Yesterday” years out of date

TCM, the Turner Classic Movie channel, offers a steady stream of yesterday’s movies. Sometimes it offers a classic that provides more than nostalgia, with a window into the past that contrasts sharply with the present. "Born Yesterday (1950)," a popular comedy about both the virtues and the dangers of a little learning, ran this week, and made me lament the passing of the sort of education that can no longer be taken from granted. All I knew as a seven-year-old, besides the fact that bright theatre marquees displayed the movie’s title and stars in vivid letters, was that a beautiful but dumb woman, Emma "Billie" Dawn (played by Judy Holliday) was getting a lot of laughs for the ignorant, if not stupid things she consistently said. I heard something about the story being somewhat more complicated than that, but that’s about as far as my comprehension went. Now I know–and know of–many people who have been formally educated far beyond what Billie learned but possess far less understanding than she acquired.

Emma is the seven-year girl friend of Harry Brock (played by Broderick Crawford), a millionaire tycoon who thinks and acts more like a hoodlum than a businessman. (Unfortunately, this is the perennial Hollywood caricature of people in other businesses, or is it a self portrait?) He wants to get some results for his congressional bribes, so he must make the Washington D.C. scene. Unfortunately, he is burdened by a woman lacking in the social graces and incredibly ignorant, or so he thinks. In due course, he comes into contact with a polished journalist named Paul Verrall (played by William Holden) who, it occurs to Brock, can educate his "dumb broad" and not embarrass him around all the important people he must meet and/or win over. His scheme is to get a bill passed that, in ways that are not particularly clear, give him the edge over his domestic and foreign competitors in the junk business.

In any case, Brock thinks he is pretty smart to hit upon this idea, but events, to put it mildly, take a different turn. Billie, who goes blank when her tutor makes a reference to the Supreme Court, soon gets a pretty thorough tour of the nation’s capital and picks up a dizzying vocabulary along with a lot of pertinent information. Her life is transformed, not only by the accumulation of books, most notably a huge dictionary, but by her attraction to the polished, polite and attentive Paul, with whom she quickly falls in love. But as inevitable and even just as their pairing is, it is overshadowed by the education she receives in the nation’s founding (with a qualification to be explained below).

Billie visits the capitol building and becomes acquainted with the immortals commemorated there. She also goes to art museums, attends concerts and browses through multiple historic sites, but the most impressive turns out to be the Jefferson Memorial. There she finds written the third President’s powerful words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Billie’s first gaze is mostly blank, but after she comes to know, through her education, that the man she’s been living with (and living comfortably) for so long is not merely annoying or difficult to deal with or understand, but is in fact a tyrant, Jefferson’s words take on considerably more meaning.

Of course, that is a lesson for us all, for tyrants are not merely ghastly men who rule countries outside our borders, but rise up among us, but restrained, for the most part, by laws, institutions and public opinion, and especially by the United States Constitution. Harry reasons with or otherwise deals politely with other people so long as they tell him or give him what he wants but flies into a rage at the slightest sign of disagreement or difficulty. Because Billie has (supposedly) read the works of Thomas Paine (but not of Abraham Lincoln), she has a pretty good idea of what a tyrant is, and her man fills the bill.

After years of complaisantly signing documents as if she were his wife, Billie decides she wants to read what they say. Harry’s shrewd advisor, Jim Devery (played by Howard St. John), pleads with Billie to sign but is unable to prevent the explosion that occurs when his boss finds out that the complaisance might be over. True to form, Harry beats Billie until she signs, although it is no surprise that she forms the intention then and there to leave him and never to sign onto any more of his opaque dealings.

When Billie finally resolves to bail out altogether, Harry can’t make up his mind whether he likes the idea or not, although it seems clear enough that he loves her, albeit in his own way, and would rather she stayed. But she is too educated for him now, for we learn as the movie progresses that Harry’s smarts are more often not pure bluster, which fools only those who are as ignorant as he is. The wise Paul hits upon a plan to thwart Harry once and for all.

"Born Yesterday," based on a Broadway play of the same name which opened in 1945, oversimplifies education, to be sure, in its own version of the Pygmalion story. (Compare "Never on Sunday" and "My Fair Lady.") But at least it is wholesome in holding out the prospect that an educated person can appreciate the virtues of our democratic form of government and the men who designed and implemented it. Yet not long after this, our university professors began to teach the opposite lesson, namely, that democracy is a sham and a delusion that enables the Harry Brocks of this world to rule in their own interest at the expense of a multitude of oppressed classes that run from the poor, to racial minorities, to women, to children, to homosexuals and lesbians, foreigners, and all of the "other" ad infinitum.

Education is no longer a source of hope and renewal but of cynicism and despair. Imagine if "Born Yesterday" had been produced with the assumptions of the professorial elite in our time. Billie would have learned that the problem is not Harry Brock so much as the United States of America. Rather than celebrating our form of government, the "educated" person concludes that it is rotten to the core and ought to be "transformed" into something entirely different.

There is a link, only somewhat tenuous, between Hollywood’s political thinking of 1945 and 2009. The enemy is fascism, then and now. There is no "enemy to the Left." Harry is labeled a fascist, not a communist, at least partly justified since the United States and its allies recently prevailed over the fascist dictators in Germany, Italy and Japan with the aid of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (never mind its complicity in starting the war). The evil of Josef Stalin and his totalitarian regime was not apparent to many, even if it should have been. In the glow of victory, this is an excusable error.

Too, liberals had convinced themselves, by virtue of their devotion to democracy, that they were the progeny of the founding fathers, also democrats. A clue to the film’s partisanship is in the very reliance on Thomas Jefferson who, unlike Lincoln, is remembered at the Democratic Party’s annual dinners. The Republicans completed the Lincoln Memorial in the 1920s and the Democrats countered with the Jefferson Memorial in the 1930s. Surely both will do for educating about tyrants, but the film’s choice of Jefferson puts it firmly in the Democratic camp.

Our problem today is that it is not so clear that liberals are as firmly in the democratic camp as they were at the close of the Second World War. Between leftist professors teaching students to scorn their country, their civilization and their religion, and Democrat politicians scoffing at any distinction between democratic and undemocratic regimes abroad, public opinion is being dumbed down at least as much as Billie was, if not more so. For if Billie did not appreciate her country’s virtues, at least she did not despise them. On the other hand, those "educated" people who openly malign the freest country on earth might just as well have been born yesterday.

Supremes overturn Judge Sonia

(By Colorado Judicial Network) On Monday, the US Supreme Court ruled that Frank Ricci and his fellow New Haven firefighters shouldn't be subject to reverse discrimination. In a 5-4 decision, the court overturned the summary judgment ruling in the 2nd Circuit of New York by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and her fellow panelists. And all nine Supreme Court Justices determined that the Sotomayor panel was in error in ruling on the case without considering its constitutionality. “Frank Ricci finally got his day in court, despite the judging of Sonia Sotomayor, which all nine Justices of U.S. Supreme Court have now confirmed was in error,” said Wendy Long, Chief Counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network and a former U.S. Supreme Court Clerk.

The case, decided by Judge Sotomayor, raised significant questions regarding race and merit-based promotion in America’s workplaces. In Ricci, a group of fire fighters challenged the City of New Haven's refusal to certify test results for promotion within the fire department. According to test results and department protocol, only white and Hispanic fire fighters would be eligible for promotion. None of the black test takers placed high enough to claim any of the available positions. Fearing a lawsuit by minority applicants, New Haven refused to certify the exam results and no one was promoted. The City's decision was allegedly based upon a desire to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was despite the substantial efforts taken to ensure a race-neutral examination.

“No case can give us a better view of Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy than her decision in Ricci vs. DiStefano,” said Colorado Judicial Network spokesperson, Jim Pfaff, “This case strikes at the heart of advancement in our society.”

"Usually, poor performance in any profession is not rewarded with the highest job offer in the entire profession,” said Wendy Long. "What Judge Sotomayor did in Ricci was the equivalent of a pilot error resulting in a bad plane crash. And now the pilot is being offered to fly Air Force One.”

Long continued, "The firefighters in New Haven who protect the public safety and worked hard for their promotions did not deserve to become victims of racial quotas, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that they did not deserve to have their claims buried and thrown out by Judge Sotomayor."

One hundred-eighteen people took the promotional exams administered by the New Haven Fire Department. One exam was for promotion to Lieutenant, and the other to the rank of Captain. The racial breakdown of test takers included 68 white, 27 black and 23 Hispanic applicants. The breakdown of those who passed the tests included 41 whites, 9 blacks and 6 Hispanics.

Eighteen white fire fighters and one Hispanic fire fighter brought suit for discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and the very same Civil Rights protections cited by the City.

“The impact of this decision on workplaces is staggering,” said Pfaff, “If merit-based opportunity is not the best standard for promotion, what is? Should promotion be based on racial quotas? Could an otherwise qualified applicant be denied advancement because there are too many of his race already promoted? How will these decisions impact the workplace?”

“Judge Sotomayor's logic was clearly flawed as it runs counter to the American system that has made us the greatest country in the world,” said Pfaff, “The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold or reverse Judge Sotomayor’s decision will have an important impact on employment law in the United States. It puts a bright light on the necessity of have judges who follow the U.S. Constitution and the stated law instead of personal opinion or 'empathy.' The Court’s decision may also very well determine the fate of Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.”

The Colorado Judicial Network is a coalition of citizens joined together to educate Coloradans on the Federal Courts and its nominees. In partnership with the Judicial Confirmation Network (www.judicialnetwork.com), Colorado Judicial Network works to ensure that the confirmation process for all judicial nominees is fair and that every nominee sent to the full Senate receives an up or down vote.

Colorado Judicial Network Members are as follows:

· John Andrews, President, Backbone America. Former Colorado Senate President.

· Jon Caldara, President, Independence Institute.

· Mark Hillman, former State Treasurer.

· Jeff Crank, State Director, Americans for Prosperity.

· Jim Pfaff, Judicial Confirmation Network Colorado coordinator. former State Director, Americans for Prosperity and former President/CEO, Colorado Family Institute.

· Kevin Lundberg, Colorado State Senator

For additional information about Sotomayor, visit www.aboutsoniasotomayor.com

No "national dialogue" on abortion

Both William Clinton and Barack Obama have called for a national dialogue on race. Because this issue divided the country before and after independence, entailing slavery and then segregation; and because it continues to divide the country with the current reverse discrimination, the call struck few people as unreasonable. Unfortunately, those making the call are less interested in dialogue than they are in stigmatizing anyone who disagrees with them as bigots and racists. President Obama has acknowledged that the issue of abortion also divides the country and has made similar dialogue gestures. But, given his thoroughly pro-abortion position, it is unlikely that any national dialogue that he supported on that issue would be any more productive than one on race.

My own experience confirms this. Abortion generates more outrage whenever I write a column about it than any other except homosexuality/gay marriage. Last week’s column drew five responses off site (three opposed, two supporting). In spite of my pessimism about a national dialogue led by a Democratic administration, I favor a dialogue on abortion.

Surely no such dialogue would serve any purpose if it were merely an academic exercise. No political debate occurs in a vacuum: while people are talking, babies are being killed. Pro-lifers favor a debate because they want abortion on demand to end. Pro-aborts oppose it because it they want no restrictions on abortion. It’s that simple.

I am grateful to those who commented on last week’s column, even if they find my arguments wanting. A person who emailed me from Kansas, the state in which the recently murdered George Tillman performed late-term abortions, said that I "glorified" women who refused to abort their babies, even in the face of dangers to themselves or their babies. This error is explained by the fact that I hold abortion to be "wrong period."

Regular readers here know that I do not oppose abortion "period" but give principled reasons based on the political philosophy of the Declaration of Independence. Few critics of abortion are blind to the fact that there are hard cases, such as rape and incest (which make up a tiny percentage of them). But as Oliver Wendell Homes famously said, "Hard cases make bad law." In order to accommodate those rare cases, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the exception to swallow the rule. Abortion on demand is the law.

More to the point, children being diagnosed in their mother’s wombs as defective are not being given the benefit of any doubt. Whereas the doctors’ Hippocratic Oath enjoins doctors to err on the side of life, the abortion "ethic" mandates just the opposite. Is this not appalling?

One opposing reader makes the point that abortions are very hard for women and that none would consent to a late-term abortion unless the need was compelling. But that is hard to square with the massive number of abortions performed since 1973 (45 million and counting), not to mention the attraction of Dr. Tillman for those "rare" cases.

Most doctors want nothing to do with abortion, and most abortionists don’t perform them late term. Is this reluctance explained by some mild anxiety, or is it genuine moral revulsion at crossing what used to be regarded as a very bright line, whether early or late in pregnancy?

Another critic reminds me abortion has been the law for 36 years and urges me to "get over" my opposition to it. Thirty six years is a long time from one point of view, but for those who waited 100 years for racial segregation to end it is not so long, and for those who waited much longer for slavery to end, it is a trifle. Prolifers have patience.

The bedrock pro-abortion position is that every woman has a right to control her own body. Yet the baby growing inside her is not her body but someone else’s. Slave holders argued over a century ago that every black they held by force was their "property," and demanded protection for it. Is there any difference in principle between these positions? I await a response.

And the similarities do not end there. Slave masters denounced opponents of slavery as insurrectionists, just as proaborts routinely call their critics "terrorists." Both became "tired" of criticism and favored ending it. Nothing would satisfy slaveholders then, or proaborts today, until everyone calls them right.

Let the dialogue continue.