I’ve heard talk show hosts and read columnists that seek to criticize Judge Roy Moore’s stance on his 10 Commandments monument, but perhaps we should listen to Judge Moore himself to find out why he’s doing what he’s doing.

We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes “the favor and guidance of Almighty God” as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state’s supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state’s constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment.

By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. Judge Thompson never declared the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional, but the essence of his ruling was to prohibit judicial officers from obeying the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. In so doing, Judge Thompson and all who supported his order, violated the rule of law.

But what of the “separation of church and state”?

For half a century the fanciful tailors of revisionist jurisprudence have been working to strip the public sector naked of every vestige of God and morality. They have done so based on fake readings and inconsistent applications of the First Amendment. They have said it is all right for the U.S. Supreme Court to publicly place the Ten Commandments on its walls, for Congress to open in prayer and for state capitols to have chaplains–as long as the words and ideas communicated by such do not really mean what they purport to communicate. They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like “separation of church and state,” to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state.

(Free registration at the Wall Street Journal web site is required to read the whole article. I recommend doing so.)

Sure enough, as I thought might happen, Senator Charles Shumer is now suggesting we nationalize the nation’s power grid. Another knee-jerk reaction by a Democrat to nationalize something as a way to “fix” it.

Senator Edward Kennedy in the back pocket of the fishing and boating industries? Could it really be?

Opponents, including U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Walter Cronkite and historian David McCullough, say it would damage wildlife, destroy views and harm the fishing and boating industries.

Since when did liberals start caring so much for big business? I guess since there was something that would “destroy views” around their backyards.

Yup, this is the wind turbine issue on Nantucket Sound again. How about this new acronym for the group: D. A. R. E., “Democrats Against Renewable Energy”.

Supporters say the farm would produce no polluting greenhouse gases, and would supply nearly three-quarters of the electricity used on the cape and islands.

But not in my backyard, eh Walt?

Another classic news parody from ScrappleFace, noting the foolishness of those who think that expunging all mention of God from public life was what the founding fathers intended.

(2003-08-22) — Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore today ordered the installation of another stone monument in the rotunda of the state judicial building.

The move comes as Justice Moore continues to defy a federal judge’s order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the building.

The new monument is a simple stone block engraved on top with the words of the Alabama state oath of office which Justice Moore and other state officials have sworn to uphold.

Here is the text of the oath: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God.”

It goes on to say that the alleged monument quotes the Alabama Constitution, the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I think Roy Moore ought to do exactly this and see what kind of reception it gets. And maybe, just maybe, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to dodge the issue any longer.

Walter Cronkite, on renewable energy (from his endorsement of the GENI Initiative):

Many years ago, I was honored to spend time with a true visionary of our time, Dr. R. Buckminster Fuller. He preferred that I call him Bucky. This renaissance man gave us the geodesic dome, the Dymaxion map (a very accurate and unique view of our planet), synergetic mathematics and the World Game — a global simulation tool that posed the following question: How do we make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation without ecological damage or disadvantage to anyone?

The answers to this provocative inquiry have given me hope. In particular, the premier solution offers the most thoughtful strategy towards peace and sustainable development that I have seen. Simply stated, the proposal is to interconnect the electrical energy networks between nations and continents, with an emphasis on tapping the abundant renewable energy resources of our planet. In today’s terms, we might call this a world wide web of electricity using green energy resources. Bucky saw this possibility decades before the rest of us.

Walter Cronkite, on renewable energy (when it comes right down to actually doing something about it):

Legendary newsman Walter Cronkite, a part-time resident of Martha’s Vineyard, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose famous political family has a compound in Hyannis, began campaigning against the renewable energy project [on Nantucket Sound] last year.
…
Cronkite, who has sailed in the Sound and owns a second home on the Vineyard, appeared in a television advertisement in opposition to the project earlier this year.

Once again, for the liberal elite, feelings and visions trump actions.

AP posted a story about a school voucher poll. I don’t give too much weight to polls, but I want to mention this one, partly for the numbers, and partly for how it is being covered by AP.

62% of respondents said that, given full-tuition vouchers, they’d send their kids to a private school or one connected with a religious institution. Even with just half-tuition vouchers, 51% said they’d leave public school. Further, 59% thought a voucher program wouldn’t affect the achievement of public school students (hence, most would leave). And on the question of whether vouchers would increase overall student achievement in their community, the results were a half-and-half split.

None of this looks good for public schools, and puts vouchers in a generally good light. But there’s one other number that doesn’t seem to correlate. Support for voucher programs in general is down to 38% (from 46% last year). People seem to be saying that, yes, they would choose private or religious schools over public schools if it were voucher-supported, but they don’t support vouchers. I don’t know how the questions were worded exactly, but this is one reason I don’t like the reporting of polls much. How this question was asked could make all the difference.

And what’s the AP headline on this story, which has 2 results favoring vouchers, 1 that’s against them, and one that’s split?

Most Americans Oppose Vouchers, Poll Says

As one might see on a standardized test, a “more correct” headline would have been “Most Americans Would Use Vouchers in Private Schools, Polls Say“. But then, that would be fair.

Reuters reported last night on a speech Gray Davis gave as part of his campaign kick-off to avoid recall. The quotes from the speech are ludicrous enough to deserve a fisking.

Embattled California Gov. Gray Davis, while admitting he made some mistakes, accused the Republican party on Tuesday of staging “a right-wing power grab” through a recall election in the nation’s most populous state.

Unless that 20-something percentage points of job approval rating he’s been basking in includes the entirety of the Democrat party voters, I’d tend to doubt that. Given that this recall option has been on the books since 1911, and that all previous attempts to invoke it have failed due to insufficient signatures, decrying this as a simple “power grab” is a might bit overstated.

“This recall is bigger than California. What’s happening here is part of an ongoing national effort by Republicans to steal elections they cannot win.”

A legal remedy requiring grass-roots support in order to remove a poor governor is not “stealing”. Stealing is when, for example, a candidate for President appeals to the courts to, say, force the state to continue re-re-counting long after the legally-mandated boundary is past. Hypothetically speaking, that would be considered stealing.

…[it was a speech that] aides said he spent over a week shaping to kick off a campaign to keep the job he was reelected to only last November.

Apparently, he should have spent a lot more time on it.

“There are many reasons to be against this recall: it is expensive, …”

“…and thus all popular elections should be cancelled for the good of the people, as well as the wallets of my cronies…”

undemocratic,

(Yeah, what could be more undemocratic than voting?)

a bad precedent,

“…since too much grass-roots power is unsafe for the ruling elite…”

and almost certainly will breed more recalls.”

“…requiring future governors to keep their promises and actually do the people’s work. No graft, no peace!”

(>ahem< Sorry, I was channelling Jesse Jackson there for a second.)

“The Republicans behind the recall say they want you to vote me out because of past mistakes.”

Psst, Gray. A lot of those people you’re about to dis are voters, not just politicians like you’re trying to imply.

“But they don’t give a rip about past mistakes — they want power for the future, and with so many candidates, they think they can get it with the support of a tiny fraction of California voters.”

Given that this is the first recall effort to successfully get the required number of signatures to kick in, I’d say first that it ain’t no “tiny fraction of California voters” who’d like to see you out. Statewide polls show a majority are ready to give you the boot. Second, as to the new governor only needing a plurality of the vote, it’s true that many candidates dilute the mandate any winning candidate might have, but do you really blame Republicans for the sudden interest in politics your people are showing? I’d say that more people getting involved is a good thing. Of course, they’re interested mostly due to your failure, so perhaps from your point of view things look a bit different.

Davis added, “The Republicans say this recall is about the problems of the past. We’re getting over them.”

First of all, assuring people in the midst of a $38 billion deficit that “we’re getting over them” misses the point; why is California there in the first place? (Slight pause as Gov. Davis takes a peek at a nearby mirror.) Secondly, you’re once again only suggesting that Republicans are concerned over problems of the past (that aren’t over yet), but you again ignore that 20-something approval rating. Calling it partisan doesn’t make it so, and doing so in the light of glaring evidence to the contrary is intellectually dishonest.

“California didn’t go dark,

…last week (never mind all the rolling blackouts of 2002)…

we have a budget,

(Translation: A piece of paper with lots of numbers on it, most of them in red.)

our schools are getting better and our economy will come back.”

Careful, this sounds a lot like future campaign promises, and I don’t know if you want to be judged by past campaign promises. (Oh, and thanks to Dubya’s tax cuts, one of those dastardly Republicans, your economy is already coming back.)

“But this right-wing power grab is something we won’t get over. It would do lasting damage to our state, our environment, and the fabric of our democracy.”

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, putting a >gasp< Republican in office is something California won’t get over (probably because they’ll be there a long time once thing start to turn around). Ah yes, and the very fabric of democracy (read: the privilege and responsibility of voting) will be torn by allowing people to vote. Impeccable logic? On the contrary, it is way too peccable.

“I know that many of you feel that I was slow to act on the energy crisis. I got the message… That’s a fair criticism. I played the hand that was dealt me the best I know how.”

…which, if that’s the best you know how, is another reason the recall is enjoying such popular support.

“I’m not happy with the budget that I signed recently. No one is. I said it then and I’ll repeat it now. But as everyone considers how we got here,

(Pause as Gov. Davis takes another look at the mirror.)

let’s put our situation in perspective. The American economy has tanked, losing jobs and going from record surpluses to record deficits. Forty-six other states are in a similar situation.”

…because spending everywhere is out of control. Both parties are to blame for that. But when Davis talks about the “American economy”, he’s obviously trying to blame Bush for a downward trend that started while Clinton was still in office and was exacerbated by 9/11.

He added, “Yes, I could have been tougher in holding the line on spending when we had surpluses. But, let’s be clear, most of the increases on my watch went to schools and health care. I make no apologies for that.”

Translation: I could have controlled spending, but oh well. (And how about being tougher on spending now that you have deficits?)

Desperate times call for desperate sound-bites, and Gov. Davis has got a million of ’em.

In the fight between giant sequoia trees and SUVs, the trees just scored a point.

From WorldNetDaily:

In a private meeting with Sen. John McCain, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas affirmed reports Yasser Arafat is undermining his authority.

This is news? Well, I suppose it is to anyone who really puts any stock in anything Arafat says or does (e.g. supposedly allowing a Prime Minister to be the authoritative Palestinian spokesperson). Perhaps we can put that fairy tale to rest now.

There are those that have suggested that our presence in Iraq is having the effect of gathering terrorist forces there to attack our military, which would be exactly who we’d rather they attack, both because that means they’re not attacking our civilians, and because they’re likely to die as a result. The situation there is akin to fly paper; attract the bad guys to a tempting yet strong target and wipe them out.

According to this article in the Financial Times, it’s working. They’re coming in droves, and I have no doubt we can take them. Dubya’s “bring ’em on” taunt didn’t mean “come on over and kill us”; he’s simply inviting massive attrition in the terrorist ranks.