May 28, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

Barack Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Supreme Court Justice, based upon his desire to have someone with “empathy towards people’s struggles.” The problem is that judges aren’t supposed to decide cases based upon empathy. They’re supposed to decide cases based upon the rule of law. Empathetic judges sound well and good if they happen to empathize with your particular race or viewpoint. But what if they’re empathetic towards your enemies? What if they’re empathetic towards terrorists? Or child molesters? Or one particular race to the detriment of another race?

A judge’s decision must be based on the law, not empathy. Making decisions based on feelings will leave the people in a situation where they must observe whatever emotionally driven decision is reached on that particular day, all subject to the mood swings of the judge.  If Sotomayor and four of her colleagues are feeling especially “empathetic” towards Muslims on a particular day, then Christianity is ruled illegal.  If they feel especially “empathetic” towards deer, then hunting becomes illegal.  If they are particularly “empathetic” towards Al Gore, then aerosol cans become illegal.  You get the point.

Sotomayor has stated that her background as a poor, Latina woman makes her able to reach better conclusions than a white male. In a recent commentary, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg pointed out that Clarence Thomas knows better than any Supreme Court Justice what its like to be a poor minority. Therefore according to Obama and Sotomayor’s logic, he should make better decisions than anyone, right? Wrong. Thomas is a conservative; therefore his views are rejected out of hand. But Thomas wouldn’t even claim to be a conservative justice. He would simply say that he makes decisions based upon what the Constitution says. Which is exactly what a Justice is supposed to do, and what Sotomayor has promised not to do, and what Obama has stated he doesn’t want a justice to do.

Commentator Thomas Sowell recently wrote that if you were going to have open-heart surgery, you wouldn’t care about the background, race, or “empathy” of the doctor. You just want the most qualified person to cut on you. Likewise with the Supreme Court. A Justice’s background, race, personality, etc. isn’t the point. We need people who will judge based upon established law, rather than legislate from the bench. But in an address to Duke University, Sotomayor stated publicly that a judge’s role is to “make policy.” Of course she immediately covers her tracks saying that she knows she’s being taped and she shouldn’t say it…though she implies everyone knows it’s true. When listening to Sotomayor’s snide and arrogant comments about judges “making policy” you can also hear the nervous giggles of the Duke students in the background. Sotomayor was publicly stating what liberal judges do, even though the Constitution forbids them from doing it. She tipped her hand and should be voted down en masse. But it will never happen.

The United States Senate is largely made up of political glory hounds who care about nothing other than their own power, pocketbooks, and popularity. They will completely ignore what a Justice is actually supposed to do. They will completely ignore the fact that Sotomayor has vowed not to do it. And they will confirm her quickly because she is a Latina, woman who was appointed by an African-American man.

Of course if the truth were known, Obama only appointed Sotomayor because of her minority status to begin with. At least that coupled with her liberal worldview. Obama narrowed his list of potential Justices to four people….all women. Are we truly supposed to believe that there wasn’t one single man in all the Federal judiciary who was worthy of at least being considered for the Supreme Court? Not one?  Not even a man who is a minority?  Obama needed a women on the Court for political purposes…and if he could find a Hispanic women that would enable him to kiss up to that ever growing section of the electorate, then all the better.

Sotomayor and others like her are a danger to the rule of law in America. By usurping the legislative branch’s role to make laws, liberal justices frequently over rule the will of the people, based on nothing more than their personal preferences. In essence, liberal Justices serve as dictators, doling out decisions based upon their personal whims…or their “empathy” for a particular group or race. And their lack of “empathy” for another. This is racist and has no place in the courtrooms of America. Certainly not the highest court in the land.

If the Senate had any spine whatsoever, they would reject this nomination and any other Obama nomination that doesn’t promise to make decisions based solely upon the law of the land. “Empathetic” judges take the power out of the people’s hands and assume it for themselves. And they have no right under the law to do it.

When Justice John Roberts was being grilled by the Senate, he said that a judge’s job is not to made decisions based on personal preference. He said a judge was like a baseball umpire who was supposed to make judgments based on established law. Can you imagine a baseball umpire changing the rules in the middle of game and granting some hitters four strikes because he felt “empathy” towards them? If he did, the game would be a farce. But that’s exactly what liberal judges do, and they make our courtrooms a farce.

Sotomayor may be the most empathetic person on Earth. She may have an absolute heart of gold. She probably loves butterflies, rainbows, and flex-fuel vehicles. But that’s not the point. She has stated publicly that she will not do the job of a judge, as American Law and her oath of office, states she is supposed to. She won’t judge impartially; she will be “empathetic.”

We need more judges like Roberts and Thomas. Conservative or Liberal has nothing to do with it. Serving as a Judge rather than a Dictator does. Sotomayor promises to be a Dictator. And I for one hope the Senate does what I know they will never do….and vote her down for her lack of judicial integrity. Today we are a nation of laws, but the more “Sotomayors” we have on the court, the closer we come to a totalitarian state where “empathetic judges” rule the lives of the people they’re supposed to be protecting.

Posted in Politicians, Political Issues | Print | 1 Comment »

May 19, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

On Sunday, President Barack Obama gave the commencement address at Notre Dame University…and was granted an honorary doctorate for his work of…….well, no one really knows any work he’s ever done other than getting elected President. But, nevertheless its always good publicity for your school to give the President a doctorate. Whatever. A bit of a firestorm was created in his invitation…and many Catholics protested, as they should have, because Obama is extremely pro-choice, while the official Catholic stance is pro-life. Some students even went so far as to skip their own graduation in protest of his being there. To miss your own graduation because of a principle deserves high praise indeed…at least in my opinion. They’ll still get their degree, but they made a point by their non-attendance that couldn’t have been made otherwise. They have my respect.

And while they missed out on getting recognition, they also missed out on the nausea of listening to Obama lecture the world on how both sides of the “abortion debate” need to emulate him by being “above name-calling.” He proceeded to tell the story of how his campaign website once stated that he supported a woman’s right to choose and would protect it against “right-wing ideologues” who seek to take it away. Obama shared how someone confronted him over the name calling and he had his website remove the phrase “right-wing ideologue.” Now…apparently…we’re all supposed to be so enamored with his grace that we mimic him…and refuse to use adjectives when describing those like him who defend the cause of slaughtering babies. Forgive me, if I choose not to take his counsel.

One of the biggest problems in America today is that we don’t use the correct “names” to call things what they are. “Marriage rights for all” is a sweet way of saying “government supported perversion.” “Redistribution of wealth” is a sweet way of saying “rob from the workers and give to the lazy.” And likewise “pro-choice” is a sweet way of defending a women’s right to let a doctor murder and mutilate her baby. Am I wrong to point out that abortion involves the murder of a child? Am I a “name-caller” like my President says I am? You’re darn right I’m a name caller…because things need to be called what they are.

Obama thinks he deserves a medal because he removed the phrase “right wing ideologue” from his web site, yet he’s also the same man who declared people like me to be “bitter” because I “cling to my guns and religion out of fear.” It might surprise the President to know that I don’t mind being called names. As the saying goes, “I’ve been called worse names by better people than him.” But I’m not the least bit offended if he chooses to call me a “right wing ideologue.” He can even call me a “right-wing, gun-toting, Bible-thumping, loud-mouthed, opinionated, furry-faced, four-eyed, Okie-Kansas, Calvinistic, religious-extremist, anti-government, anti-tax, anti-gay, anti-liberal, pro-baby, pro-family, pro-liberty, state’s rights Constitutionalist, hillbilly, redneck with a bad case of acid reflux.”

None of those names offend me because they’re all true…at least in some people’s eyes. I am who I am, and I don’t mind people using names to describe me. But turn about is fair play. And as long as I have the freedom (though I won’t probably have it much longer)…I’ll continue to call things what they are….including our President. You know him don’t you? Mr. Obama…..the left-wing, radical, over-taxing, free-spending, baby-killing, freedom-hating, pompous, arrogant, self-worshiping, fascist who would rather kiss up to foreign leaders than support his own country. Who would rather spend more money than actually fix problems. And who….sadly….would rather defend the cause of left-wing, liberal feminists than he would defend the life of innocent, helpless babies who didn’t ask to be created, and sure didn’t ask to be killed.

Sorry Mr. President, but I cannot take your counsel…and as long as you continue to hold policies and defend practices that murder babies, I’ll continue to call you names that fit your crime. And maybe, someday, by the grace of God….if enough people will call “baby-killers”…. “baby-killers”…. then maybe someday “baby-killing” will no longer be an accepted law of the land. And we truly can move on to other problems that our nation needs to address. But until then, murdering children trumps everything else. And in my mind….it always will.

Posted in Politicians, Abortion | Print | 1 Comment »

May 6, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

On May 5, the British government’s Homeland Security director, Jacqui Smith released a list of sixteen people who are banned from entering their country because of their political views. The list includes murderers, racists, and various other criminals. But one notable name is conservative talk show host Michael Savage. His crime? Expressing conservative political views, such as a need for border security and opposition to gay marriage, that England thinks could cause “community unrest” if allowed to enter their nation. Savage never espouses violence, and in fact has been very critical of terrorists who use violent means to make their point. Clearly he is being singled out for committing the unpardonable sin of being conservative. His thoughts and opinions have caused him to be banned.

Today, the United Kingdom has proven beyond doubt that it has more in common with Soviet Russia and Communist China than it does any “free” nation. It is ironic how Liberals who claim to value “free speech” suddenly desire to suppress and even outlaw any “free speech” that is critical of their views. The same thing is happening in America where things like “Hate Crimes” legislation seeks to punish a criminal for what he might have been “thinking” when he committed a crime; and the “fairness doctrine” which seeks to silence conservative talk radio by requiring stations to also play liberals. So who would determine whether a commentator is conservative or liberal? Michael Savage criticizes both parties; so would he be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine?  Regardless, the government has no business dictating to radio stations what kind of political discourse they can and cannot air.  The British government is out of control, and America is right behind them.

Regardless of what Great Britain or the United States says, I’ll continue to listen to Michael Savage. Though I don’t agree with him on all issues, I enjoy his program…and I completely agree with his right to have and state his opinion as passionately as he wants to. Britain’s ban is ridiculous, and if I were planning a trip there I would cancel it…not that I have any desire to go there anyway. Keep reading, for more reasons why I am a regular listener to The Savage Nation, and why I think he trumps all other radio talk shows.

… … …

I confess. I love listening to Michael Savage on the radio. I know I’m not supposed to say that because most people see him as a homophobic, hate-mongering loud mouth that puts people down. But of all the commentators on the radio, he is hands down the most brutally honest concerning issues that many conservatives are too scared to touch.

I’ve listened to most of the conservative radio talk shows at one time or another, and to be honest, I seldom listen to any of them now except Michael Savage. While I agree with the political views of other conservatives, I can’t stomach much of their shtick. Sean Hannity, repeats the same worn out arguments over and over again. Regardless of the topic the caller brings, Hannity babbles on like a broken record. Bill O’Reilly is the most arrogant specimen I’ve ever tried to endure…and I AGREE with him on most issues. Quite frankly I’m glad he’s no longer on the radio because it wasn’t really his venue. He’s good at reading off of a teleprompter on his TV show, but not very good at thinking on his feet, as evidenced by the amount of “ummms” and “uhhhhs” on his radio show. I gave up on O’Reilly for two reasons. First, I heard Savage make an argument on his show one day for why Obama was doing something. Then, TWO DAYS LATER, I heard O’Reilly make the same argument and brag to his chick, lackey, co-host about how his brilliant shrewdness had analyzed the situation. I believe he stole the idea from Savage, then claimed it as his own. Secondly, I read O’Reilly’s book: A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity and was nauseated at how in love he is with himself. The basic premise of the book is that if everyone were as courageous, smart, outspoken, and all together as wonderful as him, then the world would be a better place. I’ll pass on O’Reilly.

Rush Limbaugh has been the king of conservative media for many years for a reason. His arguments are logical and articulated in a clear and entertaining fashion. But my complaint with him is that he is too reluctant to criticize the Republican Party. A group who I believe needs to be held accountable for its leftward slide. In contrast, Savage will call out anybody. Evidenced by the fact that he has been more critical of George W. Bush than any other conservative commentator because of Bush’s massive government spending, lenient immigration standards, and leftward policy lurches.

Savage is also the only person on the radio willing to tackle and speak out on problems in our society that are destructive and should be obvious to all. Homosexuality is not only sinful, it goes against nature. It destroys society by destroying marriage and destroying the family. But the “gay mafia” as Savage calls them, has brow beaten most Americans into submission, but not Savage. Though he lives and broadcasts from San Francisco (he calls it San Fran-Sicko), he regularly calls out the homosexual community for the fascists that they are as they try to silence anyone critical of their behavior and what it does to society at large.

Savage is one of the only cultural commentators who points out the fact that obnoxious children need to be disciplined rather than drugged with Ritalin. Savage points out that boys need to be taught to be young men, rather than feminized as our current education system seeks to do. Savage is an outspoken critic of global warming and is an outspoken advocate of increased oil drilling. But Savage is more than just an astute observer of American society, he is a student of history as well. Tune into The Savage Nation and you might here a history of the Muslim conquests, or an analysis of Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and how it prolonged the Great Depression, or you might hear commentary on the similarities between Barack Obama and former Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, or an explanation of Fabian Socialism. With Savage you get accurate commentary on a variety of issues, argued logically, in an entertaining fashion. And sometimes, he loses his temper, which can be equally enjoyable to listen to for various reasons.

Our society has become inoculated against righteous indignation and assertive calls for justice. We are taught to speak sweetly and softly, while our nation is ruined by radical, anti-God, liberalism. Perhaps what we need is a little more outspoken and LOUDLY SPOKEN dissent against the dangerous absurdities of our society. Jesus turned over tables in the Jerusalem temple to protest the charlatans who had taken over his “Father’s house.” Americans likewise should speak out more loudly, clearly, and regularly about the evils that are taking over our country. Savage speaks out, unapologetically, and for this he should be commended.

Another thing I love about The Savage Nation is how he handles callers. I loose patience very quickly with “call in” shows that give the average Joe in the street air time to ramble on about his illogical opinions on every subject. Savage takes callers, and drops callers in mid-sentence if necessary, when they begin to drone on. Even when they’re agreeing with him. This I appreciate and enjoy. Furthermore, when he argues with a caller that disagrees with him, he points out the lack of logic in their arguments, and doesn’t allow them to change the subject when he’s proving them wrong. Again this is refreshing in our “nicey, sweetsy” world of talk radio where everyone’s opinion is considered equal, regardless of how asinine their opinion is.

I don’t agree with Savage on everything. At times he can be too harsh or resort to too much name calling. Sometimes when he quotes the Bible or talks about religion he comes to conclusions that I would disagree with. While he holds to a “Judeo-Christian” worldview, I don’t believe he would claim to be a “born again” Christian. But when I compare him to others in talk radio, he wins the day hands down.

When his show first comes on, he has a disclaimer that says: “The Michael Savage show contains adult language, adult content, and psychological nudity. Listener discretion is advised.” But don’t let that scare you. He rarely, if ever, uses profanity, (in fact last week he corrected himself in mid-word and said “heck” instead of “hell”) and the “adult content” is simply his criticism of things like homosexuality. As for the psychological nudity, that is simply him exposing his “psyche” or mind for all to see. Nothing perverse.

Regardless of whether he’s talking about huge topics like the end of western civilization…or telling funny stories about his dog Teddy. Regardless of whether he’s taking on the “gay mafia” or giving a recipe for meatballs. Regardless of whether he’s giving dietary advice (he has a Ph.D. in medical botany) or contrasting rap music with Beethoven…Savage is always honest, opinionated, entertaining, and accurate with his analysis. By listening to Savage you can learn a lot and laugh hard. You hear news stories that others aren’t willing to touch. And in our world of political spin, illogical argumentation, and liberal insanity, Michael Savage will give the brutally honest truth about the ills of our society…and he’ll do it in a way that stimulates the mind and often tickles the funny bone. THAT’S WHY, I listen to Michael Savage.

Posted in Current Events, Politicians, Political Issues | Print | No Comments »