This type of thing is already a problem, but it’s going to be a major problem for America in the future:

A federal judge in Southern California on Thursday declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment rights of gay and lesbians.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips granted a request for an injunction halting the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays in the military.

Phillips said the policy doesn’t help military readiness and instead has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.

The lawsuit was the biggest legal test of the law in recent years and came amid promises by President Barack Obama that he will work to repeal the policy.

I’m not concerned about the DADT policy, at least with respect to political stability, but I’m getting more and more concerned with the types of decisions federal judges are issuing and the self-driven push to expand their scope of power. Basically, we’ve arrived at a place where activist judges are increasingly willing to effectively throw the legislative and judicial branches into gridlock for years while the problem is sorted out–and usually on questionable or unexplored legal grounds. Most worrying is the constitutional check on this behavior is weak in its substance and nonexistent because of disuse.

From the Gettysburg Address, that is. Robert George calls them out at First Things.

The Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and the Constitution of the United States of America—those were the three texts in the blue pamphlet I found on the table in front of me as I took my seat at a conference at Princeton.
…
I recalled that in sixth grade I was required to memorize the address, and as I held the American Constitution Society’s pamphlet in my hands, I wondered whether I could still recite it from memory. So I began, silently reciting: “Four score and seven years ago . . . ,” until I reached “the world will little note nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.” Then I drew a blank. So I opened the pamphlet and read the final paragraph:

It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Deeply moving—but, I thought, something isn’t right. Did you notice what had been omitted? What’s missing is Lincoln’s description of the United States as a nation under God. What Lincoln actually said at Gettysburg was: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” The American Constitution Society had omitted Lincoln’s reference to the United States as a nation under God from the address he gave at the dedication of the burial ground at Gettysburg.

It’s one thing to quibble over what the words in the text mean, but something else entirely to change the text or shop for copies which suit one’s views. Perhaps these distinguished legal scholars will next undertake a search for copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights with language that’s more reasonable.

Should we be surprised at all by this?

Veterans who apply for jobs on Capitol Hill aren’t receiving critical federal job-placement benefits because Congress has largely exempted itself from a law that aids post-military employment for vets, a new congressional report shows.

A groundbreaking report by the Office of Compliance on the state of the congressional workplace is now urging Congress to apply the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act to its own hiring habits.

The law provides veterans with prioritized opportunities to land government jobs, but veterans who apply for jobs with the Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office and some support positions in the House and Senate do not receive this affirmative-action-type boost, potentially preventing veterans from getting jobs.

I wonder if anyone’s ever cataloged all the ways in which our “representatives” have opted themselves out of unsavory programs and regulations. It would make a nice, informative database for the ignorant masses, no?

Say the words “political sex scandal” to see what names you can elicit and it becomes clear that extramarital affairs are one of the last true bastions of bipartisanship in American political life.

In reply, you’ll get names of high-profile figures like John Ensign, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton. Now, add to that list, Mark Sanford. This one, though, is truly bizarre:

Gov. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) admitted that he had conducted an extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina who he had gone to visit over the last five days — during which time a massive media story developed over where he was and why.

“I have been unfaithful to my wife . . . I developed a relationship with what started as a dear dear friend,” said Sanford.

He said that he had met the woman, who he did not name, roughly eight years ago and that it had become romantic within the last year. He visited her three times during the past year, Sanford said, and noted that his wife, Jenny, had been aware of the affair for the past five months.

Sex is a problem the powerful have struggled with going back at least to the reign of King David. What puzzles me, though is when people who know they’re working in a job that generates enemies–and living under a microscope where the mere hint of an affair can make front page news–insist upon dabbling with another woman (or man).  How do they think they can possibly keep it a secret?

Never mind carrying on an affair that your wife knows about. In Argentina.

[Update] - A Columbia, SC, newspaper has e-mails between Sanford and his mistress that they’ve been holding onto since December. Was someone planning an election eve surprise, perchance?

Every once in a while I like to drill down into the details in Rasmussen’s polls to get a sense of the underlying sentiments driving the generic approval ratings. Today there are some very interesting numbers lurking under the surface that should send chills down the spines of Democratic politicians and strategists everywhere. Examine the percentages of voters that believe the following:

Taxes Will Go Down – 14%
Tax Increases Hurt Economy – 53%
Gov’t Spending Will Go Up – 67%
Increases in Gov’t Spending Hurt Economy – 53%
Obama on Economy – Ex/Good – 46%
Obama on Nat’l Sec – Ex/Good – 48%
Trust Obama on Economic Crisis – 30%
Obama Governing as Bipartisan? – 31%
GOPs acting Bipartisan – 24%
Dems acting Bipartisan – 18%
The US is on the Wrong Track – 58%
America’s Best Days in Future – 38%
US is Safer than before 9/11/2001 – 47%

Finally, of ten key issues polled, Americans trust Republicans over Democrats in six of the issues (taxes, economy, war in Iraq, national security, government ethics/corruption and immigration) and are tied with the Dems in a seventh (abortion). Only in the areas of health care, education and Social Security do the Democrats have the trust of those polled. On the number one issue as selected by Americans, the economy, those polled trust Republicans by a 45% to 37% margin, and of the six issues rated by a majority of respondents as “very important”, Republicans are trusted more on four of the issues.

Five months to the day into his first term as president, Barack Obama sets a record. I expect it’s probably not what he wished for, though:

So much for hope.

The topic of our pastor’s sermon this morning was Matthew 23:1-19. The passage in question begins with this:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. Therefore pay attention to what they tell you and do it. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy loads, hard to carry, and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing even to lift a finger to move them. They do all their deeds to be seen by people, for they make their phylacteries wide and their tassels long. They love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’

All I could think about was this:

Coincidence? Who’s to say?

This post was first published in 2005, but but I thought it fitting to republish in honor of Flag Day, which falls on Sunday.

The Stars and Stripes began its history as the symbol of thirteen distant colonies who picked a fight over principles that endure today, to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights like Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Some years later, Francis Scott Key immortalized what he called the “star spangled banner” as a symbol of perseverance and bravery.

It didn’t take long for another nation to acknowledge the Stars and Stripes as the symbol of a free and independent nation. In February 1778, John Paul Jones sailed into Quiberon Bay aboard the Ranger and received a 9-gun salute from the French fleet anchored there in return for the 13 guns fired from Ranger. It is fitting that Captain Jones was the first to accept this honor on America’s behalf, for he was also the first to force a foreign warship to strike her colors in deference to the spirit and determination of the colonies. It also seems odd in this time, reflecting on recent history, that the first acknowledgement of the ascendancy of America, and the most famous symbol of the great gift America gave the world, the Statue of Liberty, both came from France. Often, the most bitter of arguments arise between friends.

Like our great Nation, the flag has developed with us, and developed a symbolism all its own. As the years passed, a star was added for each new state that joined the Enterprise, and for a while a stripe was added, too. Eventually the number of stripes was fixed at thirteen in memory of those fragile, daring colonies, but stars continued to be added to proclaim the flood tide of freedom.

The symbolism of our flag has been often debated, but never wholly defined. It has been claimed that the red represents valor, zeal and fervency; the white, liberty, hope and purity; and the blue, loyalty, justice and truth. Perhaps the best interpreter was a man who helped forge the Nation our flag represents, one who was there when the Stars and Stripes were born, George Washington. He said, “[w]e take the stars from Heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing Liberty.”

Old Glory continues today to be the source of both inspiration and discord. Most see it as a symbol of home. Many see it as an icon of freedom and opportunity written in red, white and blue. A few look at the flag and only see the mistakes America has made in the pursuit of her ideals. And sadly, a growing number will remember the flag as the last blanket that comforted a lost son, father, sister or comrade-in-arms, or as a token from a grateful nation for performing the heavy lifting of democracy.

I have a flag of my own that I acquired on my first ship. It flew proudly from the mast as we launched strikes to push the army of Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. It flew again from another ship as we hurried to sea and prepared for war just hours after madmen murdered thousands of our countrymen in New York. Most recently, it flew from the yard of yet another warship as landing craft streamed ashore, carrying Marines bound for Najaf, determined to bring lasting freedom to victims of oppression. I do not know where and when mine will fly again, but it is my hope and prayer that a Star Spangled Banner will fly always, somewhere, reminding those who gaze upon it of our enduring virtues and infrequent vices. As Francis Scott Key wrote,

Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
‘Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Navy Times reports on the unprecedented diversity of the entering class at the Naval Academy:

Vice Adm. Jeffrey Fowler, who has made diversity a top priority, said minorities will make up about 35 percent of the Class of 2013. That’s 7 percentage points higher than the Class of 2012, which had the most minorities up to that point.

The aim is to increase the ranks of minority officers in the Navy. When students graduate, they are commissioned as officers.

“Now, enrollment is not the measure, but if you want to get commissionings you’ve got to get people enrolled here,” Fowler told the academy’s Board of Visitors, which functions as a Board of Trustees at a civilian college.

While increasing the number of minority students is a big step forward, Fowler emphasized that the academy’s work is not done.

“We need to ensure a successor of mine can tell this board in four years that not only did we have the most acceptances — that we have the most commissioning of minorities in the history of the Naval Academy,” Fowler said. “That is a true measure.”

The academy has seen a big increase in the number of black students — from about 6 percent in the Class of 2012 to about 10 percent for the incoming class. The number of Hispanic students is more than 14 percent in the Class of 2013, up from more than 10 percent the year before.

Just for the record, here are Wikipedia’s numbers on the demographic mix of the U.S.:

The U.S. population’s distribution by race and ethnicity in 2006 was as follows:

Total population: 299 million
White alone: 74% or 221.3 million
Not including the 23.2 million White Hispanic and Latino Americans: 66% or 198.1 million
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, of any race: 14.8% or about 44.3 million
Black or African American alone: 13.4% or 40.9 million
Some other race alone: 6.5% or 19 million
Asian alone: 4.4% or 13.1 million
Two or more races: 2.0% or 6.1 million
American Indian or Alaska Native alone: 0.68% or 2.0 million
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone: 0.14% or 0.43 million

Americans are finally starting to realize what a bad idea closing the prison at Guantanamo is:

Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to closing the detention center for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and moving some of the detainees to prisons on U.S. soil, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

By more than 2-1, those surveyed say Guantanamo shouldn’t be closed. By more than 3-1, they oppose moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in their own states.
…
In the survey, Americans were inclined to accept the argument by Cheney and former president George W. Bush that the detention center had made the United States safer. By 40%-18%, they said the prison had strengthened national security rather than weakened it.

Those who want the prison to remain open feel more strongly on the subject that those who want to close it. A 54% majority of those polled say the prison shouldn’t be closed, and that they’ll be upset if the administration moves forward to close it.

The lesson here is Americans can make sound decisions, when they’re provided with facts to replace the politics of emotion and anecdote.