I can’t help responding to and laughing at the report that Helen Thomas, the so-called “dean of the White House press corps,” says she would not be able to live if Vice President Cheney were to run for the highest office. “The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself. All we need is one more liar.”[1] Promises, promises! Of course, Thomas is the one lying. She won’t kill herself. She is spewing the typical leftist desperation bravado. She sees her worldview crumbling around her as more Americans reject leftist propaganda. She can’t stand it. Her religion is being called into question.

She and her liberal cronies believe politics—leftist politics—is the only true religion. They are willing to die for their faith, just like the Islamic fascists are willing to die for the ideals of Islam and what they believe is the greater good—an Islamic society. In both cases, the adherents to these two faiths work for the conversion of “infidels”: Either the “infidels” submit willingly or they will be made to support the new and greater faith by the sword, a backpack loaded with explosives, a jetliner filled to capacity with fuel, or manufactured law by the Supreme Court. The leftist faith is not as dramatic as Islamic “suiciders,” but it is nearly as effective. Compliance comes by way of political institutions and the force of law backed up by the threat of even more law and bureaucratic regulations. Like the Islamic fascists, leftist fascists believe they are doing society a great service by overturning the old moral order and installing a new one based on the will of the elite. If Helen Thomas gets her way, the Supreme Court would be packed with other political religionists like herself. Laws would be passed to stop oppositional political speech that did not conform to the liberal fascist faith. Hate speech would be defined as anything that did not advance leftist social policy. Not only would abortion be kept legal, but tax payers would have to fund them.

To demonstrate that leftist politics is a religion that must be defended at all costs, consider Ted Blumoff, a professor of law at Mercer University School of Law in Macon, Georgia, who claims that “Judges decide cases, they don’t legislate—ever.”[2] He’s playing a semantic game. He maintains that “‘legislating from the bench’ is only a new shibboleth for a far-right-wing social, cultural and political agenda that hopes to turn the court’s clock back to pre-Civil War times.” Wow! I just thought conservatives wanted the Supreme Court to stop doctors from killing babies and giving eminent domain rights to Wal-Mart and Costco. Mr. Blumoff is almost as crazed as Helen Thomas. He is willing to make outrageous statements and ruin his reputation (a form of suicide) in order to spread his leftist faith to his highly impressionable students.

Anyone with a lick of sense knows that a decision from a court becomes a law. Lawmaking is legislating, whether it’s from the bench or the legislative branch of government. If the Supreme Court “decides a case” that “we the people” must obey, then it has passed a law. Every decision of the Supreme Court is law, a form of legislation (legis: from the Latin lex, law). A legislator is a “proposer of a law.” A “decision” with sanctions is a law. Laurel Vanderkam, writing in USA Today, states what everyone but Mr. Blumoff knows to be true. The 1973 Roe v. Wade pro-abortion case “superseded [anti-abortion] . . . laws in practice.”[3] The decision of the court created new law by overturning the laws of all 50 states, and woe to anyone who disputes it. Try to disobey a “decision” from the Supreme Court. You will suffer some penalty by your unwillingness to comply.

Thomas and Blumoff have contracted the same malady. They believe in their religion so much that they are willing to go to irrational and extreme measures to preserve it: Thomas is willing to die for it, and Blumoff is willing to suffer as a fool.


[1] http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
[2] Ted Blumoff, “Legislating from bench? Nonsense,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (July 25, 2005), A10. [3] Laura Vanderkam, “If ‘Roe’ were overturned,” USA Today (July 27, 2005), 15A.