Extreme Tribal Logic, Pro-Choice, NRA

The Gosnell Memory Hole | commentary:

When all issues are primarily political and most of the population is a member of a political tribe that gives no quarter to the other tribes, then sort of discussions or reasoned debate become nearly impossible.

The linked article calls out how the recent widely hailed SCOTUS decision in Whole Women's Health vs Hellerstedt in TX that essentially outlaws state regulation of abortion clinics completely fails to recall the horror of Kermit Gosnell and his putrid house of horrors killing full term babies and women seeking abortions in Pennsylvania. The Gosnell story received very little coverage even though he was convicted and women lost their lives -- the BIG issue is "abortion always easy, close to free or free in cost, and very very available". To the extent possible, WITHOUT REGULATION! (could be the last thing that "liberals" think that about -- they are intent on regulating how much your toilet flushes for example!).

If the general public could think of the MSM on the issue of abortion like they are schooled to think of the NRA on the issue of guns, they might start to sense the world of tribal extremes.

Forget "common sense" -- we have two ideological camps that increasingly hate the other camp and want to see them "defeated / dishonored / destroyed ... preferably DEAD". Kill the NRA, kill anyone that wants to restrict / regulate / control abortion, etc.

The NRA of course doesn't ACTUALLY expect everyone to have a gun including felons, nor is it against ANY registration of guns -- or certainly not against guns functioning properly and being "safe" to the extent that they don't blow up and injure the operator.

But the abortion rights people ARE there! They explicitly don't care if places that provide abortions are regulated to be safe in their practice of medicine, clean, or even be run by a doctor that has proper credentials and is allowed to see patients at a nearby hospital! No, as long as that baby can be murdered, they want NO RESTRICTIONS -- and they mean NO RESTRICTIONS!

In comparison, the NRA is positively "progressive" -- it CERTAINLY wants guns to be regulated to be safe, accurate, reliable, etc, it STRONGLY supports training for everyone that uses guns in safety procedures, range rules, etc, etc., and it is even very active in trying to have CURRENT registrations / background checks, etc ENFORCED with ACTUAL PENALTIES -- but as we see over and over again, violators of current gun laws -- straw purchasers, etc are let off with little or no enforcement.

We live in the age of insanity -- there is really no other explanation for people who are supposedly "pro-woman" applauding the removal of any sort of regulation on procedures to be carried out on their bodies for the pre-medicated murder of their children. They don't care if "reasonable medical procedures" are followed, they just want those babies D E A D -- and that is ALL that matters!



'via Blog this'

SCOTUS "Fails To Act" Gambit

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/433888/diskant-gobsmacking-stupidity?7QwhKPQ3FGF62LZi.01

I'm not going to spend any time on this other than to keep track of the insanity if it becomes more widely discussed. We already know that when truth, logic, morality, law, etc are all "questionable", there are NO LIMITS!

Liberals likely feel like conservatives did when Bork was rejected, BO was elected (twice!) and a thousand other little constant things like (unbelievably) a "new" calumny of Clarence Thomas!

The difference is that conservatives have to live with disappointment constantly, liberals believe they are entitled to always have things their way!

In his op-ed, Diskant—who is a lawyer with distinguished credentials—contends that the Senate can be deemed to have waived its “advice and consent” role on a Supreme Court nomination if it “fails to act” on the nomination within a “reasonable” time—and that President Obama could therefore proceed to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court without the Senate’s ever having confirmed the Garland nomination . (Or, to be more precise, Diskant, in an apparent effort to preserve his professional credibility, claims that “it is possible to read” the Appointments Clause that way.)

Revulsion for Scalia, Priceless!

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/antonin-scalia-looking-backward

I can imagine articles similar to the linked being written for Jesus after the crucifixion. "He mostly failed ...".  Given the direction of the country, I suspect they are right about Scalia, but God will provide the ultimate determination of that as well!

Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed.

I thought this was rich ...

His revulsion toward homosexuality, a touchstone of his world view, appeared straight out of his sheltered, nineteen-forties boyhood.

It turns out that when tested on a PET scan, even people that SWORE they were "perfectly OK" with homosexuality were betrayed by their own brains displaying "revulsion". From a Darwinian POV, it is hard to imagine something less "adaptive" to the species, so from a scientific POV, that our our brains would be  so wired is anything but a surprise. Not surprising from a created POV either! So Scalia was human -- and admitted it, which is VERY unpopular today! Lying about even what your basic cells believe is the price "honor in the modern moral cesspool

But it was in his jurisprudence that Scalia most self-consciously looked to the past. He pioneered “originalism,” a theory holding that the Constitution should be interpreted in line with the beliefs of the white men, many of them slave owners, who ratified it in the late eighteenth century.

Let's beat up on those dead white guys -- oh, and certainly trash what they bequeathed to us!  We are doing a hell of a job -- whatever they name the post-BO wasteland, it isn't "America"!

To be laid to rest after dying peacefully on a hunting trip at 79 and to have your Son preside at your funeral! It just doesn't get any better than that! I can think of nobody more richly deserving.

Oh, to have the kinds of enemies that wrote this column? PRICELESS!

NPR Keeps On Borking

Robert Bork's Supreme Court Nomination 'Changed Everything, Maybe Forever' : It's All Politics : NPR:

Robert Bork died the Wednesday before the Saturday Scalia died. The following Monday I went up to help move my Dad to a nursing home for what we hope will be a short stay and got to hear a LOT of NPR. One name I heard very little of was "Bork". When a name becomes a verb, as in "Borking", we know that something major happened.

Whenever a liberal judge dies with an R in the WH, the press pretty much goes berserk about "maintaining the balance in the court" -- how critical it is, and how virtually any action taken by whatever D's are in opposition is completely justified. Somehow I doubt there will be much of that discussion this time.

One of the COMMON things of which we are now reminded is that Democrats confirmed Anthony Kennedy in '88, an election year, and that is a "precedent", but the only reason the confirmation was in '88 is because the Bork debacle had happened in '97. Note as well that the Democrats were able force Reagan a two term VERY popular president, to appoint a clear moderate that is today a standard "swing vote" on the court, and completely rejected a totally solid candidate on an ideological basis only, thus setting the precedent for exactly what we have today!

Simply reporting that fact isn't good enough for NPR even today, thus they persist in "Borking"  ...

He opposed the Supreme Court's one man, one vote decision on legislative apportionment.

To understand this, you need to go to "Reynolds vs Sims" (1964) and "Baker vs Carr" (1964). Everyone got to vote in all cases, the issue was how equal the numbers in districts were and if the question was a legislative, judicial federal or state question. Those rulings gave us the strange geometry to congressional and state districts that we see today. Both decisions also had Constitutional intent and States Rights issues. It had NOTHING to do with each person getting to vote!

He wrote an article opposing the 1964 civil rights law that required hotels, restaurants and other businesses to serve people of all races.

While "liberals" love the use of coercive FORCE to achieve their visions, conservatives like to use persuasion and market forces, plus they like to have people make decisions by vote at the lowest level possible. The feds allowed states to decide on discriminating against smokers on a state by state basis. Currently, they are doing the same with marijuana. The court could have allowed states to continue to decide how to regulate abortion in each state.

NPR then and NPR now wants to justify "Borking" because he was "a racist". What he was, like Scalia, was a man who believed in rule of law, as did our founders. They EXPLICITLY wanted the states to be allowed maximal freedom from federal coercion, so that each would be a "laboratory" where laws and polices could be "tested" and people could "vote with their feet" if they like the policies of some states better than others!

He opposed a 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law banning contraceptives for married couples. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, Bork said.

Again, he was against the FEDERAL government FORCING states to comply! Which is what the Constitution is against as well -- because the Constitution was explicitly written to LIMIT  centralized authoritarian government because it is an extreme danger to liberty!

As I've written before, any that want to read the Constitution will find that Bork was right, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution ... all "penumbra"!

CERTAINLY if we as a nation wanted to create a federal level "right to privacy", we could write a Constitutional Amendment for it, debate it, and approve it, and THEN there would be a "Right to Privacy" ENUMERATED in the Constitution!

But we are not that kind of people anymore. Even the "history" of 1987 and 1988 needs to be re-written to supposedly support whatever the current desires of "The Party" might be. NOTHING -- not words, not events, not lives, not even living or recently dead people are allowed to have a separate "truth" from the narrative of "The Party". **ALL** ... truth, meaning and life must be sacrificed at the alter of "The Party" and whatever it's current holy writ is freshly minted to be!

Reality has died under the effects of being constantly "Borked" each and every day. Thus, we have TRUMP, and the media and TP wonder how it can be that people seem to believe him even when he is "not factual"!!

When there is no Way, Truth or Life, the people create idols, and lo, they bowed before the orange god of Trump (Baal)! ... not surprising since many had previously bowed before the mulatto god of BO!



'via Blog this'

Scalia and Ginsburg, Buddies and Hope

Read Justice Ginsburg’s moving tribute to her “best buddy” Justice Scalia - Vox:

I am reminded of Job 1:7

The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it."

God and Satan are definitely opposed, but they interact rather civilly in Job, and it has always at least bothered me emotionally. What I want to see is Elijah in with the prophets of Baal:

1 Kings 18:37-38 Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that You, O LORD, are God, and that You have turned their heart back again." 38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

My understanding of Job is a premonition of Christ. Job was a just man, whom God allowed Satan to attack so that God might be glorified and that we might ponder the miracle of the perfect sacrifice of Christ each Lent. Job was tested up to the point of losing his earthy life -- he questioned God, as did Christ,  ("My God my God, why has Thou forsaken me?") but he did not succumb to do Satan's bidding and curse God. God is big enough for all our questions,

That Satan would come before God when called is no mystery -- God is outside time, and Satan is already defeated.

My theory as to "why Satan?" is bound up in "Free Will". God is pure love. Pure love is obedient -- especially to pure good, knowledge and power, but God's Creation, first in the form of Satan, later in the form of man, rebelled and fell.  So the story of creation, already known and complete to God, is the story of redemption, of which we are part.

There is no mystery in Scalia being to willing to befriend Ginsburg. He was a tremendous practicing Christian, his faith demanded it. For Ginsburg though, it is quite amazing.

As a lapsed and non-practicing Jew, she is clearly a rebel in the Satan mold (as are all our fallen natures). No matter the God given role for women, she has rebelled and left Judaism and her zeal for the sacrifice of millions of children to Moloch has more and more consumed her as she has aged, being unwilling that any should have the power to save even fully viable babies from slaughter.

If Satan were to repent, would he be saved and all creation snap back to perfection? I'd like to think so, but I KNOW that were Ginsburg to submit to the will of God, the joy in Heaven would  be great (as it is when any sinner repents).

I'm out visiting my Granddaughter, and it is Lent, so I have an example of new life and promise close at hand, and am trying to walk toward Easter with the faith that God can renew even this nation.

Would it not be amazing if Ginsburg were to realize at the funeral of her friend Scalia that hope was indeed not dead, and she could even at this late point in her life come to Christ, then having an eternity to spend with her "best buddy"? Watching the media turn on her as she changed her opinion on a number of 5 to 4 decisions not yet announced, changing them from now 4-4 to 4-3 would be nearly as wonderful as watching the fire from heaven come down and consume the sacrifice, the altar, and the water in the trenches.

Faith and Hope are inexorably linked. I got to see Reagan and the revival of America in the '80s from the stain of the 60's and '70s. I have a Granddaughter. No matter how dark it seems, wonderful things CAN happen -- even in this "Vale of tears".

They WILL however happen on the final Easter! Though millions of innocent die around us, our Hope is certain!

'via Blog this'

God Loves Obama

Jonah Goldberg: If Obama really wants to reduce ‘meanness,’ now is his chance | Opinion | host.madison.com:

God DOES love Obama of course! He loves ALL of us, even me! To God, ALL lives really do matter. As Jonah puts it ...

Well, let no one say the moral arc of the universe does not bend toward second chances.

Indeed -- the universe is wired so we ALL get a LOT of chances to turn from our wicked ways, and at a very minimum practice some flashes of consistency between our actions and our words.

Repentance and redemption! The chance to "get it right this time with the help of God"! It's Lent, it is the perfect time to reflect on how much opportunity Christ has blessed us with the see the error of our ways, repent and begin afresh!

Just before Scalia died, BO uttered the following:

In Springfield, Illinois, last week, President Obama commemorated the ninth anniversary of his bid for the White House. He admitted that one of his “few regrets” was his inability “to reduce the polarization and the meanness in our politics.”

It's as if God heard him and said "OK Barack, here is a chance!".

Obama could prevent all this strife. He could say he will leave this appointment up to his successor. Or he could appoint a conservative during the Senate recess (Sen. Ted Cruz, anyone?) who would serve only until the end of the following session. That would preserve the power balance on the court for the time being.

Such diplomacy would go a long way to prevent — or at least reduce — further polarization and meanness in our politics.

Just imagine how much healing such a change of heart could engender! It might even go a long way toward moving the scales of retribution back to the time of Bork. A way to let actions show the truth of an honest heart bent to reduce the "polarization and meanness in our politics"!

God never gives up. He continues to give us ALL opportunities to take actions to reach out and heal this broken world and nation.

Obama is certainly a person for which it is VERY easy to be cynical about his statements and real motives. God has given him a great opportunity to show what is really in his heart!

Praise be to God!


'via Blog this'

BO Regrets of Obstruction

http://www.wsj.com/articles/regrets-hes-had-a-few-1455821266

Hit the wrong key on this one and it got posted before ready. Sorry -- pleading white line fever from 12 hours on the road!

Here WH discussion on BO "regrets" he voted to filibuster Alito as a Senator:

And frankly, looking back on it, the president thinks he should have just followed his own advice.” (What is sin? “Being out of alignment with my values.”) It’s fair to doubt the genuineness of Obama’s contrition. Still, what else has he ever regretted, other than failing to “explain” his policies better?

When there is no God and you set yourself up as god, (as BO clearly has), "sin" is when you don't live up to your OWN values -- or to be more precise, when you get CAUGHT not living up to YOUR OWN values. How convenient -- do you seek absolution for your "sins" from yourself as well?

The rest of the article is good, but pretty much "inside baseball" on Senate machinations over nominees. Since we are going to hear A LOT about "obstructionist Republicans" the rest of this year, I thought this was interesting ...

Even if Democrats don’t win this year, a young and able nominee could be considered again by a future Democratic president in the 2020s. George H.W. Bush nominated John Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1992, but the Senate failed to act and the nomination expired. George W. Bush nominated him again in 2001, but Sen. Patrick Leahy, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, refused to hold hearings. Roberts was finally confirmed in 2003, after Republicans took the Senate.

Got that? Democrats held up John Roberts effectively from 1992 - 2003 with two separate opportunities, in which they stiffed him TWICE!  Not something we heard a lot of crying of alligator tears from the TP controlled MSM over is it???

BO, Shit From Shinola

Obama’s shinola | Power Line:

It's never been very clear what BO actually knows when he is off a teleprompter, but he is certainly convinced that the rest of the country's intelligence level would make "The Jerk" look like a genius in comparison.

Oh, yes, there are ALL SORTS of good reasons why BO voting for a filibuster as a Senator was not "divisive", "partisan", "obstructionist", etc. He just couldn't come up when asked without a teleprompter feed!

Hey, it was "THE PARTY (D)" doing the filibuster! Those are the GOOD GUYS!

But this is the Supreme Court. And it’s going to get some attention. And we have to ask ourselves as a society a fundamental question: Are we able to still make this democracy work the way it’s supposed to, the way our Founders envisioned it? And I would challenge anyone who purports to be adhering to the original intent of the Founders, anybody who believes in the Constitution, coming up with a plausible rationale as to why they would not even have a hearing for a nominee made in accordance with the Constitution by the President of the United States ,,,

Ah yes, Mr "Constitution"! Let the EPA make and enforce laws over the objections of congress, shove through healthcare "reform" as a "tax", decree your own immigration policy by executive order and use the IRS to attack the Tea Party. I'm sure I'm missing some -- besides, the BO Court itself treats the Constitution as used toilet paper already!

As the article says, this act is WAY past old!
'via Blog this'

SCOTUS Nomination Solution

How Republicans Can Win the Supreme Court Media Battle | Ricochet:

Most of the thoughts in this column have been flitting through my head, the author saved me the time of trying to write them. Not sure if I would have come up with the "War Games" reference, I love it!

He suggests that the key to "not playing" is for all the Republicans to utter the following:

“We believe it is the obligation of the next president of the United States to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia. Such a dramatic shift in the balance of the court, so close to an election, should carry with it the voice of the people.”

Democrats are MUCH better than this, partially because the media helps them -- how often to do hear the exact same lines about "war on women", "income inequality" or "anti-science". At least in this battle we won't hear the old shibboleth about "balance on the court"!

Conservatives have a TERRIBLE tendency to be direct and truthful. These are of course VIRTUES in the real world, but they are awful disadvantages in politics. The idiotic Mitch McConnell statement about "not nominating" is a great example. True, helpful to the nation, and direct -- and politically disastrous!

Jonah Goldberg has an excellent column on how if BO ACTUALLY wanted to "reduce meanness", the Scalia death just gave him a great legacy opportunity:

In Springfield, Illinois, last week, President Obama commemorated the ninth anniversary of his bid for the White House. He admitted that one of his “few regrets” was his inability “to reduce the polarization and the meanness in our politics.”

I do feel that God REGULARLY gives BO GIGANTIC object lessons in potential humility and repentance -- call ISIS the "JV team" and they immediately take over huge sections of the mideast, say "red line" and they cross it right away and you have to get help from the adult in the room, Putin!  Utter "we have ISIL contained" in the AM and that very afternoon (here) ISIS attacks in Paris!

Now this ... lie that your "regret" is "polarization and meanness" when you are the main instigator of it,  clearly relish it, and a couple days later God calls home one of the greatest jurists in history who is kind, loving, brilliant, and loved by even the hard left winger Ruth Ginsburg! If BO actually wanted to reduce "polarization and meanness", as Jonah points out, it would be EASY!

Obama could prevent all this strife. He could say he will leave this appointment up to his successor. Or he could appoint a conservative during the Senate recess (Sen. Ted Cruz, anyone?) who would serve only until the end of the following session. That would preserve the power balance on the court for the time being.

Anyway, I think the Republicans need to go ahead and fake like they are going though the process -- hold hearings, say a lot of stuff about what kinds of issues this is going to be critical in -- presidential decrees on Climate Change, immigration, guns, and who knows what. Rulings on the forced funding of government unions, etc, etc.

Then of course have a big dramatic vote in "September" where the Republicans would have SOME fairly unusual level of control on the messaging, where the candidate is rejected -- with a lot of rememberance of of Bork.

But, it is unlikely that they can pull that off, and it is unlikely they can stick to message.

They don't play politics well, and they don't NOT play politics well. That is why the ONLY conservative approach is to REDUCE the size and intrusion of politics in all our lives, which is the principle the country was founded on.


'via Blog this'

EPA Dictatorship Loses 5-4

Supreme Court blocks Obama carbon emissions plan | Reuters:

I happened to be at a meeting this AM which had an electric power industry executive at it.

They pointed out:

1. They invested 10's of millions of dollars removing 90% of the emissions from their coal plants under the assurance that would suffice for decades. They borrowed money and set rates based on those promises. Now they are being told that is not good enough and they have to close the coal fired plants. 
2. Every utility has to have a plan that shows how they can cover 110% of known peak demand (that is why new peaks are EXPENSIVE). 8% of solar capacity and 14% of wind capacity can be counted in that plan. So 22% renewable, 78% standard. Those coal plants MUST be replaced with natural gas turbines -- that is the ONLY way to keep the grid running. 
3. Our grid is becoming more vulnerable. Less local generation, more power coming from longer and longer distances. 

Solar doesn't work at night, it works less on cloudy days. The wind varies -- thus the 22%. Batteries are a LONG way from being an assist.

NPR was pretty dejected this AM about 5 members of the SCOTUS still not willing to go full dictatorial powers to the president. They feel it is a "national emergency" ... like a war ... this is the biggest problem of our time! No time to be hanging on tired old words in tired old documents, LET THE PRESIDENT ACT!

Why are nations pretty much required to end up as centrally run dictatorships without rule of law limiting government?

See the problem above on investment in "clean coal" and what happens when that investment is suddenly declared "not good enough" in a shorter time than was assured. Private business MUST make ENFORCEABLE contracts and make decisions on that basis! With rule of law, so must government -- but not now (at least not until a justice dies or they manage to turn one).

Why do we see reductions in investment, innovation and growth? How hard is it to see that maintaining any rule of law on this issue is one heartbeat away from being overturned?

The left cares NOTHING for "precedence" -- in fact they HATE IT! One SCOTUS justice dies, BO appoints another, and dictatorship wins on this issue!

Why would anyone invest in making existing energy sources cleaner or innovations that are "less than perfect" (whatever that is ... non-polluting, risk free, cheap, invisible, safe .... theoretical solutions can be VERY good!)

If we lived in a country with a written and REAL Constitution and separation of powers, we would not be having this discussion! ... but that is no longer where we live.

'via Blog this'

Rule Of Used Toilet Paper

God vs. the Constitution in Kentucky - The New York Times:

When 5 people in robes with no authority at all (since they broke their vow to uphold the Constitution),  took the formerly sacred document to the bathroom and used it to wipe their asses on Obergefell (gay "marriage"), the media and left wing applauded. The 5 judges ought to have been removed, and if any government employees were to go to jail, it ought to have been them. That would have been "rule of law" and the proper people being "under, rather than above it".

Now the media and TP --(The Party - D), but "Toilet Paper" is also a good moniker for them, feels the excrement stained piece of garbage with "Constitution" scrawled at the top ought to be "sacred" once more. As with a gay "marriage" ... "sacred" only to beelzebub!

But it’s worth repeating once again: No one is telling Ms. Davis what she may or may not believe, or how to live her own life in accord with the dictates of her conscience and her God. What they are saying is that as an employee and representative of the government, she lives under the law, not above it.

Sorry, we have NO RULE OF LAW, only raw executive power, judicial conjuring and public opinion heavily influenced by noxious filth spewing orifices like the NY Times.

We used to have rule of law. If the country that was America wanted to define a "right" to gay "marriage" it was very simple. Write a Constitutional Amendment, pass it through both houses with 2/3 majorities, then have 3/4 of the states ratify it. We used to understand that -- see 19th Amendment!

THEN, there would be a "Constitutional right" to gay "marriage". It would still be wrong -- because it is a crime against God and a crime against nature, but it would THEN be law!

The Kentucky clerk is not an appealing spokesperson -- which the media will naturally make the most of. She should resign her job since this is a regime that is fast making it impossible for Christians to work in its employ. The time when it is impossible for Christians to even live openly in the territory controlled by the lawless cabal is perilously close.

The next time you hear about the latest obstacle DC has put in the way of people that want to avail themselves of a firearm post Heller, or some other locality making it impossible for people to get Concealed Carry permits, think of how they treat Ms Davis vs those people! LAW either applies the  TO ALL, or it isn't "law" unless you live in a totalitarian state rather than a Constitutional Republic ... hmmm, maybe we aren't paying attention?

What we "all live under" now is a fetid stew of tyranny consisting of mob rule, bureaucratic fiat, judicial whim and executive edict. We don't know the timetable or who will ultimately drive the random path to ruin --  dictator? populist mob? military? But it is very clear we have left the path of being a Constitutional Republic living under rule of law.

We seem rather ripe to be "Trumped" ... if not by Trump himself, by something.

Mindless SCOTUS / Religion Meme

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207283969040245&set=a.1082209898215.2014464.1315355655&type=1&fref=nf&pnref=story

This has popped up on a few lefties FB feeds. It is inane, pedantic and false -- so appealing to leftists, but it may confuse some, So a few words.

First the really easy standard lies:

In fact, one religious party believing they know the truth for all humans is how terrible oppression starts - that is how Naziism started, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Klu Klux Klan, Al-Qaeda and now ISIS - the most destructive, hateful, murderous periods of human history have arisen directly out of one religious group (ironically, most of these examples were lead by Christians) believing their religion and religious beliefs were THE truth, and therefore they had the right to take away the rights (and lives) of those who lived or believed differently than them.

Naziism had nothing to do with religion other than Hitler hated Jews -- but as a "race", not particularly a religion. The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE action -- Islam was the aggressor party, once they were in France, Christendom finally woke up. The other items listed are pretty much "noise" -- humans like to do stupid and often violent things independent of creed (read the column), we could point out equal and longer lists on the left -- without even counting abortion.

The bottom line is this paragraph shows the author as a hater of Christians so her comments directed at such ought be taken in that context. The LEFT (meaning centralized state control) is the champion killer by FAR after the 20th century with over 100 million dead -- Communist, National and other Socialists. They KNOW they have "the truth" -- just like the column author, and their "truth" quite commonly sets millions of souls free from their earthly body in a violent fashion. Why not? They have no moral foundation beyond "might is right" -- and the author wants to make sure there is no "law" save power to stand in the way of their promethean objectives.

The problem with the whole article is just that -- "truth and power". The old US was founded a set of ENUMERATED WRITTEN RIGHTS that were "endowed by our creator" -- therefore transcending human power. Without something being transcendent -- God, a document, laws, then POWER is what determines "morality" -- might **IS** right! The SCOTUS gay "marriage" ruling is pure POWER. Our "truth" once transcended "man" (as in 9 in robes) -- and the earthy power was reserved to the people (often people too "Christian" for the author's taste, thus the preference for statist power)

"Marriage" was not one of those enumerated rights in our Constitution  -- so it was therefore left to States and Localities to determine. **IF** it was determined that a Constitutional Right to marriage was desired, the procedure to attain that in what was America was a Constitutional Amendment -- 2/3 of both houses of congress (or a convention), ratification by 3/4ths of the states. That was law.

What any law abiding person -- Christian or no, should be concerned about is the SCOTUS itself being lawless as it has on this and other cases -- Roe V Wade being the prime example. Slavery was abolished by the 13th-15th Amendments -- the law of the land was followed! Women received the vote via the 19th Amendment ... legally! To compare what just happened with real rule of law is dangerous ignorance -- or possibly blatant lies to mislead the less intelligent.

The gay "marriage" ruling was NOTHING to do with "church and state" nor the establishment clause -- and the SCOTUS never claimed that it did. Purely a fantasy of the author of the piece. Lots of wasted text.

The combination of lack of knowledge and basic reason on the part of the author of the piece is breathtaking -- although, I strongly suspect that a thinly veiled rage against Christians is really what is speaking here.

Rights are not and should not be up for a popular vote or up to the states to determine. Rights are absolute and cannot be dependent upon anything other than the fact that the person is a human being and is a citizen of the US. If those two conditions are met, YOUR belief system about what is MORALLY or spiritually right or wrong does not matter and should not. You should be glad that is the case, because it would be just as easy for another religion to take over and curtail your rights as a Christian (something that has happened throughout history).

If the author has a belief system, it must be that "government is great, government is good -- and we trust that it and it's practitioners are omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent".  We DID have a written Constitution based on "self evident truths" and "being endowed by our creator". We HAD a rule of law, not of men -- complete with a known procedure to amend the sacred document if such was needed over time -- and we DID it for things like slavery and women's suffrage!

To equate 5 people in robes conjuring a new "right" out of thin air with the actual amendments that abolished slavery and women's suffrage is to show a level of willful ignorance that proves us to no longer be worthy of the freedom to govern ourselves. "Religion" is not what the winsome lass ought be concerned about -- what 5 people in robes giveth, 5 people in robes can take away! Without respect to anything save raw power, and THAT is the power that definitely corrupts!

When we had a country called America, the authors concerns about "somebody's morals mattering" were pretty much correct -- it was LAW that mattered, and if you wanted a RIGHT, there was a LEGAL PROCEDURE to achieve that called a Constitutional Amendment.

What the author of the piece exhibits is a bigoted and poorly informed outlook with little ability to reason. It is no wonder -- our schooling has for the last 50-100 years been turning out robotic crowd following mental serfs with no concept of critical thought -- and often even no thought of doing even a Google on a fact or two rather than just making it up. Memes like this are driven by nothing deeper than knee jerk adherence to the mass "word of the day" in true Orwellian fashion.

"It made me feel good when I read it, so it MUST be true!".

So, if you see this noxious meme -- now you know a bit more of the truth. That such things can be taken seriously in this now lawless area of North America, formerly the USA, is yet another reason to wax nostalgic for the wisdom of our founders and the country we once had.

Lost Property, Kelo

Today’s Supreme Court decision in “Kelo vs The City of New London” isn’t really getting a lot of media play, but is a giant step for the left down the road of removal of property rights. The decision allows government to use the power of “Eminent Domain” to take property from private individuals and groups for “public good”. “Public good” is not now limited to roads, bridges, or civic buildings, but the property taken can be given to another individual for development simply because the government deems the new use to be for “greater good”. Higher property tax revenue was one of the “greater goods” listed.

While this ruling is horribly serious, and this site is serious as well, there is a little humor involved. http://www.freestarmedia.com/index.html has a pointer to a press release where guy named Logan Clements is moving to petition the town of Weare NH to allow him to build a hotel on the current site of Judge Souter’s home. The Hotel would have more tax revenue, and bring people into the community as tourists, which would be better for the community than the Judge’s home. Identical justification to that the city of New London used in it’s successful argument that the homes of Susette Kelo and others should be taken to make way for a Hotel and Office complex. The Hotel would be known as the “Lost Liberty Hotel”, and would contain the “Just Desserts” dining room. Rather than a Bible in each room, there would be a copy of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. Clements says it is “no hoax”, they really want to build a hotel.

The justices that voted for this one were Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer, and Kennedy. Kennedy was the “swing vote”. The fact that the left of the court went for this one shows that removal of property rights remains a part of their agenda. “Unlimited Government” is their consistent cry, and this decision provides them a huge lever. In many cases it will be the poor that suffer because tracts of housing where they live can be gobbled up by developers that will provide new uses that will be more lucrative for the city. One of the constant lies of the left about “caring for the poor” is exposed by this ruling. The left “cares” in the fact that they want to maintain a significant, and if possible, increasing number of poor, to vote democrat. Their real allegiance is however to unlimited government. If some poor folks are damaged and some rich folks benefited on the way to the removal of property rights and ever greater government control, then they accept that as part of the bargain.

Kelo allows local governments to take private property for what they deem to be “better use”. The potentials for abuse on MANY fronts are many, but here are two from opposite sides of the spectrum. There is a little town to the south here that has an adult book, movie, etc store that snuck in under zoning restrictions. What stops the local village from going in and taking the property and getting a developer to put a gas station or truckstop there? Nothing now. However, while I might applaud that action, what about a church (such as the one that I attend) that sits on prime real estate next to a park with great views and close to downtown? The church provides zero taxes to the community, a set of luxury condos could be a nice tax base. A whole other set of folks would applaud that action. Our founding fathers abhorred government having that kind of power because it encourages abuse. It took the 5^th amendment for there to be eminent domain at all, now we have the power released for whatever whim local governments may have.

The leftward legislative action of the court continues unabated, and sadly, Souter a Bush Sr appointee is consistently on the left. O’Connor and Kennedy regularly provide the swing votes. The media constantly calls THIS a “conservative court”, but rulings like Kelo show that to simply be a lie. Remember 2000? All the claims that O’Connor “elected Bush because she was going to retire”? Bush was going to be able to “stack the court” in even his first term? No vacancies, O’Connor is still there. Even if a very conservative judge is able to be confirmed and replace Rehnquist, we are no better off than today. It will take at least one, and likely two appointments beyond Rehnquist to simply stem the tide of new legislation from the bench, let alone have any sort of a chance to overturn some of this trash.

Fully Slouched

In finishing up Bork back to back with Zinn, and receiving back “What’s the Matter With Kansas” that I read last fall, I have some more general observations. My first is that to some degree, there must be something “middle of the road” with the USA since BOTH liberals and conservatives see a lot of problems. It would seem to be clear that nobody has successfully achieved anything like a complete rout, and the general 50/50 nature of today’s electorate would tend to bear that out.

“Kansas” has been a fairly darling book in liberal circles, so apparently they enjoy a non-stop whine from beginning to end that “anyone that votes on values rather than economics is an idiot”. It just took a lot of pages to say that over and over again and watch Thomas Franks (the author) shake his head and roll his eyes in text at the stupidity of the general population and inherent evil of the Republicans misleading the poor, backward, religious Kansans.

If Democrats really believe values issues are unimportant next to economics, they can quickly drop their stances on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools and obscenity. Once they made that “simple switch”, all the poor foolish Republicans would HAVE to vote for them on the economic issues, and since the values issues are a fools errand, the Democrats would have achieved it all without losing anything of “value”.

Of course, more and more people realize that it is business, not government that provides the jobs and economic growth. The idea that Democrats are going to “give you more” doesn’t necessarily follow from their PROMISES to give you more. One would have to not only “agree” with them that values are stupid, which is obviously lie #1, since they don’t really believe that for their values, it is just the opposite of their values that are stupid!

 Even assuming that belief, one would also need to believe that they would be able to follow through on providing more economically while at the same time tending strongly toward being anti-business. It is easy to see that guys like Franks are angry, what isn’t perfectly clear is if they are liars or just don’t get it. In the final analysis, it doesn’t matter … they aren’t likely to give up their side of the values issue, and their prospects for more goods to distribute are marginal as well.

Bork never mentioned Zinn, but Zinn mostly steps right up and agrees with everything that Bork has against the left. Zinn is happy to support the overthrow of the US Government, removal of standards from the university (they are all racist and capitalist anyway), increased violence and drug use (prisons are racist), the destruction of the family, the destruction of religion, and most of Bork’s other complaints. What our present state of education and media bias generally prevent is the masses realizing the true nature of people like Zinn. 

The media demonizes folks like Bork and sanitizes Zinn. In recent months, Fox news has gone after a few of the more egregious university charlatans … Ward Churchill being the most noxious, but for the general public it is unlikely that they have tumbled that for every supposed “devil” like Bork on the right, there are 100 like Churchill and Zinn that are indoctrinating the university students every day.

One of the major tasks comes down to dealing with the Supreme Court. If the two sides are just whining at each other about legislation, there is always the next election in which to change the tide and make the laws different. With abortion, and likely soon gay marriage, it takes enough of a shift in the court to overturn (or prevent) the court from changing the constitution and cutting off the ability of the people to govern themselves. The task of BOTH finding judges that are “conservative”, yet willing to overturn Roe is a daunting task on it’s own, but the likely 60 votes needed to get each of them through the Senate raises the bar even higher.

Despair is never a good option, and Bork walks perilously close at times. That is the biggest weakness of the book. It is true that having, maintaining, and restoring standards and morals are tough work, but most things that are worthwhile are. It is very possible to “slouch” to Gomorrah and a lot of other bad in life … those that don’t want to follow that route have to study, pray, and work very hard to counter our own and societies trend for forever slipping into greater entropy. It is a task we are equipped to handle, Bork gives a sober look at how hard the task really is.