So, how exactly were your words twisted, pastor?
How can you possibly justify calling the United States “the U.S. of K.K.K. A,” blaming the U.S. government for the spread of AIDS among African-Americans, and asserting that Americans bore some responsibility for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th (i.e., “America’s chickens are coming home to roost”)?
There’s no need to “paint” you as a “some sort of fanatic,” Rev. Wright. Your own words do that for you.
They’re inextricably intertwined with the anti-population, proabortion left.
How many times have you heard some toad-licking agrarian socialist of the modern day refer to FOX News as “propaganda” or “biased” and then pirouette and insist that CNN or CBS News is a bastion of objectivity?
But it’s o.k. because he’s Catholic, right?
Bill Maher should be roundly condemned for such vile bigotry.
This is a perfect example of how to give someone a serious beat down without sullying yourself in the process:
I worked at the American Spectator during Brock’s final months there, and the thing that has always impressed me about him was that he wouldn’t know a principle if it hit him in the facebut he had a remarkable ability to convince people to give him money. In the early 1990s, after his Anita Hill and Troopergate stories, if memory serves, he got the Spectator to agree to a three-year, $500,000 contract — an unheard of amount of money for a magazine of that type. He then made good investments in real estate in Georgetown and the Delaware beaches. Then he got the Spectator to pay for researchers to help him write the book on Hillary Clinton that allowed him to work his way into Mrs. Clinton’s circle of operatives. Later, when he publicly turned left, Brock convinced a number of Democratic donors to put up money for Media Matters for America. I remember Suzy Tompkins Buell, a loyal 527 donor, telling me that Brock had won her over with his impassioned recounting of his time in the conservative world and his call for donations to fight right-wing media misinformation. And now, Brock has won over the big kahuna of Democratic outside groups, George Soros himself. I think too often conservatives viewed Brock as simply a traitor — not that there is anything inaccurate about that — but failed to see that his real talent was as a fundraiser and businessman.
You can hear Professor Epstein interviewed about his 2006 book, How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution, via this link.
One of my Facebook friends left this comment on a mutual friend’s “wall” in response to his decision to join a McCain Facebook group:
Did you know McCain can’t comb his own hair?
Not wanting to start a flame war on my friend’s wall, I privately emailed the commenter as follows:
You might have trouble combing your hair as well if you had been tortured for five years.
While it is true that the “colonial era has passed,” the colonial Constitution is still with us. You may recall that “we the people” entered into a compact of sorts vis-a-vis this Constitution, and agreed to certain terms. We also recognized certain natural rights “retained” by the people, some of which were enumerated. One of those rights was to right to “bear arms.” And while I understand that you and others like to think that there is a case to be made for viewing the Second Amendment as a collective-based right (i.e., that the people only have the right to own guns as members of a militia), no legal scholar worth his salt really believes that to be the case. Heck, even Larry Tribe has conceded the obvious. But why take his word for it. Let’s see what Justice Joseph Story has to say on the matter, shall we?:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
If you’re really interested in delving into the original understanding of the Second Amendment, you can, of course, read the D.C. Circuit Court’s marvelous majority opinion in Heller (or the corresponding Supreme Court briefs), but I think you and I both know how the evidence stacks up.
But as you concede, this really isn’t about law; it’s about policy.
You also use your post to make a broader point:
And that leads to one of my broader criticisms of American conservatism — from the Progressive era on through to today. Certain strands of American conservative thought have never quite come to terms with the realities of modern life — and more specifically, with the shift to industrialization and urbanization. The failure to look at modernity squarely in the face is particularly evident in law, but extends to non-legal contexts as well.
To repeat, the broader point is that several strands of conservative jurisprudence seem to assume a world that doesn’t exist anymore. Specifically, they assume a world where urbanization and industrialization hasn’t happened.
Your point, of course, leads me to my broader criticism of penumbra lovers. The legal left has never come to terms with the fact that we have a Constitution that has a static meaning; one that is fixed in time except to the extent that meaning is changed by way of a constitutional amendment. It may very well be that “modernity” requires us to rethink some constitutional provisions, perhaps even the Second Amendment. And that is exactly why the framers/founders provided us with a little thing I like to call “Article V.”
You see Publius, I don’t have a problem with your opposition to the original meaning of the Second Amendment on policy grounds. That’s cool by me. We can still drink bourbon together, and discuss how wrongheaded your worldview is on just about everything. No. What troubles me is that you and other liberals believe that the policy goals you desire can and should be accomplished in a countermajoritarian fashion (i.e., by judicial fiat).
I also find it interesting that when my liberals friends are confronted with a constitutional provision they don’t approve of on policy grounds, like say the Second Amendment, they all of the sudden become enchanted with federalism, and start singing “it takes different strokes to rule the world.” But you see, every so often, dear Publius, that ol’ incorporation doctrine can come back to bite you in the arse.
One other thought before I conclude. Let’s say, for the sake of a Supreme Court Fantasy League, that Publius is right, and that the collective-right view of the Second Amendment is indeed plausible. Let’s also say that this is the understanding of the amendment adopted by the Supreme Court in Heller. Then what?
Does this mean that I and other citizens have a constitutional right to form a militia like those that existed during the colonial age? One independent of the State hierarchy or its control? Because if that’s the case, then I am definitely down with that. I strongly suspect, however, that this understanding of the Second Amendment would also be frowned upon by our liberal friends. ”Times are different. Ignore the text of the Constitution. Blah. Blah. Blah.”
But surely our liberal friends are not suggesting that the Second Amendment is superfluous. But if not, then what rights do they believe the Second Amendment affords Americans?
[Cue crickets chirping]
*Oh, and fwiw Publius, I do agree with you that the HBO series on John Adams is most excellent.
Update: Publius responds in an update to his original post. In a nutshell, he sticks to his belief that there remains “a indeterminacy problem” with the Second Amendment. I respectfully dissent from this viewpoint. When one considers the text, history, and structure of the Second Amendment, there can be no question but that the amendment was meant to recognize and protect an individual right to bear arms.
Oh, and Publius, I am still waiting for your response to my question as to the impact/application of a collective-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. What would this mean for Americans as a practical matter? I know how keen you are on consequences, so I am curious as to how one would be able to exercise his Second Amendment rights if those rights were collective, rather than individually held. Would such an interpretation permit Americans to form local militia groups that operate independently from the federal or state governments? I am just curious whether you and other legal liberals are taking the “ink blot” approach to the Second Amendment.
Update II: Klerk weighs in over at COA Review.
When I am not blogging here or at RedState, I occasionally blog at another group blog, Vox Nova, dedicated to addressing various and sundry Catholic issues. I think it is fair to say that Vox Nova is a left-leaning blog, but, to my co-bloggers’ credit, they invited me on to provide a different, more conservative perspective.
Well, recently, there was some discussion at Vox Nova over Reverend Wright’s disgraceful comments about our great republic, with several commenters defending those vile statements, along with a few of my co-bloggers. And it will come as no surprise to y’all that many of these folks are also big-time Obama supporters.
So, I thought to myself: I wonder what would happen if I published a simple post with an image of the American Flag and the lyrics to God Bless America, and nothing more. Well, the result is nothing short of remarkable; and it is hardly atypical. These folks really loathe their own country.
This is nothing new, of course, but it always amazes me when I see it up close and personal.
I’d expect nothing less from a country that thinks David Hasselhoff is a rock star.
“You’re an uneducated dumbass.”*
Thanks for showing us what you really mean when you say that you ”support our troops,” senator.
You’re all class.
*For those of you who don’t have sound on your computer, Senator Kerry did not actually use these words. The “quote” is my translation of what he said.
Update: Malkin is all over Kerrygate.
John Kerry: The gift that keeps on giving.
Peggy Noonan on the “tolerant” left:
Let us be more pointed. Students, stars, media movers, academics: They are always saying they want debate, but they don’t. They want their vision imposed. They want to win. And if the win doesn’t come quickly, they’ll rush the stage, curse you out, attempt to intimidate.
And they don’t always recognize themselves to be bullying. So full of their righteousness are they that they have lost the ability to judge themselves and their manner.
And all this continues to come more from the left than the right in America.
Which is, at least in terms of timing, strange. The left in America–Democrats, liberals, Bush haters, skeptics of many sorts–seems to be poised for a significant electoral victory. Do they understand that if it comes it will be not because of Columbia, Streisand, O’Donnell, et al., but in spite of them?
What is most missing from the left in America is an element of grace–of civic grace, democratic grace, the kind that assumes disagreements are part of the fabric, but we can make the fabric hold together. The Democratic Party hasn’t had enough of this kind of thing since Bobby Kennedy died. What also seems missing is the courage to ask a question. Conservatives these days are asking themselves very many questions, but I wonder if the left could tolerate asking itself even a few. Such as: Why are we producing so many adherents who defy the old liberal virtues of free and open inquiry, free and open speech? Why are we producing so many bullies? And dim dullard ones, at that.
I am sure this idea will fare at least as well as left-wing talk radio, which has been a smashing success.
Professor Kerr has the details on Hahvahd’s plans to do just that. Now, I am well aware that the Hahvahd folks could care less what some country lawyer thinks about this idea, but fwiw I am all for it.
I do, however, have a few minor suggestions that I would like to offer up for consideration. Why not break the first year of law school down in the following manner:
First Semester:
The Constitutional Debates: Examining the debates from the federal and state constitutional conventions.
Constitutional text, structure, and history
It’s not in there!: Imagined constitutional rights, penumbras, judicial activism, and the “Prego” Constitution.
Statutory Interpretation & Textualism
Federalism & States’ Rights
Second Semester:
Originalism and the jurisprudence of Justice Clarence Thomas
Ignoring legislative history, the common law, and stare decisis
Justice Kennedy: Worst supreme court justice ever?
The Bork nomination and the politicization of the judicial nomination process by the legal left
The Nondelegation doctrine
In July, San Francisco Police Officer Nick Birco was killed in the line of duty. You can read about his sacrifice here. Apparently, in typical liberal fashion, the SF media heaped criticism on the department over its pursuit policy rather than condemning the behavior of a fleeing felon.
In this press conference, SF Police Association President Gary Delagnes gives the media the business and points out the judicial failings that led to this tragedy. Simply outstanding.
Mocking the global war on terror. Now there’s a winning strategy for regaining national power.
I think I’m going to have to suggest to Mark Shea that he rename the Democratic Party, “The Evil and Stupid Party.”
(LvC&EI!)
Update: The vile and racist image that has since been removed from the linked-to post can be viewed here.
Update II: Firedoglake-kool-aid drinkers to Jane “Trent Lott is my secret lover” Hamsher: “We loved that image! Way to go! Why is everyone so politically correct these days?! Joe Lieberman is the Devil!”
Oh, and talk about your non-apology apologies. Here’s Ms. Hamsher’s:
I sincerely apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended by the choice of images accompanying my blog post today on the Huffington Post.
Translation: “I am truly sorry if any of you hypersensitive idiots are too stupid to get what I was attempting to convey with racist imagery.”
And as one might expect, Malkin is on the case.
While I am certainly no fan of Bill O’Reilly, I agree that Olbermann’s characterization of him as a Nazi is outrageous.
A pompous windbag? Yes. A Nazi? Not even close.
A poster at the Democratic Undergound shows us the results of an experiment involving concrete slabs and rabbit-cage wire that tries to prove that the WTC didn’t collapse due to planes hitting them.
Well, there you go. The whole Bush/Rove/Neo-con scheme to instigate a war as been revealled at last!
(via Expose the Left).
Update: She got fired. Good. Here’s hoping that she never works in academia again.
That’s the charming title of a Daily Kos diary by “edencho” (real name Ed Encho) in which the author expresses a thoughtful critique of the culture and politics of the denizen’s of the South. Here’s a taste:
Given the regressive hostility of the south and the willingness of the Republican party to capitalize on southern desire to drag the country back to the good ole’ days of Jim Crow, religious intolerance and a gross renunciation of intellectualism is only too deserving of a descriptive term from days past be resurrected for these folk and that word is PECKERWOOD
A peckerwood is a rural white southerner, usually poor, undereducated or otherwise ignorant and bigoted, the term gained popularity in the deep south during the early twentieth century and was meant to be derogatory. It is a reversal of the name of the red bellied woodpecker which had a patch of red on the back of it’s head and neck, therefore a peckerwood is a redneck, terms that describe similar groups of people are trailer trash or white trash but neither of those have the same effect or ring to them as peckerwood does.
Such a wonderful display of leftist open-mindedness and compassion. Rhetoric like that is surely going to help “progressives” make in-roads in the land of Dixie.
Seriously speaking, this guy’s a hate-monger and as we “peckerwoods” say in hinterlands, “someone ought to learn him some manners”. Also, judging from the comments on that diary there’s a lot of lefties who agree with him (In fairness, there are some left-leaning commenters that are very critical of Mr. Encho’s bile-filled diatribe, though they do seem to be in the minority).
via The Corner and DonkeyCons
The Chicks can’t hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. “A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do,” says Robison.
“A lot of pandering started going on, and you’d see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism.”
“The entire country may disagree with me, but I don’t understand the necessity for patriotism,” Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. “Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don’t see why people care about patriotism.”
Yes, Natalie, it’s hard to understand why Americans would want to rally their countrymen in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy. What were we thinking? And patriotism? Man, that stuff is for the birds. It’s not like this country came into existence because of patriotism, right?
Powered by WordPress
