I won’t hold my breath waiting for the SNL folks to mock Caroline Kennedy like they did Sarah Palin.

My buddy Leon Wolf of RedState sends this gem along:

In the course of arguing that Obama should not allow Warren to give the invocation[, People for the American Way notes]:
 
“He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right’s big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.”

As a result of talking a lot to students this past semester about the financial meltdown and related metastasis of the feddle guvmint, I’ve pulled together nine easily accessible articles to help people understand the shape we’re in (i.e., cheerleading for ever-larger government).  If you’re interested, click here.  (Civil comments welcome.)

Sounds just like the response you get from Obama supporters on how exactly Mr. Hopenchange will usher in the new utopia on Earth:

(h/t The Canadian Republic)

Short Answer: We freak them out.

Oh, and please do take some time to read the comments. It’s quite the experience.

Social scientists are learning that conservatives have more of a sense of humor than liberals do.

(May I suggest they focus their further researches here, here, and here?)

True or false: Liberalism is the latest fad for many evangelicals.*

Discuss.

*And before anyone says anything, yes the Catholic Church has liberals o’ plenty. But that’s hardly newsworthy, now is it?

Update: Just so we’re clear, the purpose of this post is not to bash evangelicals or to question their Christianity. As I have stated time and time again, I consider evangelicals to be my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I am not in the least bit interested in refighting the reformation on this blog. 

So what is the purpose of this post, fedster? Well, I’ve recently noticed (via Facebook) that several of my evangelical college buddies, who used to be very conservative in their theology and politics, have drifted left over the years, and I am trying to figure out whether this is indicative of a larger trend in evangelical circles or is merely a passing fad. Hence the reader roundtable.

Excellent cartoon.

The Obama Campaign has recently adopted a truly frightening tactic in Missouri. Obama’s campaign is assembling a group of sympathetic prosecutors and law enforcement agents to “target” anyone they think is lying or misleading the public about Obama and his positions. If this intimidation tactic didn’t smack of fascism by its very nature, the title of this group, The Barack Obama Truth Squad, should dispel any lingering doubts. You can watch a local news report about the group here.

The brazen nature of Obama’s ploy is amazing. There is only one reason why Obama would want to assemble a “Truth Squad” comprised solely of prosecutors and law enforcement agents: he wants to quash all dissent through naked intimidation. If all Obama wanted was volunteers to engage the public and challenge the assertions of the opposing candidate he could do so with anyone. But that is not what Obama wants. He wants people with a badge, gun, and/or the power to prosecute going after anyone that says something critical of of the Obamessiah. I find it amazing that liberals will go in to spasms of rage over supposed threats to civil liberties in The Patriot Act (a law designed to stop terrorists) yet have no problem with the “Truth Squad’s” attempt to crush political dissent.

At least the Governor of Missouri gets it. Read his statement here.

Talk about liberal fascism. Sieg Heil, Big Smile.

Democracy for America takes the low, low road.*

*DMA was founded by Howard Dean.

You stay classy, Charlie.

Remember Paul Hackett? He ran for Congress in Ohio back in 2005, and lost a close election in a strongly Republican district.

So, what is ol’ Hackett up to these days? Why he’s blogging over at Daily Kos, of course, and offering up advice to Ohio dems on how to put the state back in play for Obamamessiah:

The message is simple and the professionals can refine it but essentially it should contain these elements:

“Sarah Palin?  Can’t keep her solemn oath of devotion to her husband and had sex with his employee.  Sarah Palin? Accidentally got pregnant at age 43 and the tax payers of Alaska have to pay for the care of her disabled child.  Sarah Palin? Unable to teach her 16 year old daughter right from wrong and now another teenager is pregnant. Sarah Palin? Can you trust Sarah Palin and her values with America’s future?  John McCain? Divorced from his first wife one month and marries a billionaire influence peddler and convicted felon.  John McCain, a record of rash and impulsive decisions.  That’s not change that’s more of the same.  

You stay classy, Paul Hackett.

Courtesy of Morning’s Minion, who has publicly endorsed radical proabort Barack Obama for president:

Why is [being normal] a virtue? Sorry, but I’m a proud elitist, and believe we should defer to those with superior educational qualifications or expertise. So while I like and respect the ladies at my local supermarket, I would not deem them appropriate candidates for the vice presidency. If you want to praise her, please find some reason other than her being “ordinary”.

Translation: “People like me should be running the show. Defer to your elitist overlords now! You stupid, middle-class rubes!”

Now, in fairness to MM, I agree there are some positions that, by the very nature, require “superior educational qualifications or expertise.” But I don’t think one has to have attended Harvard to be president. And exactly what experience prepares one to be president anyway? Bill Clinton recently noted that no one is really ready to be president, and I suspect he’s right about that. What I generally look for in a president is executive experience, sound judgment, and a moral center. You can have all of the “book learnin’” in the world, and still lack a moral compass.

And as between a Harvard radical/Catholic proabort pol ticket and a War Hero/Alaskan hockey mom ticket, I’ll choose the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

And the dems wonder why some Americans question their patriotism.

Update: The article has been updated, and the dems are denying that they intended to throw the flags out. You can read the updates and conclude for yourself whether you believe their explanation.

The leftists just can’t help themselves, can they?

(LvMark)

In better days, this jackass would be paid a visit by the local Knights of Columbus.

I consider myself a die hard cynic, but I never envisioned the day when the phrase “Republican” would mean the opposite of what it meant in 1980. Thank you California for showing me that even I can dream.

Professor Douglas Kmiec: Obama cultist, traitor, and (now) penumbra lover.

(LvTOF)

You know, the libs really do have no shame whatsoever. They nominate the most proabortion politician in the history of these United States, and then have the audacity to run an ad like this:

Unbelievable.

Michael Gerson has the details:

At an event designed to further mutual religious sympathy, two of the panelists — including the president of Yale University, Richard Levin — casually asserted that religious Americans who support pro-life restrictions on international family planning aid are as doctrinaire and exclusionary as Saudi extremists. Pro-life Catholics and evangelicals? Wahhabi extremists? What’s the difference?

Clearly, mutual religious sympathy has a ways to go in places such as Yale.

(LvRamesh)

And when they ran out of kool-aid, Obama made more with a swish of his mighty hand.

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?

(more…)

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.

Dearest Publius:

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.