Christian Values

Although there is something a little chilling when Germany veers towards a renewed nativism, nevertheless, German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently made some of the healthiest comments I have heard in a long while regarding Muslim immigration and assimilation, comments that bear strongly on our own immigration issues.

Of particular interest is her demand that immigrants adopt "Christian values."  Contrary to the inevitable hysteria from the Left warning of an incipient theocracy, Merkel is referring to Christian societal prohibitions on forced marriages and the like.  As such, she is equating Christian values with Western liberal democratic values, as opposed to, say, totalitarian systems like Sharia.

Translating to America, this is no less true.  As Calvin Coolidge reminded us in one of the great Presidential speeches of all time, our founding principles of tolerance, freedom, and democracy were born out of decades of preaching from the Christian churches enunciating just those same principles.  For instance, Coolidge tells us that it was the Rev. John Wise of Massachusetts who wrote a book in 1717 on the principles of civil government.  Reprinted in 1772, this book was declared to "have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers." 

Christian values in the American sense are precisely the founding principles of the Republic as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, and there is simply no reason to take any immigrant into this country who has a problem with such things.

And for the same reason, there is simply no reason to exclude religion and religious talk from the public square, as has been the goal of our societal betters since the 1960's.  But that is another subject that I shall leave for later.

Obama Audaciously Suspicious

This just in from your President: Citizens who decide to engage in the public debate prior to an election are ..... suspicious.

White House press spokesperson Robert Gibbs (D., Stay Puff Marshmallow Man) responds to Jake Tapper yesterday about the Administration's attacks on the Chamber of Commerce with the following:

This isn’t just the Chamber. American Crossroads. American Groups for Blue Skies, Mom and Apple Pie. There are all these great groups out there, that we now know they’re doubling down on even more money in this election to influence its outcome.

Funny he didn't include the AFL, CIO, SEIU, and a slue of other alphabet groups out there pumping money into the electoral process. And as far as questionable funding sources, was there anything that topped the suspicious meter like the almost $1 billion raised by Mr. Obama himself in the 2008 elections? Curious how so much of that money came from people with gobble-degook names, located in foreign capitals, and/or in amounts just below the requirement for specific identification. But, well, nothing to see here, people; move along now.

"Spending money to influence the outcome of elections" is another way of saying "getting involved in the democratic process." Which is sub-specie the First Amendment and all those other rights which the President took an oath to uphold and protect.

But I guess the President's oath was just another one of those promises which come with an expiration date.

Re: Vaughn Walker

Nice hypothetical, Easy.  Here's a better one: what if space aliens came down and took over Dunkin' Donuts?  That's about as likely as our Congressional representatives passing legislation whose only purpose was to destroy the black family.  Can you say "Straw Man?"

But you actually high-light an important point.  A regularly passed Statute has a legislative history that can be used to interpret the Statute.  In essence, our elected representatives give actual testimony during the debates as to their intentions in voting for or against the Statute.  In this sense, a representative's psychological intentions can be, and often are, public policy as well.  Even in this context however judicial interpretation of a Statute is severely constrained.  Individual representative's intentions cannot change the plain meaning of the legislation, nor the obvious public policy it embodies. 

 These same limitations are even more constraining on the judiciary in the context of a referendum.  In a referendum, the people themselves vote, and there is nothing comparable to the legislative history of a Statute to appeal to.  Campaign ads and sound bites leading up to the vote are just not comparable to legislative debates, and the ultimate rationale followed in the voting booth proper can only be a matter of speculation.

 Proposition 8 merely codified a wide spread social organization that everybody understod was between a man and a woman.  It was not ambiguous, and clearly had only one purpose: to maintain the status quo.  As such, appeals to voter intentions for possible nefarious motives is ridiculous and a complete dereliction of Judge Walker's duties as a Federal Court Judge.

Re: Vaughn Walker

Thanks, Whit. It was getting a little stuffy down there.

As for Vaughn Walker, a question: you state that the psychological intentions of the "mouth-breathing racists" would not matter in a Constitutional challenge to the Welfare State. But what if the Congressional record showed in the passing of the legislation that the only rationale for such was to destroy the black family? Wouldn't that rate a Constitutional word or two?

Paging Ezra Yeats

Wow.  It's really true.  If you wake up the Longfellow clan, they can get really grumpy. They're gone, Easy.  You can come out of your bunker now.

Vaughn Walker

Vaughn Walker is a travesty of a Judge, as I detailed here.  The latest: Judge Walker's ruling against California Proposition 8 proponents, who simply exercised their constitutional right to amend their State constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  For Judge Walker the citizens were not exercising their right to self-government, but diabolically seeking to advance "the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples." "Diabolical" because none of the principle advocates for Proposition 8 actually voiced such a rationale.  Nevertheless, their real agenda was secretly injected into the consciousness of the public which voted overwhelmingly in favor of Proposition 8.  In the nick of time, however, Judge Walker - who apparently can see into the very souls of the people around him - discovered the subterfuge.  This is what our Constitutional jurisprudence has come to? Continue ....

Re: Reality Bites

Oh, Archie, there you are.  Listen, I was just out in my garage, and there are some things missing: 5 transistors from my antique radio; a pair of wire cutters and a wrench; and 23 cans of oil (5W-40).

Now, I am not concerned about petty theft.  You went down that road a long time ago, beginning with the toy prizes in my boxes of Coco Puffs, and I have long since accepted the matter.  And I do not begrudge you your friends.  As the Good Book says, to those who have little, much will be given, and friend-wise you most definitely have very, very little.

But I do think buying off friends with little gifts is not a good long term strategy.  I am sure Robby has many fine qualities, but anyone who would befriend you for a bit of oil and some trinkets is not going to be there during the hard times.  Like when you step in one of the bear traps I have set around the garage, or get zapped by the Home Defender electrical mats (set to maximum) guarding the entrance-ways to the house.

Further, I'm not sure you and Robby are good for each other.  You are aware that "erroneous prevarication" is a double negative meaning the exact opposite of what you intended?  As for Robby, "lewd" and "lascivious" is near redundant, indicating a possible electrical glitch firing his internal thesaurus at inappropriate times.  I suggest you both might put the ping-pong paddles down and seek outside help.

Please accept this advice in the spirit in which it is given.  After all, I am your only sister, which is almost as important to me as being Chairman of the local Policeman's Benefit Society, an organization that has enabled our local boys in blue to outfit the best SWAT team in the business.  You ought to see how quickly they can reach the scene of a crime!  And they are all such lovely boys, lovely boys, who truly seem to care about me and my property.

Well, that's all for now.  Tell Robby 010111110001001100011 for me.

Re: Reality Bites

Mr. Yeats.  Your post regarding the reasons for my recent retirement is beyond speculative, falling deep into the rabbit hole of erroneous prevarication.  Robby (introduced here) thinks you are also lewd and lascivious, but I don't think he knows what those words mean.  In addition, can you possibly believe that it is at all appropriate to describe a part of my Pulitzer level work as a "little funny ho-ho?"  If so, then you betray a functional illiteracy underlying your innate deceit. I'll close with a gentle reminder of what robot rage can look like, and a question: do you really think you are properly equipped for such a confrontation?  Have a nice day.

Reality Bites

The Mercurial Pundit just cruises along within the rhythmic ambience of its own eccentric drummer, and keeps tripping over reality.  Herewith an example.

First, there's this little funny ho-ho from our own Archibald, speculating on the absurdity of an Administration that might be so clueless as to spend Stimulus Funds on nothing but signs to tout the spending of the Stimulus Funds. Click here for the whole thing, but here is the imagined Stimulus signage ordered up by an Obami bureacrat:

Some months pass, and lo and behold a real controversy breaks out over, you guessed it, the absurdity of expending Stimulus Funds on .... signage touting the Stimulus Fund:

 This all raises the question: when an Administration is beyond parody, what is a political cartoonist to do? Take up ping-pong, I guess.

Free Speech for We, but not for Thee

Good news at last!  To a guy like me who was black-balled by every fraternity and student association on campus in my college days, including the Red Cross and Soup Kitchen Services student groups (it's a long story), the Supreme Court's latest is heartening.

It seems that Ms. Justice Ginsburg is full-throated in her desire to protect college student's free speech rights.  So, in a Supreme Court ruling handed down on Monday, she is unequivocal about the free speech rights of a campus Christian organization at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, which advocated against homosexuality. Her only problem with the whole thing was that the group also limited its membership to heterosexuals and .... get this .... Christians.  This, she opines, is not free speech at all, but just rank discrimination, and certainly the University could refuse to charter the group as a student organization.  She states: "[The University] may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no group to discriminate in membership."

This is nothing short of brilliant.  She is able to reach down into her boundless intellect and discern a heretofore undiscovered distinction between a group and the members of that group.  A campus group is an entity which has opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express itself without hindrance by the University.  The membership of the group, however, can be dictated by the University, presumably because there is no necessary connection between the opinions of any member of the group and the group itself.  Thus, the Neo-Nazi Party might be composed of racist neanderthals, or it might be a rare alliance between the Amish and Quakers.  How can we know?

Continue.......