The American Thinker on the Danger to American Civilization

I'll just let this stand by itself:

The barbarians we need to fear aren't just bearded monsters from the Middle East. The biggest threat to our civilization comes from our own elite universities that once preserved and extended it. The insane siege engine they've built is a rickety contraption of lies, distortions, and manipulations that tirelessly assaults our foundations with myths and superstitions.

The American Thinker on Unchecked Executive Power

The whole article is worth reading, and I strongly recommend you do so. Here's the end:

Never in the history of man has a government with highly centralized powers and minimal checks and balances ended well. Today, the executive branch in the USA has the power to do almost anything it wants. The legislature is all but powerless, having ceded all their authority to the executive-appointed bureaucracy. The judicial branch is still alive and kicking feebly, but the death or retirement of one conservative justice will put a stop to that. The law enforcement political appointees have become arbitrary in their enforcement of the law and politically motivated. Never has America faced such troubling times. All of this has been accomplished slowly and cautiously to avoid raising the alarm, because the powers involved definitely do not want to raise that alarm.

The only weapon left against the rise of the autocracy is the light of truth. If the vast majority of Americans, your neighbors and coworkers, knew all of this was going on, they wouldn't stand for it. Constitutional amendments would be passed, politicians would be dismissed, and corrupt politicians would be tried and jailed. We can only hope that the sword of truth can yet prevail. However, there is not much time left, and it is time we get to work in earnest.

My caveat: rather a lot of Americans simply either do not want to know the truth, or do not care to make even a minimal effort to discover it, or even listen when it is explained to them. They are pathetically consumed with whatever sort of vapid, mass-market entertainment happens to catch their fancy at the moment.

From The American Thinker on the First Amendment

The confusion arises from the different methods of reading the Constitution. Spitzer is relying, as most lawyers and politicians do, on case law ruled on by myriad judges and justices taking into account precedent and stare decisis. Loesch is relying on a literal reading of the same document where clear sections have been litigated out of use. In this case, the part of the First Amendment which reads: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Tea Partiers, like Loesch, see that for what it is, an administrative omission, a tactical obliteration without taking the necessary steps to amend the amendment.

"Prohibiting the free exercise thereof," would seem to mean exactly that. Due to the fact that this phrase comes after the non-establishment clause, it would seem to clarify the meaning. In essence, since the federal government cannot establish a religion, it also does not prohibit the free exercise thereof. The federal government cannot hinder one's free exercise of their religion, i.e. not in the classroom, the jury box, the bench, or the museum for that matter. In fact, it would seem that such places in government are expressly prohibited from limiting that freedom, whereas some private organization might indeed prohibit religious expression.

The part of the amendment that Spitzer is focusing on is the non-establishment clause, but it has not been made clear what "establishment" means. To a literalist, like Loesch, establishment means to create a Church of the United States, just as there was a Church of England, in which taxes were raised to provide a budget for the church. Theoretically, a citizen could be made to attend, contribute and even pray. Freedom from the Church of England was a motivating factor in the development of America, so it is quite clear to the average intellect that the founding fathers would not like to create the same monster on the new shore. Far from trying to exclude religion from government, even a cursory reading of the works of George Washington or Benjamin Franklin would lead one to believe that specifically the Christian religion was integral to the soul of the new union, not banished from it as Spitzer apparently believes.

I've an old post on the subject, in need of a little revision, that I've been meaning to put up again. I suppose I shall have to get 'round to it sometime soon. For now, suffice to say that it is absurd to think that the Congress that framed the First Amendment had any intention of establishing a sort of atheism-by-default approach to government. Their passage of the Northwest Ordinance, alone, is sufficient proof of that, even without taking into account multitudinous other proofs.

From The American Thinker

Thought a few might enjoy this brief snip. By all means, go and read the whole thing:

In this entire world of mankind's grand political ideals, only one path is unique. Only one path is truly radical, in the sense that it seeks to look at human nature and the human condition at the root and to transform the entrenched power structures from that root.

In magnificent linguistic irony, it is conservatives who seek to weaken and undermine the systems of unearned, entrenched, and corrupt privilege. Nowadays, such privilege is concentrated in the halls of government, whose employees enjoy twice the average salaries and better benefits and retirement than those in the private sector (and whose officials escape consequences for their abuses of power).

So it's true: we are radicals. Our founding principles -- the vision of our Declaration of Independence and the structure of law based on practical idealism contained in our Constitution, ideals which are consistent with human nature and which transformed the ancient principles of human government at the root -- are the most radical political principles in existence today.

A Truly Excellent Post on Government Health Care

The whole post is good. Please read it.

Money quote:

If you allow yourself to be dragged into discussions about effectiveness, or the lack thereof, of various public options -- you have fallen into the trap of having a discussion about how best to "fix" the "system."

No.

You do not want a health care "system." If the "system" is broken, you do not want to fix it or tinker with it. You do not want to give away the argument to your opponents that a system -- albeit a better-operating system -- is what we all desire.

No.

What we desire is liberty. The freedom to choose. Domain over our own bodies. Our selves.

That is what America stands for. That is what the first Americans fought and died for. It is the very essence of the American character. And it is what these people will destroy if they bring in public health care.

Hat tip to the inimitable Tyson Wynn.