Going on the Offensive

Emmet Tyrell's latest article strikes a pretty aggressive tone.

The liberals hate the middle class. There, I said it, and I am glad. Once again I am a truth teller, in this case speaking truth to stone heads. So certain am I of the truth of my asseveration that I honestly doubt any liberal will take issue with me. Can you imagine a liberal coming forward and saying: "Wrong, Tyrrell! I love the middle class." Well, I guess I can imagine it, because liberals are effortless liars. Yet what specifically about the middle class might the liberals adduce to demonstrate their affection? The middle class' sobriety? Hard work? Love of country? Love of liberty?

This is pretty transperent. Actually I do admire any American who works hard, loves his country, and loves liberty. Unless of course what Tyrell means by loving liberty is that they are conservative. Which, of course is what he does mean.

"Look middle class, liberals hate you because you are so conservative," works great if the reader is conservative. I'm not sure it works if the middle class reader considers himself or herself moderate or liberal.

Proof of our hatred of the middle class is found in our disdain for Sarah Palin. I don't know many members of the actual middle class who can essentially quit their jobs because it's too difficult and then get paid hundreds of thousands to do a sporting show and to contribute to Fox News.

Personally I want to see the middle class grow and be more prosperous, and therefore I favor programs that will accomplish those goals. I also favor snake-oil salesmen like Tyrell being ignored.

Judges and Feelings

Mario Diaz's latest article really swings for the fences. Right out of the gate he references the Nazis, and then movs on to how liberals use their feelings and subjective morality to defend their actions.

Many policymakers hide behind the “don’t judge me” masquerade to avoid the gargantuan task of defending the foolishness they try to pass off as sensible policy.

If I were actually debating Diaz this would be the point where I would ask him "Who exactly are you talking about here? What lawmaker actually says "Don't Judge me" or some varient thereof in defense of his legislation?"

Diaz then moves on to Judicial activism with a basically hamhanded attack on judges for interpreting the law and the constitution.

All judicial philosophies are not created equal. The Constitution is one. It is what unites us all — Republican or Democrat. And we must stick to that standard.

There are very real consequences to the idea that a judge can make decisions based on what is in his heart.

As we've talked about before, the conservative argument against judicial activism presupposes that there is one right answer to judicial questions, and that right answer is the conservative interpretation. So for any judge to disagree with conservative judicial doctrine, he must be ignoring the Constitution and the Law.

Rational thought might lead one to the conclusion that if the Law and the Constitution were so clear and easy to understand there would be little need for Appellite Courts or Supreme Courts.

Resuming Transmissions

Apparently Immigration is going to be the issue of the next couple of weeks, what with Arizona's plan to crack down on illegal immigrants and Congress taking back up immigration reform. Naturally the writers at townhall are all over this.

Arizona has decided that if the federal government will not live up to its responsibility to control the border, it will. Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed a bill that allows police officers to inquire about a person's immigration status if there is reason to suspect that individual might be an illegal immigrant. The governor correctly noted that the new law "represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix."

The latest example of that failure is the Obama administration's refusal to finish the border fence begun with some reluctance by the Bush administration.

Cal Thomas

What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.

Pat Buchanan

So, why would anyone who actually wants to solve the problem suggest implementing a government policy that's already a proven failure? Of course, that's just it: What politicians want is more illegal workers to pad the bottom lines of businesses that give them campaign contributions and more potential voters for the Democratic Party. What they don't want is to fix the problem because they're worried about what's good for them personally, not what's good for the country.

John Hawkins.

So that's the argument of the week.

Salon's War Room has some thoughts on it too, saying it is a cynical but likely successful strategy.

For showing some political savvy, at least, the Democrats deserve some applause. With the election approaching and vulnerable incumbents -- not least Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of 25-percent-Latino Nevada -- getting nervous, putting immigration at the center of the national agenda seems to make a certain strategic sense. It's an issue that divides Republicans more than it does Democrats. Not to mention that, in the wake of Arizona’s new draconian anti-immigration law, getting behind reform is a way for the Democrats signal to Latino voters that at least one party is still friendly territory. Democrats are hoping that they can repeat the electoral gains them made off of California’s 1994 crackdown, Proposition 187. That confrontation helped drive Latino votes away from the GOP for years.

Democrats are probably right to think that another major showdown over immigration with an angry, out-of-power GOP will pay off, even though the bill will most likely not pass. That prospect has the conservative base freaked out about an issue of American national identity. And you know what that means: White people -- engage!

Makes sense to me. A debate on National Identity isn't going to hurt Democrats that bad, but should bring out the worst in conservatives/Republicans, and that's good for the party.

In which David Stokes Blames Obama for Stuff He's not Reponsible For

David Stokes latest article is about an anti-theist group (Freedom From Religion Foundation) that has filed a suit trying to make National Days of Prayer illegal. Apparntly it's past one legal hurdle. And who is reponsible? That's right. President Obama.

I would appeal to President Barack Hussein Obama today, to reach back beyond his Muslim, Marxist, and Liberation Theology (which is to real Christianity as anthrax is to sugar) roots and try to connect with his “inner-Lincoln.”

You see Lincoln declare National Days of Prayer, so Obama, loving Lincoln, should love them too.

A few points. First of all Obama isn't responsible for any of this. Granted he did fail to hold a ceremony on the National Day of Prayer, but Clinton never held one, and Reagan and George H. W. Bush held only one apiece in their terms of office. But this is a judge appointed by Carter, and a

He compounds his idiocy with the Muslim bit, incidentally. Just insulting and stupid, as he is throughout his article. Stokes would make a very predictable detective. "Who done it? Obama!"

Social Justice or The Bible Says what I want it to Say

Mark W. Hendrickson has written an article on Social Justice; he follows the Glen Beck mentality of opposing it.

The standard of biblical justice is equal treatment by law: “Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty” (Leviticus 19:15). Justice not only means that nobody is to be picked on because he is poor or favored because he is rich, but that (contrary to the doctrine of “social justice”) nobody is to be picked on because he is rich or favored because he is poor. Everyone’s rights deserve the same protection. Thus, nobody should be taxed at a higher rate than his neighbors, nor should anyone receive special government handouts.

So basically the Bible opposes modern liberalism; to be Biblical you need to support the flat tax and oppose welfare.

I think it's helpful here to define three terms, equal access, equal opportunity, and equal results.

Equal Access implies that everybody technically has the same access to societies benefits. Kids can go to college (if they can afford it), parents can by homes (if they can afford them), sick people can get medical care (if they can afford it) and so on.

Equal Opportunity does it's best to afford everybody the same tools to succeed. Thus a poor black kid who's talented should have access to the same educational system as a wealthy white kid.

Equal Results are of course everybody succeeds regardless of efforts or abilities - spreading success over that many people naturally implies that this success is pretty modest.

Hendrickson is going to stop at equal access, while accusing liberals of wanting equal results. This is because, protestations aside, he can't really conceive of economic injustice. If a poor black kid wants to go to college, he can work hard and earn the money to attend. If this ends up with a situation where wealthy and upper middle class white kids out number poor black and Latino kids 100 to 1, well that's the breaks. So long as it's theoretically possible for the poor to participate in societies benefits that's all that's required. And in fact, the Bible apparently mandates that we stop there.

I, on the other hand, favor equal opportunities. Or to put it another way, we as a society need to invest in all Americans not just those who have already succeeded (or who's parents have succeeded). This is more just and better policy. Yes you are always going to have people who don't try that hard or people who's capabilities aren't that great - but you will also have people who, under Hendrickson's preferred system will be lost, becoming solid and productive citizens.

The Pimp and the Prostitute

This is from Salon's War Room - apparently the story about James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles getting help from ACORN to set up a prostitution ring for underage girls has some significant holes in it. And Rachel Maddow pointed those out with a certain amount of glee.

Worth Looking at

Glenn Greenwald over at Salon has an article on this video that has been released by WikiLeaks. The video shows a helicopter crew opening fire on civilians, including a Rueters writer and photographer. It is clear from the tape that the helicopter crew believed them to be hostiles, and believed that the camera was an RPG. That said, it is pretty grim footage.

Hateful Words

Mike Adams latest article is about how hard it is to be a conservative on campus - as all of his articles are. In this particular case, he takes on a wall of hate tradition at his campus. Apparently there is a wall where people right hateful words and then spraypaint over them, symbolizing the desire to end those phrases. Well Adams thinks this is stupid - as he thinks any concerns by minority students are stupid.

You might think that Adams thinks that minority students are stupid, but I think that's not quite accurate. If a black, gay, or female student was careful to agree with Adams he'd be fine with him or her.

Anyway - even though he clearly thinks it's stupid, he intends to participate to illustrate how stupid it is, and how racist and bigoted everybody but him is.

I think the Black Student Union should change its name to something not only more sensitive but more accurate. Personally, I prefer the Union of African Students for Segregation (U-ASS). In my view, if you need to segregate yourself on the basic of race U are an ASS. And you are probably a racist.

. . . Gay. Let’s just use the term “sodomite.” They are way too angry to be called “gay.” Plus, I’d like to be able to once again use the term “gay” without having people think about sodomy.

Yeah - Adams is a class act.

Earlier he comments on homophobia - a phrase he and most of the right wing hates. You see Adams and many on the right wing want liberals and homosexuals to seriously consider their position that homosexuality is a sin and should be formarly persecuted by society. And if they just thought about it seriously, well gays would probably agree that they should be persecuted. But even if they disagree with that proposition, they should still be happy to share the public forum with who are arguing in favor of their persecution.

At least that's how Adams seems to look at it.