Search This Blog
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Is “separation of church and state” a good metaphor for the religious freedom clause of the first amendment?
Following my post The Jefferson and Danbury Baptist Correspondence, I received the following comment from someone with the "blogname" of Doug Indeap.
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they've discovered the smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Here is my reply:
Thank you for your response. It would help if it did not begin with a condescending attitude about those who believe that the Supreme’s decision with regard to religious expression is wrong. You state that “That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there…” If I wanted to be as snarky as your beginning, I would say that the people who appeared to believe that included the students at Widener University who reacted with derision when Christine O’Donnell said that the phrase was not in the constitution. So yes, those who may once have labored under the impression that it was there were a room full of law students; but that does not include not me or anyone else that I know.
With that out of the way, let’s get to your points. Despite the fact that you describe Jefferson’s phrase as a metaphor for the entire religious freedom clause of the first amendment, you appear to want to shift the focus of the Supreme’s decision from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. I don’t blame you because as I pointed out, it’s a very weak reed indeed. The fact is that Jefferson was not a Christian; in fact he was described as a Deist, someone who believes in a God that created the universe and then abandoned it. So for him to offer to wall religion off from government was no sacrifice on his part.
Madison is a different matter. Keeping in mind that he lived in a time when most nations had established churches that were supported by the government. He was determined that this would not happen in the US. For that reason he was very scrupulous about efforts to provide government financial support to ecclesiastical groups. In the reading you referenced he was concerned not just about having the government pay for chaplains – saying that
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt
Note what he does not say: that there should not be some form if religious observance if members want it, simply that it should not be paid for from the treasury. Need I note that his admonition was not heeded to this day?
And to show how much of a creature of his time he was, let me quote from some more of his writing from the same source:
Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity…
I repeat, neither the courts nor the congress have followed his advice. At a time when the Supreme Court is composed solely of Catholics and Jews, Madison’s concerns are quaint.
The current House chaplain is Catholic; there are Muslim Congressional Jummah Prayer Services and a Weekly Torah Study. We have gotten far beyond Madison’s concerns and, I repeat, we are still paying for chaplains without becoming a theocracy or having an established church. While I respect Madison’s concerns in view of what he was accustomed to regarding established religions, his concerns were not acted upon by congress and the courts and, despite this, our country did not descend into religious warfare or become a theocracy. Yet somehow, two hundred years later, with established churches in Europe dying for lack of membership, American courts decided that mangers in the public square were a dangerous step on the way to an official “Church of America” paid for by your tax dollars and mine.
You begin your final admonition on a hopeful note
Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted.
Ah, there is the rub, isn’t it. What are “these principles?” Let’s look at the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Can we agree that these are “first principles,” not a metaphor? Can we then go from the general to the specific? For nearly 200 years this amendment was used to insure that the US did not “establish” an official religion in the way that other countries did. It was also used to make sure that no one was prohibited from exercising his right to practice whatever faith he had. Somehow in the middle of the 20th century it was determined by the Supremes that exercising the right to proclaim one’s religion in certain venues of the public sphere was illegal. People who say that the wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor for “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” never get around to mentioning that “free exercise” part of the amendment.
Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
There you go again; now religious people are unpatriotic. I thought that dissent was the highest form of patriotism, or is that only the case when your side is out of power?
I know of no serious political figure one who wishes to undercut our government’s neutrality between religions and to establish a state religion. But just as our government is not supposed to side with one religion over against another, neither is it supposed to side with secularism over against religion. That would not only strike a blow against the plain statement of the first amendment, but it would also put the government at odds with most Americans who profess, in one way or another, a religious faith. It is no more right to make the government act in preference to one particular religious denomination than it is to refuse to act simply because a law is informed by religion. To insist that religion should be excluded from consideration in political issues is unrealistic. Religion forms the ethical basis for a great many people. It is simple religious bigotry to insist that only secular morality is a legitimate basis for law.
If there is one lesson to be learned from the Tea Party movement it’s this: you can only kick the American people to the side so often, deride their beliefs for so long, before they decide that they will not take it anymore. Absurd claims of protecting religious liberty which are used in an Orwellian sense to stifle legitimate and historic religious expression are only going to be ignored for so long. The general population of any country is mostly content to be left alone and avoid political conflict. But when they believe they are being oppressed they will eventually react, first with silent grimness, then with anger. And a ruling class that ignores this anger is in danger of a reaction for which they are not prepared. You may recall another one of Jefferson’s well known comment about watering the tree of liberty, another interesting and memorable metaphor.
Is anyone surprised? Not any more. This is what the desperate survivors who are still clinging to the wreckage of the good ship "MSM" do.
The following voice mail message was inadvertently left on the cell phone of Joe Miller campaign spokesperson Randy DeSoto.
The voices are believed to be those of the news director for CBS Anchorage affiliate KTVA, along with assignment editor Nick McDermott, and other reporters, openly discussing creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller.
... The call failed to disconnect properly. It was later authenticated by McDermott, who sent a text to Randy DeSoto stating, “Damn iPhone… I left you a long message. I thought I hung up. Sorry.”
The local Democrat propaganda sheet, the Virginian Pilot rehearses all the Democrat talking points via their editorial and op-ed pages in today's dead tree version. The theme is the Donks message is: do you want to go back to those horrible days of Bush/Cheney?
- You mean the days when unemployment stood at 4%?
- You mean the days when the first lady was proud of her country before her husband was nominated?
- You mean days before your taxes were scheduled to go up by the largest tax increase in history?
- You mean the days before ObamaCare was rammed through congress causing your employer to drop your health care plan?
- You mean the days when you could disagree with the president without somebody calling you a racist?
- You mean the days when every rally had pictures of Bush with a Hitler mustache and the media agreed?
You mean those days, those horrible days?
Remember to vote on November 2. Your vote will repudiate not just the Left in congress, but their allies in the media. The people who you can reach out and touch by contacting their advertisers and telling them that every penny they spend in that paper, that cable or broadcast show is blow against your ever doing business with them.
There is no going back; there never is. And that's not a bad thing. We have seen one future and its devastating effect on our lives and on our country. We now have the opportunity to chart a new course, having the experience of what it means to go badly wrong.
Friday, October 29, 2010
From Roger's Rules:
Back in September 2008, Brit Hume provided this timeline about FannieMae, FreddyMac, and the great economic collapse. Who was warning about the financial soundness of those institutions? Who reassured us — as late as the summer of 2008 — that they were “fundamentally sound”? This is a video that Sean Bielat, who is running against Barney Frank in Massachusetts (donate here), should air repeatedly until November 2.
Pat Buchanan was roundly and universally criticized for referring to a “culture war” way back in 1992. Can there be any doubt today that he was right? No one would dare to use the term today, but – just to use one example - what do you call the clash between people who, aware of the war we are in, express concerns about meeting Muslims on planes and those who call those who express those concerns racists bigots? What do you call the chasm between those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and those who believe that definition represents homophobia?
The last president who represented the views of Middle America was Ronald Reagan. Bush-1 wasn’t; he could not wait to shed his presidency of Reagan’s cultural conservatism. His “thousand points of light” was a way to say that he was more culturally enlightened than Reagan. Of course Clinton wasn’t even close to being a cultural conservative. The first act of his administration was to open the military to homosexuals; later pulled back under furious assault from the military and the country to “don’t ask don’t tell.” And Bush-2, despite his avowed Christianity, focused like a laser beam on the war; letting stand all the bastions that liberalism gained in the past.
Obama represents the Liberal side of the culture war on steroids. He’s a true 60s radical animated by all the beliefs and hates that energized the Left during that time. He’s the Left side of the culture war in distilled and purified form. And that’s what the Tea Party movement is about; it’s Middle America mobilized because the troops that were supposed to represent their side were too weak, too dispirited … in fact many had switched sides like the ladies from Maine, Arlen Specter, Mike Castle and many, many more. Do you really expect Orrin Hatch to lead anyone’s charge against the encroaching Nanny State or the next assault on traditional values found in the penumbras and emanations of the constitution?
Tuesday's election, too, will be no embrace of the GOP, but rather a repudiation of what Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have come to represent. All are seen as power-hungry politicians of an out-of-touch regime that is seizing control of private wealth and private lives as it fails in its duty to win our wars, balance our budgets and secure our borders.
Republicans will be the beneficiaries of this repudiation, as Republicans are, almost everywhere, the only alternative on the ballot, and because they are seen correctly as having opposed the Obama agenda with near drill-team solidarity.
Every Republican in the Senate but Arlen Specter and the ladies from Maine voted against Obama's stimulus bill. Every Republican in the House, save eight, voted no on cap-and-trade. Every Republican on Capitol Hill voted no on Obamacare. More GOP senators opposed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan than opposed any Supreme Court nominee in memory.
Tuesday, obstructionism reaps its reward.
The cultural chasm between town and gown has never been deeper during my lifetime. The student radicals from the 60s are now the deans and professors. Who can doubt the distance between the Right and Left in the media. The Left is calling the Right panicked know-nothings who deny science. Now we are seeing the revelation that there is an economic chasm between highly compensated public employees and their poorer counterparts in private industry. And need we mention the relegation of religion to its own ghetto by the culture and the courts?
I don’t think that many Republican officeholders realize what this is all about. They know that something is going on, but make the mistake in believing that Middle America will be satisfied by a seat near the foot of the table. They are under the impression that forcing Obama and the Left to compromise parts of his agenda will be perceived as a victory by the Tea Party movement. They could not be more wrong. The Right side has suited up and come on to the field and they are not just fiscal conservatives but culture warriors.
Many on the Libertarian side of the debate also misunderstand this movement. I don’t know how many times I have heard references to that fact that the Tea Party is focused on economic issues; leaving cultural issues alone. The MSM, when they try to give what they perceive as an unbiased look at the Tea Party, echo this theme. If you want to understand why this is wrong, attend a Tea Party rally and see the moms and kids; the middle class workers and the retirees. And then look at the gigantic rally that Glenn Beck managed to assemble in Washington; a rally that was purely about the culture. This rally was the Tea Party as culture warriors.
The next two years are, in my opinion, going to be like this nation in the 1850s when a very powerful, organic movement began to take shape. It was a time like today, when people saw something very wrong with the structure of the nation, not just the politics du jour. Quoting Emeril Lagasse, the culture war is going to turn the heat on this country “up a notch.”
Both parties have lost the mandate of heaven, and neither knows if its economic philosophy even works anymore.
We are in uncharted waters. The country is up for grabs.
In the furor about the man who used his foot to hold down a MoveOn.org woman trying to rush Rand Paul, previous assassination attempts on Gerald Ford should be considered. What is especially interesting is the calm way the second assassin, Sara Jane Moore, describes her attempt. She had planned just one shot and was surprised that she had time for a second shot because Ford stopped and looked at her. The news report said her motives were “confused.” Somehow the motives of those on the Left are always, always confused; “confused” being a code word used to blur the fact that the would-be assassins on the Left really hate Republicans, even moderate Republicans like Gerald Ford.
Look again at the video. Does Sara Jane Moore look confused?
H/T to Archer52
INSTALANCHE: Thanks, Glenn.
For Libertarians, you may be interested in Buchanan: "The country is up for grabs."
UPDATE: MoveOn member grab Tea Partier by throat
We don't really need to be reminded about violence by SEIU goons against Tea Party members. But here's MoveOn.org on choking the opposition.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
From Legal Insurrection:
The scenario is crystal clear in this video. Valle charges the car for the first time (at 0:25) and pushes something into the open front passenger window where Paul was seated, she was then pulled back by security, she circled around the rear of the vehicle and approached from the front as Paul was exiting the car, ran towards him again and was pulled away again (0:55). It is that second charge by her that led to her either tripping or being pulled to the ground, and the now famous foot to the upper back and shoulder to push her back down when she tried to get up.
We have seen these provocateurs before in the environmental and other left-wing movements and particularly in the anti-Israel movement. They are often young women who are ideologically driven to create a scene for the cameras. Unfortunately, these stunts sometimes create unintended consequences in a highly charged circumstance, as happened here.
I found this in my in-box. If you have not seen it, it's worth posting.
A Different Slant on Obama - Interesting Read. .....
One 82-year-old lady loves Obama and she may have a very good point. She says that Obama is amazing, and is rebuilding the American dream! She gives us an entirely new slant on the "amazing" job Obama is doing, andshe says that she will thank God for the President. Keep reading for her additional comments and an explanation.
When discussing Obama, she says:
1. Obama destroyed the Clinton Political Machine, driving a stake through the heart of Hillary's presidential aspirations - something no Republican was ever able to do.
2.Obama killed off the Kennedy Dynasty - no more Kennedys trolling Washington looking for booze and women wanting rides home.
3.Obama is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes! Dennis Moore had never lost a race. Evan Bayh had never lost a race. Byron Dorgan had never lost a race. Harry Reid - soon to be GONE! These are just a handful of the Democrats whose political careers Obama has destroyed. By the end of 2010, dozens more will be gone. Just think, in December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles, they had picked up 14 Senate seats and 52 House seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. However, in just one year, Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the House - if not the Senate - back to the Republicans.
4. Obama has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Sadly, every generation seems to need to re-learn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. Obama is bringing home the lesson very well:
Liberals tax, borrow and spend.Liberals won't bring themselves to protect America.Liberals want to take over the economy.
Liberals think they know what is best for everyone.Liberals are not happy until they are running YOUR life.
5. Obama has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan. In one year, he has rejuvenated the Conservative Movement and brought out to the streets millions of freedom loving Americans. Name one other time when you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America!
6. Obama, with his "amazing leadership," has sparked the greatest period of sales of firearms and ammunition this country has seen. Law abiding citizens have rallied and have provided a "stimulus" to the sporting goods field while other industries have failed, faded, or moved off-shore.
7.In all honesty,one year ago I was more afraid than I have been in my life. Not afraid of the economy, but afraid of the direction our country was going. I thought, Americans have forgotten what this country is all about. My neighbors and friends, even strangers, have proved to me that my lack of confidence in the greatness and wisdom of the American people has been flat wrong.
8.When the American people wake up,no smooth talking teleprompter reader can fool them! Barack Obama has served to wake up these great Americans!
Again, I want to say: "Thank you, Barack Obama!" After all, this is exactly the kind of hope and change we desperately needed!!November 2nd is HUGE!!!!Please encourage others to Vote.............forward this onward, if you like
There seems to be little that is as misunderstood among the laity as the judicial travels of the "separation of church and state" phrase by Thomas Jefferson.This article from the Wall Street Journal gets the point of Christine O’Donnell’s exchange with Coons wrong. It’s not the first time that members of the press exhibit a high level of ignorance about constitutional, political, social and economic issues. Everyone in the press assumes the “separation of church and state” is part in the first amendment because Jefferson wrote a letter in which he used the term. Few of them are aware of the fact that Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the constitution (he was in France at the time) and that his letter, written to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists actually contradicts what most people believe about it.
Herewith an interesting history lesson.
After the election of Thomas Jefferson as president in 1800, the Danbury Baptists sent this rather flowery letter to him:
Letter to Thomas JeffersonDanbury Baptist Association's letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 7, 1801.
Sir, — Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men — should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
So what was the purpose of this letter? According to Beliefnet, and supported by most historians,
Signed in behalf of the Association.
Nehh DodgeEphram Robbins The CommitteeStephen S. Nelson
The Danbury Baptist Association was founded in 1790 as a coalition of about 26 churches in the Connecticut Valley. Connecticut had established Congregationalism as its official state religion. It was as a persecuted religious minority that they wrote to President Jefferson asking for his help in overthrowing the establishment.
This is fairly obvious not just from history, but from the part of their letter I underlined. The Danbury Baptists were not just sending a letter of congratulations, they were asking Jefferson do something: that is, to end the establishment of Congregationalism in Connecticut.
This he refused to do.
Here is an image of his first draft of his reply in which he says:
"Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion and the executive only to execute their acts I have refrained from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion ..."
In the current vernacular he's saying that congress is prevented by the first amendment from enacting a law "respecting the establishment of religion" which means that while they cannot create a "state church" like Connecticut has, neither are they empowered to disestablish Connecticut’s state church. And he absolves himself for interceding in the state church controversy in Connecticut because he's limited to executing congress' will.
In other words, he saying thanks for the compliments and good wishes, but there is nothing that the federal government can do. He hopes that the Connecticut people and legislature will change their position. From a constitutional perspective, this is exactly the opposite of what modern jurisprudence has him saying. Where congress and Jefferson feared to tread, the Supreme Court boldly went.
Here's the way Beliefnet put it:
In other words, he saying thanks for the compliments and good wishes, but there is nothing that the federal government can do. He hopes that the Connecticut people and legislature will change their position. From a constitutional perspective, this is exactly the opposite of what modern jurisprudence has him saying. Where congress and Jefferson feared to tread, the Supreme Court boldly went.
Here's the way Beliefnet put it:
Jefferson asked his attorney general, Levi Lincoln of Connecticut, to review his response for political landmines. "You understand the temper of those in the North, and can weaken it therefore to their stomachs," Jefferson noted. Lincoln replied that Jefferson's draft was too combative. By criticizing the proclamations, Jefferson would potentially insult not only Federalists but Republicans as well, as the custom is "venerable being handed down from our ancestors," Lincoln cautioned. Jefferson responded to Lincoln's warning by cutting out the offending passage. So the final letter to the Baptists ended up without the portion on proclamations - the ostensible reason for Jefferson to write the letter in the first place.Those who believe Jefferson was describing a wall of separation that would, say, keep prayer out of public schools, should look again at the word "their" - which Jefferson underlined. In responding to the Baptists complaint about the Connecticut government, Jefferson said merely that the national legislature had, at least created a wall of separation. He did not offer any help in battling the Connecticut law, except to say that he expects to see "the progress of those sentiments" of freedom. .
However, in return for their obsequious words, he wished them well.
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
How this bit of political butt kissing on the part of the Danbury Baptists and political buck passing on the part of Jefferson became part of the rewriting of the first amendment will have to be answered by a constitutional scholar who does not do irony. For my part, it seems that this back-and-forth is a better argument against the imposition of the many federal laws and regulations respecting the way we are allowed to practice our religion than for it.
From the Volokh Conspiracy:
In my Academic Legal Writing book, I caution students who are writing law review articles against relying on court opinions’ factual assertions about social science evidence, or even about past cases. Always read, quote, and cite the original source, I tell them (though I realize, of course, that many lawyers don’t have the luxury of taking the research time to do that). Don’t let the intermediate source’s errors become your errors.
The problem goes beyond the injustice of a particlar case. The courts are given too much credit for getting facts right. That's simply not true for social science "facts" which are often the result of sloppy of biased scholarship. In the comments "Hans" says:
You can bet that this false statistic will now be cited, despite its obvious falsity, by countless other court decisions, by hired expert witnesses in domestic violence cases, and by lobbyists for domestic-violence advocacy groups.
False statistics often get invested with credibility by court decisions that cite them or create them.
For example, Lenore Weitzman admitted that she erred in claiming that men’s living standard rises by more than 40 percent after a divorce while women’s falls by more than 70 percent. (These figures were mathematically impossible, even if no child support or alimony were ever paid. But they were made in her 1985 book The Divorce Revolution. She later admitted the error in a 1996 AP story (See Associated Press, “Study Goofed on Gap in Post-Divorce Standard of Living,” MANCHESTER UNION LEADER, May 17, 1996).
But before she admitted the error, it got cited in hundreds of state court decisions, as well as an opinion by Justice Brennan and Justice O’Connor.
As a result, this false statistic continues to be included in family-law textbooks, and continues to be parroted by courts. (On average, spouses of both sexes experience a decrease in standard of living immediately after a divorce because of the added expense of maintaining two households rather than one. Men DO NOT fare better than women in divorce. If anything, men fare slightly worse on average, and some end up broke as a result of a divorce).
And part of the problem is the lack of scientific education in the Legal community.
To me, this is really interesting from a legal informatics point of view mainly because it’s now largely accepted that courts have been citing to non-legal resources (or ‘extrinsic aids’) with greater and greater frequency...but information literacy education for law students and legal professionals is pretty much non-existent. Which leads to things like the warm embrace of Wikipedia articles in both court opinions and law review articles to a level that would never fly in other scholarly writing, and blissful ignorance of the simple concept that if something is on Wikipedia, it also almost definitely exists in an actual reputable source.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
This ought to put him away.
I'm not sure if the government workers who are planning this event have their tongue in their collective cheek, but when a group of people feel compelled to tell you they don't suck ... they suck.
Organizers of the "Government Doesn't Suck March" (their choice of words, not ours) were inspired in part by last week's Washington Post poll that revealed widespread negative perceptions of federal workers.
"We hear it day in and day out: the government sucks, federal employees are lazy and their positions are redundant," said march organizer Steve Ressler, founder of GovLoop, a social networking Web site for public servants.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sad, strange and unexpected, all at the same time:
A Florida teenager made famous for her extensive bout with hiccups faces first-degree murder charges after meeting a man online and allegedly luring him to a vacant home, where he was robbed of between $50 and $60 and killed, police said.
Still keeping to his metapho9r of the economy as a car, Obama tells Republicans to sit in the back. The irony meter is off the scale.
He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
Jack Neely in the Knoxville, TN Metropulse asks the question: Obamaphobia: What's Really Behind It? and comes up with some really, really silly reasons. Here is my "Fisking" of his article.
No president since the Civil War was so hated so much from his inauguration. Even before he was inaugurated, people were complaining to me about his being elected, as if I could offer some solution.
Not true. Obama had a 79% approval rating in December 2008. He was spectacularly popular.
I have a suspicion that Obama isn’t being judged just on what he’s actually done, or even what he’s actually said he wants to do. Not on the government bailouts, a continuation of Bush policy, during a major economic crisis already in progress, to throw a lifeline to capitalism. How Obama can be labeled a socialist by bailing out Wall Street and Detroit, the capitals of capitalism, bewilders real socialists everywhere. Another crash is what real socialists have predicted and dreamed of since the days of Eugene Debs. And maybe Obama spoiled it.
Not true. First of all, while Bush was still president, congress passed an emergency bill to absorb the toxic waste that was the mortgage backed securities market. Following that we had a government takeover of two auto companies, bondholders were dispossessed, and the assets divided between the government and the United Auto Workers. If that’s your definition of a “lifeline” to capitalism, you are clueless about capitalism. And that famous Wall Street “bailout” was another example of government ownership of private corporations. Are you totally unaware that the Federal government is in the process of selling a large chunk of Citibank? Ask yourself how they acquired that and if government ownership of a bank is an example of free enterprise.
Is it the recession? Unemployment’s worse than when Obama took office, true, but the Dow’s about 3,000 points higher. That’s what cynical liberals used to call a Republican Recovery.
Perhaps southerners and northerners alike are unhappy about the fact that a trillion dollars has been spent and about 20% of working-age Americans are either unemployed, underemployed or have given up looking for work.
Health-care reform? As finally passed, it’s a patchy and conservative shadow of what Harry Truman was pushing in 1945—and comparable to what Teddy Roosevelt proposed in 1912. And hardly the public-option health-care plan Obama himself promised to cheering crowds during the campaign.
Perhaps southerners and northerners alike are unhappy because they don’t want the government running the health care system. Perhaps they are satisfied with their current doctor and insurance provider and consider their medical care is their business and not the government’s. Perhaps they know that when the federal government sets the rules there’s no escape from its stupidity by switching doctors or insurance providers.
Is it the fact that he hasn’t yet closed Guantánamo, criticized as an unprecedented and unconstitutional oddity in our justice system? Or that he’s backed off some of his claims of pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or his surprise pro-drilling environmental policy? My disappointed liberal friends call Obama “Bush Lite.”
Perhaps most people in the country are not upset by imprisoning terrorists in Guantanamo, or they believe that having won the battle of Iraq they don’t want to throw their hard-won victory away. And that vaunted “pro-drilling” policy? Tell that to the people of Louisiana who are being thrown out of work thanks to Obama’s drilling moratorium. And are those new drilling sites “shovel ready” because if they are, like the “shovel ready” construction jobs, they don’t exist.
By any standard you want to measure him, Obama, the president, is much more conservative than Obama, the candidate, whom American voters elected by a bigger margin than any president in 20 years.
Laughably false. Obama campaigned as the one who would bring the races together, who would transcend politics, as a straight-down-the-line centrist. He glossed over his radical roots with eye-glazing platitudes. His platform was “HopeN’Change.” He threw his “God Damning America,” racist, anti-Semitic pastor under the bus when his radicalism threatened his image. And he succeeded because the MSM wanted him as president; especially Liberal Southern members of the MSM because electing a black man – even a black man with no experience and no skills other than oratorical – was so important to them. It certified their Liberal credentials. It made them feel good about themselves; they were good people for helping a Zero over the finish line as long as his skin was the right color.
And we hate him.
Actually Obama -the man - is more popular than Obama’s policies so, no, we don’t hate him. We despise his policies. We're still thinking about the hate part.
Here’s something you may not know. Paul Krugman did not win a Nobel Prize. He won a Nobel Memorial Prize.
The Nobel Prizes were established by the foundation Alfred Nobel funded at his death.
In 1896, Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, bequeathed his fortune to a foundation to create an annual prize for person "who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." Nobel's will specified prizes in physics, chemistry, physiology/medicine, literature and peace. These were first awarded in 1901.
Note that there were no prizes for economics; economics not being regarded – even today – as one of the “hard” sciences.
In 1969, the Swedish central bank (Sveriges Riskbank) established a prize known as the "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", which is commonly shortened to the Nobel Memorial Prize. The Nobel Memorial Prize has a similar procedure of award selection (by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) as the original Nobel prizes. It also disburses the same monetary amounts and shares in the formal ceremony.
This may be nitpicking, but there are a lot of nits to pick with the Nobel and Nobel Memorial Prizes. The primary one is that the awards are often given, not as recognition for outstanding achievement, but to move an agenda in the direction that the Nobel committee deems desirable … which fully explains its award to Barack Obama.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Not really, unless you believe Lancet who exaggerated the death toll by a factor of six. What's interesting is that the death toll for the same period in South Africa, now that the "good guys" are in charge is greater than the death toll in Iraq - during an active insurgency war.
Via Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit):
I SAID BEFORE THAT WIKILEAKS’ JULIAN ASSANGE WAS CLEARLY A TOOL, BUT WHOSE? Well, so far the two biggest scoops from the latest document dump are that the infamous Lancet study was bogus, and that WMDs were found in Iraq in quantity. Neither of these stories is actually news to people who were paying attention, but now — conveniently enough just before an election, and even nicely timed for George W. Bush’s new book release — these stories are getting a fresh round of play. . . .
Remember the Lancet article that claimed that over 655,000 Iraqis were killed by the American invasion? Well, the secret’s out. Not only did this report exaggerate the death toll by 600%, but the Allied forces actually identified the people killed and how they died.
And those non-existant WMDs?
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
The Wired writers are and were flaming Liberals and of course ridicule the idea that Saddam had any WMDs. Now that WMDs have been found, the new backup position is that some of the newer WMDs were NOT smuggled out of the country before the invasion.In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”
In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs, there are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. ...
But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”
... But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.
You have seen what happens if you work for the Liberal media and don’t toe the line: you get purged. Gerson has a job writing columns for the Washington Post so he’s going to show that he knows which side his bread is buttered on.
Why is it that when Liberals discuss American culture they sound like idiots? Barack Obama diagnoses the problem with American plebeians is that they are irrational when they’re scared. Gerson tell us that we are not a Christian nation because Unitarians, Baptists, Catholics, Quakers and Episcopalians did not get along.
Now I realize that it’s an article of faith on the part of “Credentialed America” that America is not, was not and will never be a Christian nation, despite the fact that most of the early settlers came to this country to be allowed to practice their particular version of Christianity in peace. Gerson’s argument in this article is incredibly, mind blowingly, stupefyingly stupid.
Pass over the fact that he willfully or out of ignorance misrepresents O’Donnell’s point about the First Amendment. The fact he marshals for his proposition that
“America is not a Christian country and has never been, for historical, theological and philosophic reasons”
is simply bizarre.
We may ask ourselves, what is a Christian nation? Is it a nation where about 8 in 10 people (78.4% according to the Pew Research Center) identify themselves as Christian? Is a nation whose founding documents refer to God a Christian nation? Is a nation whose founders began the day with a prayer to a Christian God a Christian nation? Is a nation that - until it was declared illegal in the 1950s – began its school day with a prayer a Christian nation?
The reason that the First Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution is because the various Christian denominations in this new land did not want any one of them to dominate nationally. They saw what that did in Europe and the founders wished to avoid the problems that the establishment of a national “State” religion caused. Need I point out that many states had official State religions after the Federal Constitution was enacted? That’s why the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Note the word Congress. That referred to the national government.
What is it about the Left and those who suck up to the Left to try to deny what is blatantly obvious to virtually everyone in this country? The reason is that everyone tries to define their particular belief and fetish as the mainstream position. It’s the same reason why the activists in the gay community demand the military admit openly gay people. Most have no interest in joining the military, they want validation that they are not out of the mainstream; they want society’s seal of approval, even if that approval is forced or faked. The hard Left is - for the most part - non religious, or religious in the way that Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright is "religious;" so, to them, validation is denying that America is a Christian nation.
Following Gerson’s logic to its ultimate conclusion we must conclude that Iraq is not a Muslim country. The two primary Muslim denominations, Sunni and Shia are actively killing each other. If America is not a Christian nation because Catholics and Protestants did not play well together, is Iraq a Muslim country if Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats? Is Iran a Muslim country using the Liberal’s definition of what defines a country’s religion? Is Saudi Arabia?
While Gerson’s piece defies logic, fact and history it does serve its purpose. It tells his boss that he’s firmly in her camp.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
From the Boston Herald: Muslims fear Juan William’s ouster will fan hostility
You just can't please them. Muslims are always the victim. When Juan Williams remarked that he felt some fear when he saw Arabs in Arab dress on planes (remember 9/11?) his ouster was demanded. Now that he has been ousted, Muslims are afraid that their demands have been met.
Mark Steyn comments:
~Our friends at Investors' Business Daily have more on Juan Williams and his firing by NPR (National Peace-be-upon-him Radio). Funniest headline: "Muslims Fear Juan Williams' Ouster Will Fan Hostility."
From Musing Minds:
The woman from the League of Women Voters moderated and before the debate got underway she told us the rules. No cameras, no talking, questions will be written down on index cards and a student will take the card to the teachers who will vet the cards for relevance, tone, and appropriateness. Then the question might be read out by one of the questioner’s on stage. Just before the start, someone in the audience asked if the Pledge of Allegiance would be said (there was a flag on stage). The woman from the LWV said no. It wasn’t something that was done. Some members of the audience then stood and started saying the Pledge. Pretty much the rest of the audience then rose and said the Pledge as well....The woman from the LWV was upset. She said that the audience had disrespected her. She said she was “forced” to say the Pledge and that it had “obviously been planned”. As if we all decided in line to say the Pledge of Allegiance anyway if refused. I hadn’t even thought that the Pledge might not be said. This was a political candidate’s forum and the three candidates on stage were hoping to be elected to represent us in the Federal Government. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance at a political event in America should be a no-brainer.
Can't find a job? Home foreclosed? Savings gone? Car re-possessed? Living in a cardboard box in an Obamaville?
Live vicariously through Barack and Michelle Obama.
Pretend that your jumbo-jet has taken you to exotic Mumbai, India.
You have taken over the entire 570 room 5 star Taj Mahal hotel just for you and a few close friends. The lesser members of your entourage will stay at the Taj President, the Grand Hyatt and The Oberoi hotels.
The streets are blocked when you want to go somewhere so that you are not inconvenienced by traffic. Your personal armored limousine has been flown there ahead of time. Your personal Navy is patrolling the coast. Your personal chefs are there to prepare your food.
Maybe there will be an opportunity for some golf. Your wife will be getting some tips from Mubai’s sex workers.
There, doesn't that make your sacrifice all worthwhile?
It's good to be the king.
Totalitarian movements have a history of starting small, growing larger … and then purifying itself via purges of its ranks until its leaders are left with a steel core – a cadre - of true believers who are capable of virtually anything. The Nazis went through this phase; the Communists went through this phase.
It now appears that NPR is going through this phase. The political polarization in the US is worse than I have ever seen in in my more than 6 decades of life. On the Left we see what kind of a country we will have when it is in total control of the federal government. On the Right we see a popular uprising against the political takeover of ever more aspects of our lives represented most dramatically by the people who represent “middle America” via the Tea Party Movement.
To counter this populist reaction, the Left is purging its ranks of those who are not totally committed. NPR is composed for the most part of committed Leftist but there are some there who had a foot in both camps. Juan Williams is one; he is now purged. Mara Liasson is on the hit list if the arbiters of political purity at Media Matters have their way.
Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection makes the point that FOX News, the press organ most hated by the Left, and which is accused of being the monolithic voice of the Right, is much more inclusive that the organs of the Left:
“No conservatives are trying to prevent people from appearing on NPR, but liberal interest groups and their media outlets are trying to prevent people from appearing on Fox News.”
(Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds)
It will be interesting to see if the purge has the intended effect; that is, to create a solid cadre of die-hard propagandists who will eventually dominate public information. That seems unlikely absent government intervention. The Liberal hive once had that hegemony when there were only three TV networks and the Internet did not exist. It seems that the Left is now making the mistake that the military often makes, fighting the last war. The military learns from its mistakes because it lacks ideological blinders. Not so the Left.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Via Breitbart TV:
Thank you Harry for all you've done! If it weren't for you a giant space monster would come along and swallow the world. It would probably take two bites, because the space monsters in this arm of the galaxy aren't as big as in other parts of the galaxy. Harry can go and relax in his Fortress of Solitude now, content in his delusions of adequacy.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
NPR fired analyst Juan Williams for remarking
But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
Given the fact that Muslims shouting "God is great" in Arabic flew three airliners full of fuel and passengers into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and crashing a fourth into a field in Pennsylvania, people who make a point of ostentatious Muslim appearance on planes we fly in should make us worried or nervous. It may also be good to remind ourselves that that day - 9/11 - was neither the first or the last attack by Islamofascists.
Matt Welch points out that the MSM - of which NPR is leading member - is really not in a position to lecture anyone on journalistic integrity. It's not that Williams, among others, has said far worse things about middle Americans, the Tea Partiers, Conservatives and Republicans.
Williams' firing is a clarifying moment in media mores. You can be Islamophobic, in the form of refusing to run the most innocuous imaginable political cartoons out of a broad-brush fear of Muslims, but you can't admit it, even when the fear is expressed as a personal feeling and not a group description, winnowed down to the very specific and nightmare-exhuming act of riding on an airplane, and uttered in a context of otherwise repudiating collective guilt and overbroad fearmongering.
Meanwhile at NPR, someone who does not do grace under pressure easily, accused Williams of being mentally ill: NPR CEO: Williams' Views Should Stay Between Himself And 'His Psychiatrist'
We are not persuaded by such a "nuanced" argument.
To make up for the pain of his loss of position on NPR, FOX's Roger Ailes offered Williams a $2 million two year contract.
I find myself disagreeing with Williams more often than not, but his abrupt firing from NPR for statements that are less controversial or biased than those regularly broadcast by that network force me to choose between his lone voice of Liberalism and THAT REPULSIVE COLLECTION OF SNIDE FUCKWIT URBAN HIPSTER TWATS at NPR. I'm with Williams.
Widener Law School Students are ... stupid? No, how about: "... making an ass of yourself when you are not as smart as you think you are."
Do you know what the Constitution actually says? O'Donnell does but the students studying law at Widener never got that far. Or perhaps a study of the actual Constitution is not required at law school.
Via Glenn Reynolds:
Via Glenn Reynolds:
Here's what you should really know about law school.Meanwhile, Cornell lawprof William Jacobson comments: “A literal reading of O’Donnell’s comments reflects that she was correct, but of course, the press and the blogosphere don’t want a literal reading, they want a living, breathing reading which comports with their preconceived notions.”
The Constitution stands for things that are good. The things that we want are good. Therefore, the Constitution stands for what we want. QED. How can those dumb wingnuts not understand this simple logic?
Meanwhile, I agree that the O’Donnell focus is a deliberate distraction. But I also think it’s important to use this opportunity — like the Sarah Palin “1773″ brouhaha — to point out that the credentialed gentry class isn’t nearly as smart, and certainly isn’t as well-educated, as it thinks it is. Because, you know, it isn’t.
Perhaps Widener law students can’t be expected to understand constitutional doctrine like Wisconsin or Cornell law professors. But they can be expected to avoid showing their ignorance through ill-mannered displays. One of the underappreciated virtues of good manners is that they help you to avoid making an ass of yourself when you are not as smart as you think you are.
He's just not allowed to say these things. Not at the government funded network that considers "All Things", some things are just not allowed to be considered.
Very likely, the timing of Williams’ crimethink, hot on the heels of Bill O’Reilly’s similarly doubleplus ungood remarks last week, contributed to his dismissal. Odds are that Williams will simply now become employed full-time by Fox, where he has been a regular panelist for many years. Or, to combine a couple of riffs on Twitter tonight, perhaps he’ll move to Slate and/or the Washington Postto cover conservatives from the inside.
And once again, both Matt Welch’s comments regarding the legacy media and their fear of what Ace once dubbed America’s de facto state religion seem remarkably prescient.
(The Photoshop above references this infamous Time magazine cover from this past summer. Oh, and apropos of nothing, note in contrast the sort of material that’s perfectly acceptable to NPR.)
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Frank J. Fleming: Republicans Kind of Suck … Which Is Why They Will Win Huge in November
Let’s just say they [Democrats] also sucked.From the comments:
AMERICANS: “So, the economy is pretty bad and there’s high employment. You think you can do something about that?”
DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA: “We can spend a trillion dollars we don’t have on pork and stuff.”
AMERICANS: “No … that’s not what we want. We’d really like you not to do that.”
DEMOCRATS: “You’re stupid. We’re doing it anyway.”
AMERICANS: “That’s not going to help us get jobs!”
DEMOCRATS: “Sure it will; millions of them … though they may be invisible. You’ll have to trust us they exist. And guess what else we’ll do: We’ll create a giant new government program to take over health care.”
AMERICANS: “That has nothing to do with jobs!”
DEMOCRATS: “We don’t care about that anymore. We really want a giant new health care program. We’re sure you’ll love it.”
AMERICANS: “Don’t pass that bill. You hear me? Absolutely do not pass that bill.”
DEMOCRATS: “Believe me; you’ll love it. It has … well, I don’t know what exactly is in the bill, but we’re sure it’s great.”
AMERICANS: “Listen to me: DO. NOT. PASS. THAT. BILL.”
DEMOCRATS: “You’re not the boss of me! We’re doing it anyway!”
AMERICANS: “Look what you did! Now the economy is way worse, we’re even deeper in debt, and we have a bunch of new laws we don’t want!”
DEMOCRATS: “You’re racist.”
AMERICANS: “Wha … How is that racist?”
DEMOCRATS: “Now you’re getting violent! Stop being violent and racist, you ignorant hillbillies! And remember to vote Democrat in November.”
You have to remember, when you disagreed with Obama’s Black half you were a racist. When you disagreed with his White half you were a Nazi. They threw in Homophobic for free.