Good Developments

I often decry the plethora of social and political ills plaguing the U.S. So here are a handful of positive turns of events in politics. We'll see what happens:

February 17: House votes to defund nine of Obamas "czars."


The jobs on the chopping block: White House-appointed advisers on health care, energy and climate, green jobs, urban affairs, the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, oversight of TARP, executive compensation, diversity at the Federal Communications Commission and the auto industry manufacturing policy.


This is nowhere near enough; but it's a step in the right direction.


*****


February 17: House cuts off legislative funding of Planned Parenthood.


*****


February 18: House votes for defunding of Obamacare.

Granted, this still has to contend with the twin hurdles of the leftist Democratic Party, and the Cypher-in-Chief, but the GOP must start somewhere. If we heap harsh criticism upon Republicans when they follow the mooing herd and shrink from their duty, then we should give them recognition and even praise when they take a principled stand for constitutional government.

Small steps forward are better than no steps at all.

C'est L'amour

I found some Islamic bridal photos online that I thought my readers might enjoy. First, there's the "Palestinian" nuptial vest.


Then there's the polar honeymoon ensemble.



Followed by a representative example of the Assassins' Order.



The mobile deer blind.



The "All-holds-barred" collection.

Tatooine Tusken Raider regalia.

The "spared no expense royalty" set.

I like the elegance of this one, but why does she always sport that blank expression?

This is from the "Don't-fear-the-reaper/darth-vader" collection.

From "Ravishing ruminants" outfitting.

And last but not least, the "She'll never be my beast of burden" category.

Now I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

Attorneys for Bradley County, Tenn., and several of its officials have submitted a brief to the state Supreme Court arguing that the constitutional idea of "liberty" doesn't actually mean "physical liberty."

That's the way a brief filed by Thomas E. LeQuire of Spicer Rudstrom, PLLC, states it anyway:

"Liberty does not mean physical liberty," explains point DII in the pleading that encourages the high court to reject a request from Jeremy Paul Hopkins for a hearing.

"It is a sad and scary day in America when lawyers actually argue that the liberty protected in the Constitution does not mean physical liberty," Hopkins told WND. "The county's position is stunning. Americans should be very concerned with court opinions declaring the Constitution no longer protects persons from being unlawfully jailed.

"In this case, the county not only jailed me without authority and in violation of law, but they also jailed me in the face of a court order specifically instructing them to release me. Even more disconcerting is the fact that the state attorney general, who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and to defend the citizens, has not intervened to stop this outrageous conduct. If physical liberty is not a fundamental right, it is difficult to think of anything that would be," Hopkins said.

So if I lock these lawyers in a cage in my back yard for twelve hours, that's not an infringement of their liberty, because constitutional liberty isn't physical freedom. Makes sense to me.

Of course, this means that not one single inmate in a state or federal prison may be considered unfree due solely to the fact that he's being kept behind bars. Just because he can't leave the prison for months or even years doesn't mean that he's lacking in liberty.

Physical liberty is one of the most basic forms of freedom. It serves as a constitutional bare minimum.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . " If the county's detention of Hopkins violated state law, then in turn it violated his Fifth Amendment-recognized rights, by definition. How can due process entail illegal activity by the county? That's both logical nonsense and authoritarian shredding of the Constitution.

What we have here is a group of people who spit on the rule of law, while claiming that they uphold it.

"Who Are You?"

In an article at Big Hollywood, a columnist brings attention to the casting of a British citizen in the role of Superman in an upcoming film.

I think it's more than a little ridiculous that, in a nation of three hundred-plus million people, we cannot find anyone worthy of donning the red cape, so we must look to the British Isles.

That said, this comment below the column jumped out at me:


One of the things I love best about America is we don't care who you are or where you came from. What can you do?


This is a perfect example of succumbing to indoctrination. The commenter loves our political elite's current policies of diversity and non-discrimination. Muslim terrorists murdered three thousand people on September 11, 2001, because the multiculturalists "don't care who you are or where you came from." Nidal Hassan gunned down over a dozen people in cold blood at Fort Hood because no one cared who he was or whence he came. Mosques have sprung up all over our country -- including in unheard of places like Memphis, Tennessee -- preaching hatred, violence, and non-assimilation, because no one cares who they are or where they originated. Illegal aliens storm our borders, commit disproportionate crime, take jobs away from citizens, and receive taxpayer-funded educations in their own languages in public schools, because no one gives a hoot in Hell who they are or where they came from. No one cares for loyalty or societal cohesion.

As for an answer to the question, "What can you do?", all too often the response manifests itself as a negative. "Well, we can murder, rob, rape, deal drugs, form gangs, commit fraud, bankrupt hospitals, falsify documents, swamp the welfare system, bring chaos from order, and throttle division out of unity. That's what we can do, and we're just getting started."

I submit that the commenter loves one of the worst aspects of modern America. He delights in a mindset that the founding generation would have looked upon with horror. He embraces a new outlook alien to the United States of only a few decades past.

Only a fool welcomes people into his home with no concern for their identity or origin. Just as one would shun the idea of inviting a burglar into his house because he is particularly adept in the art of burglary, so, too, must we reject the notion that having a specific skill-set is more important than a commonality of language, religion, and worldview.

"What can you do?" won't cut it for someone interested in preserving his culture.

A more important question is "Who are you?"