Thursday, February 09, 2012

Justice Ginsburg's Teachable Moment

It seems that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't all that enamored of our Constitution. She recently visited Egypt as part of a State Department trip to offer legal advice to the fledgling democratic movement there (which will not survive rule either by the military or the Islamists, but that's another issue).

Her advice on whether to use the US Constitution as a model: Don't.

Apparently, the US Constitution is too parsimonious with "rights", so the JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT suggested following the Constitution of South Africa, or the European Union Declaration of Human Rights, or the Canadian Charter of Rights instead. Really?

The significant difference between our Constitution and those others is the fundamental limitations on government embodied in our Constitution. Apparently, that's not such a great idea to Justice Ginsburg. Ugh.

Moreover, any "right" to material goodies that requires coercion of others to get it for you is a farce. When you hear the Leftists screaming that "Education (or other such benefit) is a RIGHT, not a Privilege!", lock and load.

Making the simple argument that the state taxing us all in order to provide education to the poorest citizens at no or minimal cost to them may be a good deal for society is one thing, but demanding that such a benefit is a "right" is something altogether different.

However, it does reveal the mentality of those who believe the government has the unbridled power to do whatever it wants. It's not hard to see why so many liberal Demunists today take one look at the vast gatherings of decent, middle-class Americans known as tea parties and instantly think "fascists!" Never mind that fascists, properly understood, don't usually demand less government intervention.

What we have here is a fundamental conflict of visions, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Sowell. One side believes that people are born into their station in life and it is the government's job to make their miserable lives a little better. Indeed, it is the natural order of things for the government to provide jobs, health care, homes to the people. If you object to this concept of government, it must be because you want to "punish" the downtrodden and discriminated. You must be animated by racism, sexism, greed, "fascism!"

The other side says that our rights come from God or from Natural Law, not from government. That while the government has an obligation to promote the general welfare, it doesn't have a holy writ to design the nation as it sees fit. The Constitution is not a coupon insert in your local paper, brimming with all sorts of giveaways and two-for-one deals. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights delineate what the government cannot do, not what it can. What was so fantastic and revolutionary about that is that for the first time in history, a nation was founded on the proposition that the government should mind its own business. Believing that doesn't make you a fascist, it makes you a patriot.

But leave it to a weenie at Slate to try to cover for "Justice" Ginsburg:
If you want, here you go: Proof that a Supreme Court Justice believes looks to other countries for advice on an evolving Constitution! Of course, we've known this about Ginsburg for years, because she's said so repeatedly. It's proof that a SCOTUS justice wouldn't use the American Constitution as a model for a new country -- but, well, neither does anyone who advises new republics about this stuff.
‎"An evolving Constitution", my ass. That, like "living breathing document", is an excuse for judicial tyrants to read anything they want into the Constitution, and read anything they *don't* want out. Constitutions are amended, not evolving. If a rule of law is one length one day and another the next, it is no longer a rule of law.

Why on earth is a Justice of the *United States* Supreme Court 'looking to other countries for advice' on our Constitution? Before you say "English Common Law" - such law is specifically incorporated by statute in California (and, presumably all other) state laws and was explicitly understood as the basis for our own civil laws. Sorry, but "Justice" Ginsburg's comment demonstrates a deep disrespect for the Constitution that she has sworn to uphold. This is pretty outrageous.

However, it is, to borrow a term from the Leftist scum, a "teachable moment". The "Progressive" Left (Newest Left?) are uniquely infuriating in their contempt for Americana. Compared to Ruth Ginsburg, Earl Warren was a regular flag waver in terms of his attitudes toward America, Western Civilization, etc. The New Deal / Great Society Left may have been wrong, but they were still patriots. The Left now has a whole new attitude that is openly contemptuous of this nation, and we the people. I don't just call them "Demunists" or "Commiecrats" for rhetorical pizazz.

And Ground Zero for this new attitude was arguably right here in the NorCal area, although Bostonians might beg to differ. I used to laugh the leftists off as minor figures in the picture, who got all the attention in The Land Of Fruits And Nuts, but were not the actual movers and shakers. But then the Cold War ended, the actual defense / hardware workers and producers packed up and left the state, and the Leftists became the "Creative Class Elites" (Destructive Class would be more like it).

Many leaders of the modern Left have open hatred and contempt for the traditional American ideals that made our country great. Limited and humble government, overseeing a responsible, individualistic, and strong citizenry who really were at liberty to arrange their own affairs largely as they saw fit. Instead, the modern Left wishes for all-powerful government that rules a citizenry that is dependent upon their largess.

The Leftist Government and Media Elites ceaseless orgasming over Barack Obama makes much more sense in light of "Justice" Ginsburg's remarks. President Obama was raised in a foreign country, under a very foreign culture, and was exposed to the most leftist politics as a child. He is what we would have called in the 30s and 40s a "red diaper baby." It is clear to me that he certainly does not love America, and I doubt he even likes America just a little bit. He spent 20 years attending church with a pastor who explicitly hates America. He was close pals in Chicago with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, actual, unrepentant, domestic terrorists who avowedly hate the American system and *killed people* to try to change it. His own wife proclaimed that the first time she was ever proud to be an American was when her husband was nominated to be President. One of his biggest campaign speeches during the last campaign was in Germany - to a largely foreign audience. He displays little or no overt patriotism (and, yeah, that matters a lot when we're talking about the President of the United States). He repeatedly bows to emperors and kings of foreign counties - an utterly unique and weak affectation among American Presidents. He clearly holds much of the American citizenry in total contempt, and thinks of us as "bitter clingers".

Friday, February 03, 2012

Susan G. Komen and Leftist Thuggery

Gee, could it be that an organization devoted to breast cancer might want to get better results funding direct efforts against just that, rather than funding a family planning organization whose involvement with respect to breast cancer is tangential at best? 
....there was never going to be a net loss in funding for women’s health. Komen was retargeting the $680,000 they granted Planned Parenthood, not dousing it with kerosene and setting it alight.

Look, the beauty of free speech is that, if you’re inclined to do so, you can write a check to PP in an act of solidarity, or write a check to Komen as an expression of moral approval. That’s all fine. But there’s something quite a bit different, something creepy and not a little despicable, about the Planned Parenthood set’s besmirching Komen’s good name across a thousand platforms for having the audacity to stop giving them free money. And I don’t care why that decision was made, frankly. If it was made because PP is controversial and under congressional “investigation,” that’s a perfectly valid reason for an organization to disentangle itself. If it was made because they judged that money would have a greater impact if directed toward the provision of actual mammograms and not just clinical screenings, that makes sense. And if the decision was made because a controlling faction at Komen feels a moral disgust toward the dismemberment of viable fetuses and would rather not subsidize an outfit that does that 300,000 times a year — well that’s fine, too. None of those rationales justifies the outrageous non-sequiturs about how Komen “hates poor women.”
And no, for the record, I am hardly anti-abortion. In fact, California could improve if the leftists here aborted more of their larval communist offspring.

Okay, I'm being nasty. More honestly, I just can't compel a woman to bear a child she does not want. I. Just. Can't. Sorry if that ruins my right-wing purity creds.

Pro-abortion libertarian writer Will Wilkinson has it spot-on:
You know, I'm not a big fan of Komen's brandification of breast cancer, I dislike seeing pink ribbons plastered over everything, and I think Planned Parenthood is real swell, abortions and all. So I'm not especially inclined to come to Komen's aid. But I'll be damned if this doesn't look a bit like PP throwing it's weight around, knocking a few pieces of china off the shelves, sending a message to its other donors: "Nice foundation you got there. Wouldn't want anything to, you know, happen to it."
However, the anti-abortion James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal is also correct:
While our sympathies are with Komen in this whole kerfuffle, we must say that the group has displayed an appalling naiveté in its approach to the matter. It's reminiscent of the last big controversy the group was involved in, which we wrote about in 2009. In that instance, Komen hosted a conference in Alexandria, Egypt, for "international advocates." Komen was sandbagged when Israeli doctors who'd been invited to the event received disinvitations from the Egyptian health minister. The Egyptians backpedaled, but by then it was too late for the Israelis to attend.

In breaking ties with Planned Parenthood, Komen made the same mistake: It failed to understand it was dealing with intolerant fanatics. Planned Parenthood's attitude toward abortion opponents is not unlike that of Egyptian officials in the old regime toward Israelis.
In truth, Komen was under no obligation to fund Planned Parenthood. Its decision not to do so was not punitive and did not even appear to be. The episode is reminiscent of George Orwell far more than Joe McCarthy. Komen's actual aim was to extricate itself from the divisive national battle over abortion by severing its connection with a leading combatant.

The conservative Media Research Center notes that CNN "aired a pretty one-sided piece including statements from Planned Parenthood's president Cecile Richards, evidence supporting her claims of right-wing 'bullying,' and even vitriolic Facebook posts decrying the de-funding." No supporter of Komen's position or critic of Planned Parenthood was included. Even more appalling than that lack of balance, though, was CNN's echoing the charge of "right-wing 'bullying,' " while the network was participating in Planned Parenthood's effort to bully Komen.

The Ministry of Information--sorry, the New York Times--editorializes:
With its roster of corporate sponsors and the pink ribbons that lend a halo to almost any kind of product you can think of, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation has a longstanding reputation as a staunch protector of women's health. That reputation suffered a grievous, perhaps mortal, wound this week from the news that Komen, the world's largest breast cancer organization, decided to betray that mission. It threw itself into the middle of one of America's nastiest political battles, on the side of hard-right forces working to demonize Planned Parenthood and undermine women's health and freedom.
The truth is that Komen blundered into a political battle by supporting Planned Parenthood in the first place and was attempting to back out of it quietly.

The Times's view exemplifies feminism's gradual transformation into a totalitarian ideology. Totalitarianism politicizes everything, so that neutrality is betrayal--in this case, neutrality on abortion is portrayed as opposition to "women's health." As we wrote last year, this is also why purportedly pro-choice feminists can hate Sarah Palin and her daughter for choosing not to abort their children.

Komen would have been better off approaching the matter straightforwardly, by announcing that it wished to opt out of the abortion debate and would not support groups that take a position on either side of the issue, including Planned Parenthood. This would not have averted the smear campaign that followed, for Planned Parenthood and its supporters have internalized the notion that abortion is health, and are determined that everyone else internalize it too. But an honest position would have been easier to defend. No one would have been able to dent Komen's integrity.
I must say, however, that the anti-abortion activists who donated heavily to Susan G Komen at first news, but now are angrily demanding refunds at the SGK retraction, should think again. SGK is an organization dedicated to finding a cure for Breast Cancer. Why do we assume they should be expert in the ins and outs of left wing Commiecrat, scorched earth political attacks.