“Let's Give Up on the Constitution”

I have long contended that Liberals and Leftists detest our Constitution and see it as an obstacle to their designs.  They rarely come right out and admit it, of course.

But now that they are feeling their oats after the re-election of The One, do not be surprised if more of them do come out and admit that they believe the Constitution should be ignored and worse. 

In fact, that may already be beginning.  In the words of (MULTIPLE irony alerts) Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, “…before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.”

Because nothing increases freedom like abolishing the rule of law.  The rule of “The People” is SO much better.

Happy New Year?

----

MORE: I have to repeat this brilliant tweet:

Constitutional law profs are becoming to the Constitution what ethicists long ago became to ethics.

Benghazi Resignations a Sham

Over the first days of Christmas, this escaped even my attention, so in case it escaped yours . . . . 

Remember those resignations of State Department officials over Benghazi?  They are a sham.  Those who supposedly resigned will be soon returning to work at State.  It’s just desk switching and long vacations to give the appearance of accountability.

Silly me to think the Obama Administration was capable of any accountability.

Boehner and Cantor Should Go

The debacle of the defeat of “Plan B” last night is the last straw.  Speaker Boehner, along with his smarmy sidekick Eric Cantor, have cowered before Obama, yet again publicly negotiated with himself, purged and alienated conservatives particularly in his own caucus, and made Republicans look like fools (which perhaps they are).  Both on principle and in politics, he is a failure. All this when since 2010 he had the power to stand firm, pass responsible legislation and let the Democrats deal with it.

Enough!  Boehner and Cantor should for once do the right thing. 

They should both resign.

Obama Pressures UK to Stay in EU

When I read that Obama, both personally and through his administration, has been pressuring the UK to stay in the EU, I was aghast.  Look, I know Obama is arrogant already.  But what business is it of his or of the United States whether the UK stays in the EU or not?

If I were British, Obama’s intervention would make me want to leave the EU that much more.  If I were Cameron, I’d more or less tell him, “Look, if you Americans didn’t want to be under British sovereignty back in the day, that’s one thing.  But now you are lecturing us about protecting our own sovereignty over our native land?”

Obama’s attitude toward the UK even before this arrogant intervention has been less than respectful.  One of his first acts was returning a bust of Winston Churchill.  And his gifts to the Queen and the past PM were a joke.  I would not blame the British if they told him to buzz off. Moreover, I greatly desire that they do so.

Nile Gardiner has a similar take on this matter.

ABC, CBS Ignore Appointment of Tim Scott to Senate

Monday, ABC and CBS completely ignored the announced appointment of Rep. Tim Scott to the U. S. Senate.  There was not a mention of it on their main evening “news” broadcasts.

This is slightly strange.  For historic reasons alone, the appointment is newsworthy, a “You were there” moment if you will:

We … have a Senate seat that is famed for having once been occupied by Strom Thurmond, a one-time Dixiecrat, segregationist turned repentant Republican. And we have the first black Senator from a southern state since Blanche Bruce of Mississippi in 1881. This is almost "diversity" overload.

Perhaps one mitigating factor for the old networks is that all of this "diversity" was wrought by Republicans?

Ah, and that’s the rub.  In the liberal/left mindset, Republicans don’t do “diversity” even though, as I pointed out yesterday, this a great appointment for genuine diversity.

But remember Republicans don’t do diversity.  So this goes the way of the accomplishments of “non-persons” in the old Soviet Union.  As far as Pravda was concerned, they and their accomplishments did not exist.  And news that did not serve Marxism was not “news” at all.

But surely the “mainstream” news media here would never get that corrupt.

---

MORE: Not all of the mainstream “news” media are ignoring the Scott appointment.  The New York Times presents the usual garbage unfit to print.

I honestly do not know which is worse.

Senator Tim Scott (and a prediction 32 years ago?)

I am very pleased to see that Rep. Tim Scott will be appointed to replace retiring Senator Jim DeMint.   He will be a strong advocate of conservative Constitutional values in the Senate.  And that he happens to be Black will increase his stature, his voice, and his impact that much more.  This is the kind of diversity this nation needs.

I am reminded of The Spike (1980), a novel I read decades ago.  In it, there is a Black Republican Senator from South Carolina.  It took a while, but fiction has become reality . . . in a good way for a change.

Habemus Tweetum!

The Pope has begun tweeting!

Union Thugs & Obama vs. Free Speech UPDATED

The heart of the fight over Right-to-Work in Michigan is generally overlooked – it is a free speech issue.  Unions want to be able to continue to extract forced dues from workers as a condition of employment and then spend those dues on political causes, namely the Democrat Party of course, regardless of the political consciences of those workers.  

That is tyranny.  Saying someone has free speech but then forcing them to fund Democrat (or Republican) political campaigns or lose their jobs is not free speech at all.   And don’t take my word on it.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson

Right-to-Work laws end this union tyranny . . . which is exactly why unions have engaged in violence in opposition to the new Michigan Right-to-Work law.

And let there be no doubt of the Left’s hatred of free speech (the freedom of speech of their opponents, of course).  Union thugs tore down an Americans for Prosperity tent.  And Obama has attacked the Michigan Right-to-Work law (and has not condemned the union violence there).

I never thought I’d live to see a Right-to-Work law being passed in Michigan of all places.  They are to be congratulated for standing up to the union thugs and to Obama and for standing up for the free speech of workers.

----

MORE: In taking down that tent, union thugs willfully endangered lives:

As the union members attacked the Americans For Prosperity tent, a woman cried out “there are people under there, oh my God” (at 1:20). At 1:40, as union members start walking on top of the collapsed tent, a man shouted “hey, there are people in there” but again the crowd didn’t stop, and the union members continued walking on the collapsed tent defiantly as the crowd shouted obscenities and cheered.

+Ebbsfleet on General Synod

Jonathan Baker, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, has a talent for telling it like it is yet with grace.  Having spent some time with him at Pusey House, he has long impressed me with his gentleness, wit, and perception.

So it comes as no surprise that his comments on General Synod and its aftermath are among the best I’ve come across.  I commend his whole missive to you.  But the following stands out to me as cutting through the fog to explain what really happened:

First, it has been suggested that the draft Measure represented the fruits of work done over many years by representatives of all traditions in the Church of England, and that it was a compromise and the best possible way forward. This is simply not the case, as anyone – myself included – involved in the various processes of preparing the legislation for Final Approval (the legislative drafting group, the revision committee stage, and so on) would have to admit. At every step of the way, provision for the traditionalist minority was withdrawn altogether or significantly watered down. Looking back, we can see a number of decisive forks in the road: when delegation (rather than a transfer of jurisdiction) was adopted as the basis for the legislation; when the Archbishops' amendment for co-ordinate jurisdiction was defeated – by just 5 votes in the House of Clergy – in 2010; when the amendment to Clause 5.1. (c) of the Measure, proposed by the House of Bishops, was withdrawn in the face of pressure from members of WATCH in July of this year. In the light of all this, it seems to me that there is only one analysis of the vote on 20th November which rings true: that the draft Measure was driven 'over the cliff' by those unwilling to agree proper provision for those of us who have conscientious difficulties concerning the ordination of women.

Exactly.  +Ebbsfleet says it much more graciously than I have, but, indeed, WATCH and their ilk have only themselves to blame for the failure of women bishops legislation.  If they only had the grace to give traditionalists the space they needed, women bishops would already be on the way.

No Infallible Tweets (Darn it.)

Pope Benedict may have a twitter account, and he is expected to begin tweeting on December 12^th.  But there will be no infallible tweets:

Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications told the press conference the pope’s tweets would not be “dogmatic positions” nor infallabile statements on Catholic doctrine and dogma. The pope’s followers would receive “pearls of wisdom” from the 85 year old pontiff.

“Pearls of wisdom” are nice and all, but, c’mon, can’t we have some infallibility to liven twitter up?  Or how about some excommunications?  Are excommunications via twitter too much to ask for?

Pope Benedict XVI Joins Twitter

Pope Benedict has now officially joined twitter, though he has not actually tweeted yet.  I wonder if any of his tweets will be infallible?

Anyway, with fake pope accounts here and there, there is some confusion as to which account is the real Pope . . . which sounds rather like the history of the church.  Anyway, His Holiness’s account is @Pontifex.  I like that name.

I wonder how Pope Benedict will fit into twitter.  It’s a rough and tumble place, to put it mildly.  And it very much has its ugly side, including knee-jerk pope hatred (LANGUAGE WARNING).

I, for one, welcome Pope Benedict to twitter and encourage him not to let the jerks get him down.

Washington Post Goes Full Bigot

Bob Owens has put up a post entitled “Washington Post Goes Full Bigot”.  To which I say . . .

Yeah, pretty much.

What other conclusion is there in light of this egregious excerpt of the Washington Post editorial in question:

Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy. You’d think that before launching their broadside, members of Congress would have taken care not to propagate any falsehoods of their own.

And, to be clear, this is an editorial by the Washington Post editorial board, not a column from one of their several crackpot columnists.

To get the full effect of the sheer outrageousness of this editorial, turn it around.  Imagine an editorial criticizing President Obama and Susan Rice for their Benghazi statements and throw in the following: “We can’t know their hearts.  What we do know is that they are BLACK, very very BLACK.”

Yes, it would be absurdly bigoted . . . just like the Washington Post editorial.

And the Washington Post should be called out for it.  And to look at the bigger picture, the Left should be called out for their increasing bigotry again and again.  But I will have to leave that subject for another time.

I like Jeb Bush, however . . .

There’s been talk the past few days that Jeb Bush is preparing to run for president in 2016.  I’ve always liked Jeb Bush . . . and I think him getting the Republican nomination for President would be a disaster.

To be clear, my prophetic opinion has nothing to do with his personal qualities.  I mean it when I say I like him.  But Jeb Bush is an establishment man and is, well, a Bush.  And the combination makes him unelectable.

The Republican Party has put forth two establishment men against Obama.  That hasn’t worked out too well.  And I know more than a few tea party/libertarian types stayed home and did not vote this year in spite of their antipathy toward Obama.  Too much of what should be the Republican base will not be able to stomach yet another establishment Republican candidate in 2016 and will not help him when the Democrat candidate will surely not be as noxious as Obama.  And establishment Republican candidates hardly excite anyone beyond sure Republican voters anyway.  The lackluster turn out for Romney, who to his credit was a good campaigner, proves that.

And another Bush?  Does anyone in their right mind think this country is ready for another Bush?  Not only is another Bush unelectable, that would be begging for a third Tea Party.  I know first hand that many tea party types detest W about as much as Obama. (For the record, I disagree with that sentiment.  I’m only reporting what I have observed.)  Most tea party people have been good team players in 2010 and 2012.  But put another Bush in front of them, and they will want him defeated along with the Democrat.  There will instantly be a strong third party then that will make Jeb Bush that much more unelectable and hand that election and perhaps more to the Democrats.

By the way, Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton?  Bush vs. Clinton again?  A third party would have a field day with that match-up.

So as much as I like and respect Jeb Bush, I sincerely hope he does not run for President. 

And that is a bit unfair, because I think he could be the best president since Reagan.  But life isn’t fair, especially political life.  Being the son of a Bush ain’t what it used to be.

After Synod: The Need for Provision for Traditionalists Illustrated

This is just a brief note to those who may doubt the need for robust provision for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops in any future Church of England women bishop’s legislation – surf around to twitter, comments here and there, and various message boards, and you will see just how needful said provision is.

Attitudes towards those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops are appalling to put it mildly.  Here’s one example from a respected member of the Church of England (I’m not using even online names because calling out is not my purpose as much as calling out might be deserved.):

I'm the one preaching love and inclusion, they are the ones preaching bigotry and sexism. They should **** off to whichever bigoted misogynist shack will take them and leave the church to those of us who actually believe in love.

Yes, how very loving and inclusive indeed.  Then there is this from a CofE bishop not known as a liberal: “The Kingdom of God is bigger than the stupidity of 6 lay people.”

Oh.  So laity who don’t bow down and do the bishops’ bidding on women bishops are stupid . . . and oppose the Kingdom of God apparently.

There is a profound lack of basic respect for the views and persons of those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops.  Despite Justin Welby’s protestations otherwise, too many in the Church of England have proven they cannot be trusted to treat these traditionalists with grace and respect apart from the force of law.

Those who insist on robust provision and therefore voted against the women bishops legislation (And even a liberal or two voted “No” for those very reasons.  I salute those few.) were wise and right to do so. 

The reaction to the “No” voters proves just that.
--------

MORE: And here is the passionate explanation of a “No” voter who is also a “convinced liberal” and supporter of women bishops.  Kudos to him for his courage.

CofE Feminists Get What They Deserve, the Defeat of Women Bishops Legislation

If you heard some disquietude (I would say shrill screaming, but I don’t think the English do that.) in the past hour or so, that may be because the proposed legislation on women bishops just failed to pass the Church of England Synod.  Less than 2/3s of the Laity voted for it.

The House of Bishops of the CofE will meet tomorrow morning to “consider the consequences of the vote.”

The irony of all this is women bishops legislation would have likely passed Synod this summer.  But, noooo.  A number of feminists were unhappy with the provisions in it for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops.  So they forced a postponement, which resulted in a weakening of those provisions, which in turn weakened support from the rest of the church.  Hence today’s result.

I can hardly improve on what I posted this summer:

Now the rational proponent of women bishops (and there are many) would see that [many cannot on the basis of scripture and tradition accept the ministry of women bishops] and therefore would propose to allow those of said convictions to have the alternative arrangements they are requesting and otherwise move on with women bishops.  But that is not good enough for the uberfeminists.  Having women bishops is not good enough unless the traditionalists are crushed or driven out or both.

What the heck do these feminists want?  The Principal of Pusey House being forced at the point of a sword to kiss the ring of a woman bishop?  More Anglo-Catholics forced to flee to Rome?  And there is little question some feminists secretly desire the latter.  And it is hard to see how their efforts are any less than attempted persecution of the Faithful.

If the feminists kill women bishops legislation because they refuse to allow orthodox opponents a little space, then they don’t deserve to have their women bishops . . . ever.  Further, their vindictiveness proves themselves unfit to called bishops or ministers of Christ . . . or Christians for that matter.

And most of them have indeed proven themselves, by both their teaching and conduct, more feminist than Christian.  For the sake of Christ’s Church, and for the sake of their own needful repentance, may their utter lack of Christian reasonableness and charity indeed bring about their own defeat again and again.

And, today, the feminists’ lack of reasonableness and grace did indeed bring about their own well-earned defeat.

Now if they really want women bishops along with peace and unity, they will repent and allow traditionalists the space they are requesting.

No, I am not holding my breath on that one.

Synod: The Naiveté of Justin Welby

I fear that, at the current Synod of the Church of England, we have already seen how Justin Welby will operate as the next Archbishop of Canterbury – to assume, with a smile, grace and good will among everyone and then to look the other way as heretics and apostates persecute the orthodox.

Yes, perhaps I am jumping the gun.  And I do sincerely hope I am mistaken.  But at Synod his reasoning behind supporting women bishops is naïve at best.  He seems to think it unnecessary to have robust legal protection of traditionalists because the rest of the Church of England will surely respect their consciences anyway:

"This approach that we have before us today is I believe, after much discussion with many people, as good as we can get. . . our will and intention are far more important than the rules.

"I am personally deeply committed, and believe that fellow bishops are also, to ensuring, as far as I am able, that what we promise today and later in the Code of Practice is carried out faithfully in Spirit as well as in letter."

CofE feminists have already demonstrated that they care not a whit for the consciences of those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops.  If Justin Welby really thinks that feminist bishops can be trusted to respect and guard the consciences of traditionalists, his naiveté will surely enable persecution of the faithful sooner or later.

Again, I hope I am proven wrong.  We shall see.

91%

91%. 

That’s what Paul Krugman commends as a top income tax rate to make “the rich pay their fair share.”

I am not kidding.  Read his op-ed for yourself, if you can stomach it.

Democrats will not be happy until many Americans are turned into tax slaves. . . .   And Democrats probably will not be happy even then.

Bishop Lawrence’s Address to the Diocese of South Carolina

The Special Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina has met and confirmed that said Diocese is no longer a part of The Episcopal Church.

I continue to pray for the Diocese of South Carolina as the brazen attacks from The Episcopal Church will also continue. (And I apologize that I have not been posting on those attacks on South Carolina.  I just have not had the energy or stomach to dive into the subject. I guess I have Schori-fatigue.)

A highlight of the convention was Bishop Mark Lawrence’s address.  It is perceptive, pastoral, and gracious.  I commend it to you.

Get. A. Room. (LURIDLY UPDATED)

I think I might need help.  Yesterday I watched an Obama press conference . . . and enjoyed it.

Now, I’m one who for almost eight years muted the volume whenever Bill Clinton came on.  I could not abide his smug lying.  And I’ve often muted Obama as well.  But I’ve sometimes made myself listen to The Dear Leader in part so I can be informed and make witty and intelligent comments for you my dear readers.  Hey, who loves you?

But yesterday, I actually enjoyed listening to Obama and his worshippers the press.

Am I sick and in need of professional help?  Perhaps my sickness is voyeurism.  For what I enjoyed most was this:

A reporter for the Chicago Tribune congratulated President Obama on winning reelection during a press conference Wednesday at the White House.

Obama called on Christi Parsons, the White House reporter for the Chicago Tribune.


"Thank you, Mr. President," Parsons said. "And congratulations, by the way."

Obama then noted Parsons was there "when I was running for state Senate."

"That's right, I was," Parsons replied, adding that she had “never seen you lose.”

Hey, you two.  Get. A. Room.

I wonder how many of the other reporters were jealous.

Yes. I am sick.

UPDATE:

And here’s some NBC-Obama love action.