Selection, Interpretation and Hypocrisy

You know where this is going, do you not!?!

Well, you know that it means more slaps at the looney left, although I might be trying to pull too many things together. Perhaps a better title would be "random thoughts".

Item 1 : telling the guy that wrote the law how to interpret it

Conservatives have, for years, complained about liberal activism in the courts. "Honest" liberals will actually stand up and tell the truth ... they want to change the Constitution because, after all, it is a "living document": basically it is subject to their (the judges') whims ... or at least it is OK as long as it is a liberal judge rewriting the Constitution. The more dangerous crew, of course, are the liberal clowns who actually pretend to be extracting their opinions from The Constitution, or more often the "intent" of the founders ... the latter (intent arguments) are required by the liberals more and more now, since much of the new liberal ideology is so far out of line with The Constitution that even the most creative fantasies of the judges cannot pass the smell test.

The key (for this discussion) is that you have the radical elements of the Court trying to convince us that they are actually getting into the heads of the founders of this nation. Yet, I have seen plenty of examples recently where Democrats cannot even get the right interpretation of "intent" when the guy is literally standing there in front of them, let alone some divinely inspired individuals that were born almost 300 years ago.

I saw a classic example yesterday evening of why this has gotten so out of hand over the last few years. John Kasich was filling in for Bill O'Reilly, and was discussing the situations of illegal aliens (or their children) being granted "In state" tuitions to state run universities, in complete violation of a federal law specifically written to ban such practices. The specifics of the law basically say that states cannot give illegals special breaks that are denied to US citizens and legal immigrants.

The "what planet are you from?" moment came when the idiot arguing on behalf of granting illegals special treatment asserted that Kasich's interpretation of the law was incorrect, to which Kasich replied "I wrote the law!" Now, later on in the discussion it was not as clear that Kasich was the original author, but at least he indicated that (if he did not write it) he played a key role in shaping the legislation and was a strong proponent ... the bottom line was that he knew a lot more about "intent" than this moron did. To cap it off, Kasich actually read the critical portion of the law which NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, can honestly imply to mean anything other than the fact that states were being specifically banned from doing exactly what the defiant states were doing.

Note: I am not arguing the merits of the law here, or even whether or not the federal government has the constitutional authority to inflict such restrictions on state governments. If the states want to go to the mat on this issue, then this should be resolved on its merits. I am discussing the pure arrogance, blatant stupidity, and complete dishonesty of the position of this goofball liberal. Arrogance : that this buffoon came off like he knew more about it than the others in the discussion, or that he could lie through his teeth about what was really in the law ... stupidity : apparently not having a clue that one of his debate opponents was an author (i.e. the one who DEFINES the intent) of the law ... and dishonesty - that he simply lied through his teeth about what the implications of the law are.

Item 2 : Colmes chastises a Sheriff for actually doing his job

In a Hannity and Colmes segment, they had on a Sheriff from Alabama (not sure of the state, I was actually doing stuff around the house and could not focus on all of the details) who was forwarding information that his county has on illegal aliens to the feds. During the segment, Colmes actually suggested that (among other reasons) this is a bad thing to do because it might be distracting attention from more important things. Ignoring the fact that the guest blew that argument out of the water (it is a simple download off of their computers), I was fascinated at how stupid that argument was ... normally Colmes puts on a pretty good debate with reasonable points of discussion.

This argument Colmes advanced is just so stupid that I had to comment ... but to demonstrate, all you have to do is turn the table on some liberal idols ...

Why waste time insuring access to abortion clinics? ... the protesters are not hurting anybody and there are certainly far more important things for police to worry about than whether or not 2 or 3 women can dispose of their children

Why bother with the 'hate crimes' prosecutions? ... you already got the guy on the crime itself and the time in court could be used for better things

The whole DeLay thing ... doesn't this prosecutor have anything more important to do than fabricate charges? Are you telling me there is not a single "real" crime going on in his county?

You get my point. It appears the liberal stand that Colmes is pushing is that only the worst criminals (in the eyes of liberals) are worth going after.

Item 3 : No matter how many times ...

In another of a long line of examples of the real lunatic fringe ... this guy gets on the Tony Snow (radio) show and is just spewing the Howard Dean lunatic rant talking points ... even dredging up the 2000 Florida thing: Supremes, suppress the black vote, brother is the governor (by the way, did you ever ask a liberal to explain exactly why that matters?), etc. etc. etc. I was not on long enough to know what the original subject was all about, but it was just a stream of the tired old Michael Mooronisms. Tony Snow just destroyed the clown ... I mean systematic destruction of EVERY point ... without even a flinch.

Two things struck me ...

1) doesn't the lunatic left realize that professionals are more than prepared for this? Ignoring the fact that most of the confirmation of how big a lie the left is living has actually been done by the major liberal (redundant) media outlets ... most recently the Chicago Trib blowing apart the Democrap misinformation campaign about "Bush lies on Iraq". It is one thing for a leftie to open the discussion amongst like minded (i.e. really stupid people living in denial) loons, but to actually call into a national show with a conservative host is just really dumb.

2) The second thing that struck me is sort of along the lines of the first ... taking on a professional and then trying the "hit and run" approach (perhaps more accurately defined as throwing a lot of manure on the wall and hoping some sticks): dropping ridiculous talking point lies as assertions and then trying to "change the subject" or pretend like the host brought it up or whatever. It was so pathetically childish and petty that Tony was never phased and never blinked ... heck he almost knew it was coming ... each lie was debunked and every dodge was smothered. I think the Democraps were fairly successful in this technique early on and just cling to it even though Rumsfeld (et al) have taught us the most powerful antidote ... destroy both the assertion and the debating point.

I guess the only way to wrap that up was to ask democrats/liberals to look at themselves to realize how stupid they look, but more importantly give consideration to the fact that the longer they stick to these lies, the more dangerous they look to an ever increasing number of people.