Isn't it odd that some lefty pundits
say that chief Justice John Roberts “saved” the reputation of the
Supreme Court by voting with the lockstep-left justices, but they see
this decision, a decision that threatens to destroy whatever remained
of the liberties that our founders fought and suffered to hand down
to their descendants, as being perfectly legitimate even though the
deciding vote was cast by the very same Elena Kagan who developed the
strategy used in the oral (and most likely written) arguments? How
can that be legitimate?
If (God forbid) the court goes on to
have a 5-4 liberal majority in the future, and starts tearing down
our heritage of liberty and the rights of the individual, do you
suppose that the same pundits who today say that every 5-4 decision
in which the lockstep-lefties are in the minority is a the decision
of a bitterly partisan majority will accuse the Gang of Five of the
future of being equally partisan, or indeed partisan at all?
This, of course, is a rhetorical
Contrary to what's being published now,
I believe this dreadful decision will at last put an end to the naïve
belief that the Supreme Court and the judicial branch in general
will protect our rights for us, and that therefore we do not have to
protect them ourselves. This belief should have died with the
decision of the court on the McCain-Feingold free campaign speech
strangulation law, when the majority of the justices sided with the
politicians against the people. Funny – when I was young
(admittedly a long time ago), we were taught that liberals believed
in expanding free speech. This concept died sometime in the 1990s,
as uber-liberal Alan Dershowitz noted when he wrote “In today's
America, the greatest threat to free speech is not coming from the
Right. It's coming from the Left.”
Give up that fantasy, lovers
of liberty. No-one is going to defend the freedoms we have left for
us. If we're going to reclaim our rights, or even defend the ones we
still have, we are going to have to fight for them ourselves.
The liberal fascists (not an
oxymoron – read Jonah Goldberg's book of the same name) must be
giddy with this decision. At the beginning of this noble experiment
in self-government, the federal government largely left its citizens
alone entirely. As the decades went by, the reach of the national
government waxed and waned, but didn't immediately grow into a
leviathan. Libertarian legend says that Abraham Lincoln was the
father of big government, but this is twaddle, as by 1872 (only seven
years after the shooting stopped) the federal government had shrunk
back to its pre-war size.
As America was drawn into
World War I, liberal icon Woodrow Wilson began to expand the powers
of the government at the expense of liberty. Censorship grew, and
this time the controls on behavior did not all come off at the end of
the war. It's a pleasing irony to think that Eugene V. Debs, repeat
socialist Party candidate for President, jailed for interfering with
the draft and the recruitment for the Armed Forces (jailed for making
a speech!), was not released by Wilson, either at the end of the war
or even at the end of his term. He would have to wait to be released
by that supposed disaster of a Republican President, Warren G.
Harding, who answered objections to Debs' release on Christmas Eve of
1921 by saying “I want him to eat Christmas dinner with his
family.” Typically, the socialists who edit Wikipedia do not give
Harding credit for his rather touching statement. They also do not
give Harding credit for actually inviting Debs to the White House the
moment he was released from prison, an invitation that Debs accepted.
After meeting with Harding, Debs pronounced Harding a kindly
Take note, liberals.
Liberal icon jails citizen for exercising free speech, and
conservative Republican releases him.
As the decades went by, the
number of actions that became crimes grew exponentially. After this,
in a trend that many of us find appalling, the concept of “hate
crimes” appeared. Now not only were our actions suspect, but our
motives and thoughts as well. Many, including this writer, found the
new trend in law disturbing, for it has long been a tenant of
American jurisprudence that it was the act which was the crime, not
the motive. By “hate crime” logic, it can be more of an offense
(leading to greater punishment) to assault a 24 year old homosexual
bodybuilder that to assault an 82 year old asthmatic grandfather.
Anyone who doesn't see this as a howling idiocy is an idiot
Not satisfied with the
partial subjugation of the American citizenry, we now have the real
purpose of the Obamacare law, and its true purpose. Having already
criminalized (and thus controlled) our actions, our thoughts, and our
motives, they now move to control our inactions as well. Don't buy a
product our self-proclaimed rulers demand that we purchase, and pay a
fine or go to jail. Presumably, if you resist like free people often
due, and you will be shot. Once they establish that principle,
freedom in this country is over. Perhaps forever.
The leftists will be in
La-La-Lenin Land, though. Their dreams will have have come full
circle – as a noose around our necks.