Jabba The Hut Was A Liberal:
Think about it: Jabba The Hut ate what he wanted, smoked what he wanted, injected what he wanted, screwed what he wanted, and flaunted what he wanted. His only discipline was to preclude or resist all attempts by others to discipline him. He respected no lines, no boundaries, and no rules. For him, law was something to meet his own evolving standards. He was law unto himself. Ultimately, dream of Jabba is every Liberal's wet dream.
So, how is Justice Kennedy, with his cohorts (usual suspects) and "evolving law," different from Jabba The Hut?
Insofar as Liberals are constitutionally unable to draw, enforce, or respect objective, legal, or moral boundaries, it should come as no surprise that enforcing the U.S.’s southern border is anathema to them. Liberals only feel (even though many of them mean well). But for those country folks who actually think, failing to enforce their border is a flagrant breach of faith, perhaps rising even to the level of treason.
*****
To feed government is to feed Liberals' "Jabba."
*****
Why do Liberal blogs, which so often mainly bark, emote, and cuss, work so hard to spin words like "reason" into their captions?
Challenge to Libs: If you are so into "reason," please "reasonably" explicate even one non-trivial law, standard, value, or line in the sand for which you actually risk your own well being in order to advocate or enforce. In other words, apart from tolerating every conceivable depredation, what lines or borders would you actually enforce and preserve, without therewith divorcing yourself from your fellow libs? Do you mainly disparage your country, or, when push comes to shove, do you actually have what it takes to defend and preserve your fellow countrymen?
4 comments:
As President, Obama would (1) be impotent to defend Western Civilization, (2) make the Supreme Court a servant of the ACLU, and (3) return us to the economic good times we enjoyed under Jimmy Carter. Apart from that, he’s a likeable fellow. And he means well!
See Doonesbury this morning?
As usual, GD kind of his the nail. Everyone feels angst. Everyone wants to preach. No one wants to hear. I wish I had answers.
****
Is it not easy to be liberal, simply not to concern oneself with drawing lines?
I try to appreciate where liberals would draw lines.
Maybe there is some demographic or moral justification I am missing, to show why Americans should "go green" and manage their population growth, even as we turn right around and undermine such efforts by opening borders to encourage neighbors to do nothing to reduce population growth and simply continue to replace us with their culture.
About Facts:
I think Americans are people, like other people; we are far from angelic.
The sort of conduct in which we engage while under stress or attack has hardly been rare among nations.
Having only simulated combat, I know not to condemn those who actually have been under stress of combat.
I doubt Bush's methods have been novel.
And I suspect there is reason why people who are captured fear being rendered to other countries.
See http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html:
"The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone. Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism have been transported to detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and elsewhere. In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt." "
About Law:
I think our political fringes have lost good sense. So, we need law to moderate. Unfortunately, apart from their own unelected notions of "evolving standards," 5 of our highest 9 do not fundamentally know what law is. (Actually, all three branches seem to have become essentially lawless.)
I don't need utopia, but some level of basic competence would be nice --- like if we could govern ourselves as if the right hand of governance knew and cared what the left hand was doing.
As things stand, why trust government with any more money?
My Priorities:
Establish a policy of energy independence. (Government is AWOL.)
Manage population. (Well, we are doing this, but open borders undermines it.)
Secure borders. (Government is AWOL.)
Respect law. (Government is AWOL.)
Don't sell out American jobs. (Government is AWOL.)
Establish trade that is both free and fair. (Government is AWOL.)
Provide some civilized floor of national health care. (Government is AWOL.)
Not To Worry:
None of our politicians will push effectively anyway.
At least, not until we get closer to gut-check time.
See http://www.patriotart.com/images/06_29_08/MarxProgeny450.jpg
Critical Thinking Is Politically Incorrect:
Fahrenheit 541:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451:
The novel presents a future American society in which the masses are hedonistic, and critical thought through reading is outlawed. The central character, Guy Montag, is employed as a "fireman" (which, in this future, means "book burner"). The number "451" refers to the temperature (in Fahrenheit) at which a book or paper autoignites. A movie version of the novel was released in 1966, and it is anticipated that a second version will begin filming in 2008.
....
Bradbury has stated that the novel is not about censorship; he states that Fahrenheit 451 is a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature, which leads to a perception of knowledge as being comprised of "factoids", partial information devoid of context, e.g. Napoleon's birth date alone, without who he was.
....
Fahrenheit 451 takes place in an unspecified future time in a hedonistic and rabidly anti-intellectual America that has completely abandoned self-control, filled with lawlessness in the streets, from teenagers crashing cars into people to firemen at Montag's station who set their mechanical hound to hunt various animals for the simple and grotesque pleasure of watching them die. Anyone caught reading books is, at the minimum, confined to a mental hospital while the books are burned. Illegal books mainly include famous works of literature, such as Whitman and Faulkner, as well as The Bible, and all historical texts.
....
He said in a 2007 interview that the book explored the effects of television and mass media on the reading of literature.
....
On another occasion, Bradbury observed that the novel touches on the alienation of people by media:
“In writing the short novel Fahrenheit 451 I thought I was describing a world that might evolve in four or five decades. But only a few weeks ago, in Beverly Hills one night, a husband and wife passed me, walking their dog. I stood staring after them, absolutely stunned. The woman held in one hand a small cigarette-package-sized radio, its antenna quivering. From this sprang tiny copper wires which ended in a dainty cone plugged into her right ear. There she was, oblivious to man and dog, listening to far winds and whispers and soap-opera cries, sleep-walking, helped up and down curbs by a husband who might just as well not have been there. This was not fiction.”
Post a Comment