People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Quote of the Day

From Curt Levey:
Claiming that Arizona gunman Jared Loughner was motivated to kill by heated political rhetoric is about as sensible as believing the Son of Sam’s assertion that he was motivated to kill by the barking of his neighbor Sam’s dog. Son of Sam and Keith Olbermann see a link – perhaps even Loughner sees a link – but consider the source. The truth is people like Loughner kill because they are too mentally unbalanced and angry at society to be influenced by even normal considerations of self-preservation, no less by the tone of civil discourse.
"As sensible as Son of Sam," RedState, January 9, 2011

Malkin Goes On The Counteroffensive

This from Michelle Malkin, on the hypocrites and fools who dominate left-wing politics in this country, is worth reading just for its sheer breadth.

May they now be shamed into silence.

Well, At Least She Doesn't Blame Sarah Palin

A shit-for-brains Democrat in New York blames the gun Jared Lee Loughner used to kill six innocent people in Tucson on Saturday.  How odd.

See "Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill."

We certainly don't want to blame the deranged gunman.  Let's go after that metal object that had a mind of its own.

For the love of God.

The Truth About Jared Lee Loughner Will Out

To listen to the mentally challenged in the mainstream press, you'd think Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Nation gave Jared Lee Loughner the handgun he used to kill six people in Tucson on Saturday and urged him to pull the trigger.

But nothing could be further from the truth. Jared Lee Loughner is deranged. And he acted on his delusions - without instigation, as best anyone at this point can tell - when he gunned down all those innocents. Period.

Or, as the Wall Street Journal puts it in "Murder in Tucson":
On all available evidence, Jared Lee Loughner is a mentally disturbed man who targeted Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and anyone near her in Tucson on Saturday because she was prominent and they were tragically accessible. He joins Sirhan Sirhan, John Hinckley Jr. and many others whose derangement led them to horrible acts of violence. Whatever confused political motives he expressed seem merely to be part of the maelstrom of his mental sickness.

In a better world, no one would attempt to exploit his madness for political gain. We would instead focus on the contributions of Ms. Giffords, by all accounts a laudable public servant. We would celebrate the lives of the other victims, and we would praise the survivors who intervened to tackle Mr. Loughner and disarm him before he could kill others—like 74-year-old retiree Bill Badger, who was grazed in the head by a bullet before helping to restrain the shooter.

But the shooting news had barely hit the wires on Saturday before the media's instant psychoanalysis put the American body politic on the couch instead of Mr. Loughner. "Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics," declared a story in the New York Times, which focused primarily on the tea party and Sarah Palin in the context of mass murder. The story even hauled in opposition to health-care reform.

Politico, the Beltway website, chimed in by quoting a "veteran Democratic operative" advising the White House "to deftly pin this on the tea partiers," just as "the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people" in 1995.

Shouldn't a publication insist that someone urging the exploitation of murder at least put his name on the record? The same goes for the anonymous Republican Senator quoted by Politico denouncing "town halls and cable TV and talk radio" in relation to Mr. Loughner.

Judging from Mr. Loughner's own website, his mind was a mess of conspiracy theories, influenced by tracts like "Mein Kampf" and the "Communist Manifesto." His main complaint about government seems to be that he believes it is trying to control American "grammar." Yet this becomes an excuse for the media to throw him in with the tea partiers as "anti-government."

Perhaps we will learn more as the investigation unfolds. But so far this case couldn't be more different than that of Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer who was motivated by Islamist hatred of America. Yet it is notable that the press corps was more restrained in identifying Major Hasan's Islamist role models than in immediately stretching to link Mr. Loughner with American politicians who universally denounce such violence. [link]
It's a shameful act when leftists jump to conclusions and start blaming innocent people for the deaths of others without having any facts.  It's beyond shameful when they conspire with one another to do so.

"Journolist" may be dead.  But the nefarious machinations of its participants live on.  It's no accident that they all jumped on this story and - without a shred of evidence - began blaming Sarah Palin (!) and the Tea Party for the outrageous acts of a lone gunman in Tucson.

May all those who have joined this liberal plot live to regret it.

* Note: That last sentence is not a threat; it's a wish.

I Defend The Washington Post

History to me is black and white.  There is no gray area.  There are only unknowns yet to be given hue as relevant facts emerge.

There is, to be sure, interpretation.  But, in the end, the facts are the facts and opinions give way to them.

Which brings us to the fact that the United States Constitution did in fact recognize the institution of slavery.

Say what, you ask?

The background:
The Constitution Did Not Condone Slavery
By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison, American Thinker

"There's nothing new under the sun," said President Harry Truman, " there's only history we haven't learned yet." The history we haven't learned yet was on display on page one of the Washington Post. Post writers Philip Rucker and David Farenthold reported on the reading of the Constitution by newly sworn in Members of the 112th Congress.

The Rucker-Farenthold article was nowhere labeled analysis, but who expects anything but front-page editorials these days, anyway? They waded right in to a two-hundred-twenty-two-year-old controversy when they flatly stated that the original Constitution "condoned" slavery.

Abraham Lincoln did not agree. He revered the Constitution and said that the fact that it nowhere mentioned the words "slavery," "slave," "African," or "Negro" was a silent but powerful admission that the Founders were ashamed of the existence of slavery among them. They hid it away, Lincoln said, as "an afflicted man hides a wen or tumor."

Abolitionist editor and orator Frederick Douglass also did not agree. He emphasized eloquently that not one word would have to be changed in the Constitution if only the states would follow George Washington's example and voluntarily give up slavery.

Lincoln and Douglass were right. James Madison explained why there was no mention of slavery in the Constitution. The framers were unwilling to admit in the federal charter that there could be property in men.

The idea that our Constitution "condoned" slavery and was therefore an immoral document unworthy of being viewed with reverence is a stock liberal claim. It is false. [link]
I'll leave the "immoral" aspect of the Constitution to those who wish to delve into opinion on that subject.  But the facts regarding the recognition of the institution of slavery in our founding document are incontrovertible.

How so?

Because those who we charge with interpreting its meaning said so.

I have the utmost respect for Frederick Douglas.  And for Abraham Lincoln. But neither was ever granted the authority to judge for us the meaning of the words in the Constitution (and, respectfully, as for Madison, the citation above really has no relevance).

So to whom do we defer for that interpretation?

The United States Supreme Court.

And what did the Supreme Court have to say when it came to the Constitution "condoning" the institution of slavery?

It ruled, in 1857, in black and white, for all the world to see, that - and I quote from the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in "DRED SCOTT v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD":
"... [T]here are two clauses in the Constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed.

One of these clauses reserves to each of the thirteen States the right to import slaves until the year 1808, if it thinks proper. And the importation which it thus sanctions was unquestionably of persons of the race of which we are speaking, as the traffic in slaves in the United States had always been confined to them. And by the other provision the States pledge themselves to each other to maintain the right of property of the master, by delivering up to him any slave who may have escaped from his service, and be found within their respective territories. By the first above-mentioned clause, therefore, the right to purchase and hold this property is directly sanctioned and authorized for twenty years by the people who framed the Constitution.
And finally:
Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner, with the intention of becoming a permanent resident.
We may not like it. And we don't.

But it's there just the same. And can never be taken away or dismissed.

The Supreme Court of the United States rendered its official position in 1857 that the Constitution as it was originally written (not just condoned but) sanctioned the institution of slavery.

Some will argue that the 14th Amendment later negated a portion of the Dred Scott decision. And they would be right. But that doesn't alter the fact that slavery was ruled to be very much a part of our Constitution.

Sometimes we wish so strongly that things weren't so that we argue - and begin to believe - that they weren't so.

But wishing doesn't make them so.

The facts are the facts.

The Attacks Rise To The Level ...

... of blood libel.

Glenn Reynolds on the sinister plot of the left-wing media to pin blame on innocent people for the outrageous murders that were committed in Tucson on Saturday:
The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel

Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

Where is the decency in that?
Decency? They don't know the meaning of the word.