So Lady Harriet is gone.

Or at least not on the way to join the Supremes.

Rush says that she should have been gone because she showed a weak president. As a political animal, this was an obvious disappointment to Rush; who favors a strong pres. While I do enjoy listening to Rush, his analysis on this is probably the worst spin I’ve heard on this. If we want a conservative president to be stronger than a liberal congress – then I’d buy it. But strong liberal presidents going along with strong liberal congresses? No quite.

The “conservative” credentials for W are long gone. There is no real reason for anyone to want him to be strong at all. Miers was a weak nominee for a weak president. Roberts was too. And we have yet to see how the weak Roberts will play out. Whether he ends up being the next Scalia or Thomas will be quite by accident as nobody, not even the president, knows what he will do.

The withdrawal of Miers gives the president another opportunity to fulfill his campaign promise to appoint a strict constructionist, an originalist. I pray he does so.

God Bless.

Criminal Law

Thanks John Stossel, who once again seems to state the obvious:

First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.

I’m not poking fun at Stossel. Far from it. He sums up the two biggest arguments against gun control in less than 40 words. Since every so often legislatures seem to want to try and repeal the law of supply and demand (like with the gas prices issue), it’s no surprise that they would attempt to do this with guns as well. And as for those criminals who don’t obey the law… If I have the choice of facing an armed criminal with a gun in my hand, or without a gun in my hand; I’d rather have the gun. Viscerally, it makes me feel better – and the statistics show that you’re safer fighting the attacker than following along.

Stossel closes with this:

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

The preparedness issue is one that everybody avoids, yet is the most critical. Even with citizens not currently in armed rebellion against the government, who is to say at what point it will be so? Yielding your rights to this defense against tyranny does not merely yield your rights, but that of your children as well. And perhaps for generations. How many generations has it taken for the racist concealed weapons prohibitions to be repealed? And even now, almost all the states require a “permit” for you to carry a concealed weapon. As such, this right has yet to be reclaimed by the people.

I used to joke about how people would react if there was a 5 day waiting period on computers; since words written on a computer could reach so many people so quickly. After all – the pen is supposed to be mightier than the sword. Now, after the campaign finance debacle – it’s no laughing matter.

The point is that presuming that armed rebellion is currently not necessary, that fact does not translate to say that it will never be necessary. We have the obligation – the duty – to advance the cause of liberty to the next generation. For who knows when they shall need it.

Thanks Joseph Sobran

For making the point. Better than I have done so lately:

We incessantly read and hear that America has “moved to the right” in recent years. This impression seems to be even stronger in Europe than it is here.
…

As the Democrats have moved left of liberalism, the Republicans have occupied the space they’ve abandoned, pretending that the old liberalism is conservatism. Well, it isn’t. The Republicans are doing most of the things that were once called liberal. They spend recklessly, ignore constitutional limitations, increase government power, create new federal programs, you name it — only they now call these liberal sins conservative virtues.

This allows incautious observers to think America is “moving to the right” even as it continues moving to the left. Any liberal who stops getting even more liberal is said to have moved to the right, when in fact he hasn’t moved at all.

Every few weeks/months I run into a “Rebublican” who just about apologizes for not being a Democrat claiming “I didn’t leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party left me.” OK. I believe them. But if the Democratic party is now the home of the ultra socialist left. And if the Rebublicans are now the Democratic party of old. Then where Pray-tell, are lovers of liberty, peace and prosperity supposed to be?

Tell Better Stories

The river metaphor showed up in a sermon yesterday. I have just about had it with the whole water/rain/ocean/river as a metaphor of the Christian life. Too much trite and not enough substance. All metaphors fail when taken beyond the mildest of applications. And to make the metaphor work, most will dumb down the message instead of changing or eliminating the metaphor. Not this time.

The congregation had just been updated on the status of several members of the church who had been in the Jasper, GA bus crash. Lives changed, fears realized, courage tested. Could it have all been avoided? Probably. At what cost?

The preacher spoke of a previous white water rafting trip, and the willingness to risk. I leaned a little forward in my seat. The price of admission he called it. Having traveled a long distance to see mild white water rapids, they found torrential class 5 rapids far beyond their expectations. To go or not to go? As they practiced in the shallow eddies, with the cool water, the hot sun, and gentle currents, it was easy to think that maybe it would be better to stay in the shallows, get a good tan. Why take the risk? Everyone was afraid. Yet they found their courage, conquered their fear, and took the trip. In the end, it was worth the price of admission. But if they hadn’t gone? No risk. No reward. Total loss. Wasted trip.

The question posed by the preacher was “Are you willing to get into the rapids?” Ironically, it is noted humanist Henry David Thoreau who answers: “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.” Christians ought not be men of quiet desperation. We are not “most men.” We have the hope that lies within. A promise written in blood upon a cross. A promise proven by an empty grave. A surety granted in the present indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As Christians, our lives are already forfeit to His Glory. So you might as well conquer your own fear and jump in.

The youth on this trip had probably figured that the bus ride home carried the least risk. Yet it was that part of the journey that manifest very real danger. The eddy currents carry their own deceptive risks. To avoid those risks, the students would have had to stay home and avoid the “river” altogether. But isolation is no way to live a life. No way to share your life with others. No way to lead others to the Life we have in Christ.

We are not long for this world. A few years compared to eternity. Our days are numbered as sure at the hairs upon our head. Like the group Kansas says: “They slip away, and all your money won’t another minute buy.” Or your fear. Or your worry.

At the risk of suffering the penalty for mixed metaphors: If we truly believe that this life is preparatory for the next; then it’s time we showed up for practice. Practice hard. Take bigger risks. Tell better stories.

Ends V Means

I was driving this evening, listening to FoxNews on XM Radio. It was the rebroadcast of the FoxNewsSunday show and I heard the host ask the question: "What's the big deal how she [Miers] comes to the decision, just so long as it's the right decision?" (Or words to that effect) That's a pretty revealing statement. The ends justifies the means. At least imlicit in the wording of the question by Chris Wallace.

But the ends do not justify the means. For years Americans advocated a morality apart from God. And raised a most remarkable selfish and self-righteous generation. Morality, once from the Creator, then by a wise man, then by parent's and "The way I was raised." Steadily declining levels of authority. Until the authority is gone and the morality dissapears as well.

Absent a firm foundation; law is merely the rules of the game. But "conservative" legal thought has developed a remarkable foundation consistent with intent of the founders. One where the rules of society are sound, predictable, and allow a marked amount of individual liberty. Judges who rule the "right" way, yet do so without the proper development place the whole of the law at risk.

That is the problem before the court, and the problem before the nation today. Apart from the means, the end falls apart, is without meaning, and void. Christians who advocate a morality apart from God, ordered by the state, make the same mistake that the "pragmatic" republicans do now. Mistaking the desired end, for the required means.

Trust Me: The Sequel

Just when the conservative masses thought that they'd get over Roberts; The even more mysterious candidate comes forth.

It's time to take President Bush at his word. He has nominated two people for the SCOTUS that share his judicial philosophy. If you want to know what that philosophy is, then look to the people he has nominated.

He has nominated two people who have actively campaigned for creating special rights for people who engage in certain behaviours. He has nominated people with stated distain for the "mainstream" conservatives.

Given Dubya's penchant for inventing new meanings for word - like compassionate conservative. (Actually means ex-democrats still have their socialistic tendancies but like to go to church) It really isn't any wonder that he has his own meaning for "strict constructionist." And as for that quote about Thomas and Scalia; he probably meant "those who would like Thomas and Scalia" not "those like Thomas and Scalia."

While the LEFT has run around making fun of the president's invented words, they've ignored, along with the rest of America, his ability to re-define what those words mean. This ability re-define the meaning of words puts him in the same class of Bill Clinton - it's no wonder that the Bushs and Clintons are such good friends now.