Bloodthirsty Liberal

Not Detroit. (Is there anything left to burn?) Not France. (Not yet.)

Long Island, New York.

Michelle Malkin has your run-down (complete with video) of all the scores in the action between ACORN and Patriotic Americans:

Because they can’t stand real grass-roots competition.

And because thug thizzle is how they roll.

ACORN affiliates from the astroturf brigade goes nuts on Tea Party activists protesting the Democrat government health care takeover plans in Suffolk County NY.

There were reportedly 10 times as many pro-freedom troops as there were entitlement mobsters.

I suppose this is what then-Professor Obama had in mind when he talked about the short-comings of the Warren Court:

As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution […] and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that.

Not anymore, uh, I guess.

Ever the optimist, I like the sight of American people exercising their freedom of assembly. If one assembly should happen to get into the grill of another assembly, and if the latter assembly should choose to get medieval on the former assembly, I suppose that is a small price to pay for “breaking free of the essential constraints of the Constitution.”

Post-racial my white ass.

Parting question: is there psychological significance to the fact that the two African American who have most inflamed race relations over the past week—President Obama and Preofessor Gates—are both at least half white?

Hitler in Mein Kampf, Marx in Das Kapital, Obama at University of Chicago—the radicals always boast about their schemes.

Okay, a little hyperbolic humor, but the point is valid. Everything President Obama has done and is trying to do is presaged by these words, so widely quoted, so little understood (up till now):

[T]the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf….

And he’s just the man (liberally speaking) to rectify that.

But as a friend pointed out, he wants free soft-serve ice cream from the government, and all the president is offering is health care.

The Federal Government can’t satisfy 300,000,000 agendas, so it has to choose what to do on your behalf, and you have to like it. You don’t look so good (you’re too fat, you’re too old, you’re too rich), so it’s universal health care for you—but only so much. What do you think, we’re made of money?

If it did offer free soft-serve ice cream, it would of necessity be vanilla, and only enough to fill up to the top of the cheap-o waffle cone (but no further—and chocolate ice cream and sugar cones would be outlawed for violating the principle of equality and fairness for all).

When we’re not providing health care (such as it is) on your behalf, we’re fixing the economy. Also on your behalf. If you lost your job, well, that was a problem we inherited, and at least you have health care!

And (also on your behalf) no more global warming. Stopped. Just like that. “I stopped the sea-level rise. Ask me how.”

Okay, I’ve wandered a little far afield here, but the point is this: Obama does not feel “constrained” by the Founding Fathers. Without an amendment or a constitutional convention, he has (or feels he has) upended over 200 years of American political philosophy.

America was founded on the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—rights endowed by the creator, not the king or president. Obama’s America is more like Sweden or the Netherlands—nice places, if you like hash and hookers (and who doesn’t?), just not this place, just not our place. And he has Congress (or enough of it) with him. And the courts are balanced on the edge.

So it falls to us, the people, to issue a corrective. To declare that we want as little as possible done “on our behalf”, and to be left to do as well as we can on our own. We are Americans, and we don’t let people starve, and we don’t let people die in the street.

If we want chocolate, dammit, we’re going to have some f**king chocolate!

What have we been saying?

The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.

In February, California’s Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state’s fastest-growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly and cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that “loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester.”

But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.

Such a federal ukase (the word derives from czarist Russia; how appropriate) to a state legislature is a sign of the administration’s dependency agenda.

…

The Obama agenda of maximizing dependency involves political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of “economic planning” and “social justice.” The administration’s central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.

Nice touch, but George Will over-thinks things. You don’t need to make obscure references to figures in history.

It’s not their thing, George. It’s our thing.

It’s not Nicholas, it’s Anthony.

Now that the former Constitutional Law professor has demonstrated what he thinks of that “document of negative liberties”—reading somewhere between the lines a heretofore undiscovered government mandate to build cars, run banks, and provide medical care—let’s recall his jaundiced attitude toward that “make no law” nonsense in the First Amendment:

[T]he Department of Justice and the FTC should closely scrutinize all mergers for their implications for competition and consumer choice. The FCC should more seriously evaluate the impact of proposed mergers on the ability of divergent communities to participate in the national media environment.

…

I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group. I strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources. I feel that media consolidation during the Bush administration has had the effect of eliminating a lot of the diversity of information sources available to persons who have to rely on more traditional information sources, such as radio and television broadcasts and newspapers.

…

The ill effects of consolidation today and continued consolidation are well-documented — less diversity of opinion, less local news coverage, replication of the same stories across multiple outlets, and others.

…

And common sense tells us that the consolidation of outlets in local markets will lead to fewer opportunities for diverse expression of opinions.

…

I do not want to discourage diversity of programming on cable systems and fear that a la carte regulation may do that.

…

I think FCC commissioners must be committed to service, averse to drama and capable of bringing disparate communities together.

…

I think communications policy must be more focused on the public interest, more inclusive of nonindustry voices and analysis, and maximize opportunities for the expression of a diversity of views. These issues go beyond simple economics to involve a set of core principles of an informed and empowered citizenry that need to be recognized in government’s approach to this important segment of our society.

All right, already! We got it the first, second, and third times!

I’m not sure where to begin or why to bother. Does he seriously think there is a paucity of viewpoints in the media? I’ve lived in Boston and New York, and there are more voices to be heard on the airwaves in those cities than Sybil ever heard in her head. Black stations, Latino stations, Pacifica stations, NPR stations. I have to believe other big cities are the same. And if he’s saying the government needs to go further and require greater “diversity”, I think Justice Scalia needs to sit him down and ’splain the First Amendment to him.

Air America was a well-financed attempt to take on the right-wing agenda of much of the rest of talk radio—and it has famously flopped. Would he engineer a bailout of them, too?

One last point: when somebody starts talking in such psedo-intellectual gruel as this:

The FCC should more seriously evaluate the impact of proposed mergers on the ability of divergent communities to participate in the national media environment.

It’s time either to watch your wallet or grab your gun—or both. “Divergent communities”? “National media environment?” Just shut up, stop preempting American Idol, and leave us the hell alone. That’s your job.

PS: Divergent communities participating in the national education environment is a different story, however:

D.C. parents aren’t letting the anti-choice Obama administration off the hook for strangling the city’s school choice program. They’re holding a rally at Freedom Plaza today.

Someone pointed out that this guy has splurged trillions and trillions of dollars, yet won’t unwrap a roll of pennies for “diverse” students in the DC public schools.

I always had my doubts about candidate Obama being a scholar of constitutional law. Someone who argued so passionately for redistributive change, who dismissed the constitution as merely a document of “negative libebrties” just couldn’t be up on the finer points of Marbury vs. Madison.

Though what those two had against each other I’ll never know:

Stephon Marbury v. Oscar Madison

In any case, Robert “Randy Quaid” Gibbs, puts us all straight:

During the presidential campaign, I alternately ground my teeth and laughed uproariously every time I heard Barack Obama described as a “former professor of constitutional law” on the basis of several years of part-time lecturing at the University of Chicago Law School. Obama supporters assured us that never had any presidential candidate before Obama been so wise, so learned, so scholarly in his knowledge of the U.S. Constitution (no, not even James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson . . .). Why, he wouldn’t even need any help vetting Supreme Court nominations, but could do the work all by his lonesome. He could even appoint himself! And he probably should, except that we need him so much as president!! Or wait, couldn’t he do both jobs at once? Is that permitted under the Constitution? Why, ask Obama—he’ll know if anyone will!

So it was a truly delicious moment to read the lead from William McGurn’s Wall Street Journal column today, in which he reproduces an exchange from one of last week’s White House press briefings:

Helen Thomas: Why is the president blocking habeas corpus from prisoners at Bagram? I thought he taught constitutional law. And these prisoners have been there . . .

Robert Gibbs: You’re incorrect that he taught on constitutional law.

Sorry, RQ, our mistake. Though you can hardly blame Helen Thomas. I’m amazed she can still find her way from the rest home to the briefing room.

You don’t get the Gibbs/Quaid comparison? Since I’m forbidden from posting Helen Thomas pics, check this out:

Robert Quaid v. Randy Gibbs

The United States has before passed amendments to the Constitution, only to repeal them.

I just didn’t expect it to happen to the First Amendment:

Remember when the Left laughed at conservatives’ concerns over the Fairness Doctrine? Barack Obama already said he opposed the reimposition of the FCC rule, they said. After all, Obama’s campaign gave this definitive statement in June 2008:

“Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” said press secretary Michael Ortiz in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” said Ortiz.

…

Today, Chris Wallace interviewed David Axelrod and asked him directly about the Fairness Doctrine — and suddenly the White House adviser got a lot less definitive:

WALLACE: Will you rule out reimposing the Fairness Doctrine?

AXELROD: I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, to, and the president, to discuss. So I don’t have an answer for you now.

…

The American media should be ashamed of themselves on this issue. They pose as the defenders of the First Amendment and free speech. Why are Chris Wallace and Michael Calderone the only MSM people pursuing this?

I like Ed Morrissey a lot, but he’s being disingenuous here. The American media are practically leading the charge for the Fairness Doctrine. Too many members are motivated by ideology, not information, and anyone who is not singing frm the same hymnbook as they (Rush, Sean), will be kicked out of the choir.

There is nothing fair about suspending the Constitution for political gain.

Think back to 5th grade when you had to learn all about the boring Constitution. Remember about the Office of the President Elect? Quick, recite the duties of that office!

This is America’s Time of Need. Someone with the right skills needs to step forward. There is so much material here for the right comedian. Remember Chevy Chase making fun of President Ford because he tripped? Where is the new comedian who will stand up and lampoon this guy? He needs to appear onstage wearing a toga and a crown of laurels. He needs to make long, meandering speeches in which the sentences lack coherence, are light on nouns and verbs, containing mostly just a string on adjectives. Whoever does this will become my President. I plan the spend the next four years yucking it up. Oh, and here’s a suggestion for the Cabinet. John Kerry should not be Secretary of State. He should chair the Department of Redundancy Department.

As Not What Your Country Can Do For You. Ask What You Can Do For Your Country!

- Aggie