Piers Morgan gets it right

Second Amendment: Piers Morgan

(CCL Pete Riches)

About that whole Second Amendment thing. Is there anybody out there still:

  • doubting that tyranny could happen (indeed, is happening) in America?
  • cheerfully trusting a government that seizes reporters’ phone records and uses government agencies to target its political foes?
  • doubting that our government might use the information gleaned from universal background checks to harass people?

Second Amendment proponents argue that our constitutional right to keep and bear arms is, among other things, a defense against tyranny.

A number of gun control proponents have just rolled their eyes in response. Tyranny? Here?

Inconceivable!

Take the President’s remarks at Ohio State’s commencement exercises two weeks ago:

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices are also doing their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

He’s caricaturing his political opponents, of course, because straw men are easier to knock down. Only anarchists would say that government is nothing more than some sinister entity at the root of all our problems.

But what’s truly unfortunate here is that the voices the President is dismissing so cavalierly (“tyranny is always just around the corner”) are preeminently those of our founders. From dozens of possibilities, I’ll just remind you of Madison’s pointed remark at the Constitutional Convention in July, 1787:

The truth [is] all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.

And Jefferson’s comment in a letter to Madison:

 I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government, as they are already guarded against their state governments in most instances.

Even Piers Morgan has seen the light. On his show last week he told Penn Jillette:

I’ve had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here saying to me, well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government. And I’ve always laughed at them.  And I’ve always said don’t be so ridiculous, your own government won’t turn itself on you.

But actually when you look at this, it’s nothing to do with guns, but actually this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government. I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior. I think what the Department of Justice has done actually, to the AP, is bordering on tyrannical behavior.

You can watch it here:

Vaguely? Bordering on?

Well, still, for Morgan, it’s considerable progress.

And then there’s MSNBC talking head and gun control advocate Joe Scarborough. On last Friday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough commented that, “My argument [for gun control] is less persuasive today because of these [IRS] scandals.”

Since Newtown, Scarborough has advocated for expanding background checks for firearms purchases. But Friday he said:

I have been saying for months now, and everybody knows this, that I believe we need background checks. After Newtown, after Chicago, we need background checks.

My argument has been, don’t worry, background checks aren’t going to lead to a national registry. The government’s never going to create a national registry, right? And there’s even something there that says it’s a felony if you get–I don’t even have to complete my sentence, do I?

My argument is less persuasive today because of these scandals. People say, “Hey, if they do this with the IRS–asking people what books you read–then how can I trust them with information about my Second Amendment rights? This is devastating. 

You can watch it here:

Madison, of course, was right. We need to distrust everyone in power. Because, as Lord Acton observed, power corrupts. And, to paraphrase the rest of his aphorism, tremendous power–which is what we’ve given our federal government over the last 150 years–corrupts tremendously.

Which means that we now have a tremendously corrupt government.

So we need the Bill of Rights, now more than ever–yes, even that pesky Second Amendment–to guard the people against their government.

Even Piers Morgan and Joe Scarborough are beginning to get it.

(H/T to Poor Richard’s News)

Share

Florist fights back: Arlene’s Flowers update

Barronelle Stutzman

Barronelle Stutzman (Facebook)

Barronelle Stutzman has decided that the best defense is a good offense. Stutzman, 68, is the owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, the Richland, Washington, business being sued by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Ferguson is suing Arlene’s because Stutzman declined to violate her faith by doing the floral decorations for the wedding of longtime customer Robert Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed.

Stutzman filed a countersuit yesterday against the attorney general, arguing that his suit violates her rights under both the United States and Washington State Constitutions, as well as violating the federal Civil Rights Act.

Article 1, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution protects “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship.” It guarantees that:

no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion.

The countersuit, Arlene’s Flowers v. Ferguson, makes clear that Stutzman had no qualms about doing business with gay and lesbian customers in general or Ingersoll in particular:

In her capacity as the owner and primary floral designer for Arlene’s Flowers, Barronelle has been creating floral arrangements for Robert Ingersoll for nearly nine years. Barronelle enjoys the warm and cordial relationship that she has developed with Mr. Ingersoll. . . .

Barronelle has known that Robert Ingersoll identifies himself as gay throughout most of their nine-year relationship. That fact never made any difference in the way Mr. Ingersoll was treated as a customer.

Arlene’s Flowers routinely designs floral arrangements for other gay and lesbian clientele. Arlene’s Flowers has also had openly gay employees.

The countersuit also details Stutzman’s religious convictions:

In accordance with her understanding of traditional Christian and Biblical [sic] values, Barronelle believes that marriage has religious significance apart from any civil significance, and that its religious significance is inherent in the institution of marriage. Barronelle believes, as the Bible teaches, that marriage is defined by God as a union of man and woman.

Barronelle knew that creating floral arrangements for Mr. Ingersoll’s wedding would be contrary to her sincerely held religious convictions. She believed that doing so would compel her to express a message with her creativity that violates God’s commands. She also believed that her creation of the floral arrangements would be perceived as an endorsement and celebration of same-sex marriage.

You can read the countersuit here. (Keep scrolling–it follows Arlene’s response to the attorney general’s original complaint.)

Before voters legalized same-sex marriage last fall, same-sex marriage proponents assured us that, in Rep. Jamie Pedersen’s words:

the legislation will provide strong protection for religious liberty.

Now, of course, we see that it provides no protection at all. And Bob Ferguson’s ham-handed and simplistic solution is simply to trample the rights of people of faith.

Washington State’s non-discrimination statute prohibits discrimination on the basis of creed and religion as well as on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s high time we start talking about how we’re going to actually do that.

Last year was actually the time for the conversation, of course.

But better late than never.

Share

6th Circuit to Pilgrims: Cry me a river

Romeike family

The Romeike family (HSLDA)

It’s a good thing the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals wasn’t around when the Mayflower arrived. Those venerable jurists would have sent its passengers packing.

The Pilgrims’ search for religious freedom is central to our understanding of who we are as a country. But their story would never weather a court challenge today. They weren’t even persecuted in the Netherlands, after all. They simply found the Dutch culture and language strange, and Dutch morals loose–and they feared they were losing their children to the dominant Dutch culture.

Cry me a river, the Sixth Circuit would say.

In fact, they just did.

German immigrants Uwe and Hannelore Romeike have a much stronger case than the Pilgrims ever did. But the Sixth Circuit handed them their hats Tuesday, and told them to go back to Germany.

Home schooling is illegal in Germany. But, concerned about public school teachings at odds with their Christian faith, the couple began home schooling their children in 2007. They were quickly hit with over ten thousand dollars in fines and threatened with the loss of their children. In 2008, they came to the United States and later sought asylum here.

In 2010, U.S. Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman granted their petition. He found that they had a “well-founded fear of persecution” for their beliefs if they returned to Germany. He noted in his decision that:

[T]he rights that are being violated in this case are basic to humanity, they are basic human rights which no country has a right to violate, even a country that is in many ways a good country, such as Germany.

But the Justice Department appealed the decision. And, in 2012, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overturned Judge Burman’s decision. The Romeikes, in turn, appealed that decision. (I wrote about their situation back in February, if you want more detail than I’ve given here.)

Tuesday a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati upheld the BIA decision. (You can read the full decision here.) The appellate court said that the Romeikes aren’t eligible for asylum because they weren’t persecuted in Germany.

Draconian fines? Nope. Threats of losing their children? Pshaw. It’s not persecution, the court said, because the law applies equally to everyone. German law prohibits everyone from home schooling.

It’s a patently ridiculous argument. Suppose  we passed a law requiring businesses to be open on Saturday. It wouldn’t precipitate a crisis of conscience for most Americans. Most of us aren’t adverse to working on Saturdays. (Okay, so maybe we are–but not morally opposed, just a tad lazy.) It would, however, be tremendously oppressive to our Orthodox Jewish, Conservative Jewish and Seventh Day Adventist friends and neighbors.

Notice: The law would apply equally to everyone in the country–but would only persecute a small minority. But, incredibly, the 6th Circuit says that even when a law violates human rights, it doesn’t rise to the level of persecution as long as it is “equally administered to all.”

Bring on the thumb screws and rack! Just be sure you administer them equally to all.

But it gets worse. The German government is on record as saying that the law is specifically intended to target people like the Romeikes. A 2003 German Supreme Court decision held that Germany’s compulsory attendance law served a legitimate state interest by “counteracting the development of parallel societies.” In plain English, that means the purpose of the law is to suppress people who think differently than the majority: religious and philosophical minorities, in other words.

Enforced groupthink doesn’t persecute minorities? Who are we trying to kid?

The Romeikes plan to appeal to the full Sixth Circuit. But if they lose there, they’re probably out of options. Except for bankruptcy, imprisonment and the loss of their children.

Or doing what they believe to be wrong.

Unless, of course, they want to slip into Mexico. There, as Don Vincenzo suggests at The Thinking Housewife, they could wait for the President to get his amnesty plan through Congress before returning as illegal aliens. Then the same Justice Department that is forcing them out would presumably welcome them with open arms.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Share

Kermit Gosnell trial is over–ours isn’t

Kermit Gosnell: 3D ultrasound image of baby in utero

3D ultrasound image (CCL Sheila Steele)

Kermit Gosnell was convicted today on three counts of first degree murder–for the murders of Babies A, C and D. Testimony had shown that Gosnell joked to staffers while killing Baby A that the infant was big enough to “walk me to the bus stop.” He was also convicted on one count of involuntary manslaughter in the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, whom his medically unqualified staff sedated to death.

Now where do we go from here?

What will we do about the hundreds of other viable babies–probably several thousand–who are being born alive and killed or left to die in our country each year?

About the more than 3,000 other babies killed in this country each day in utero–just a few inches and a few seconds away from where Babies A, C and D were murdered.

At the National Prayer Breakfast in February, 1994, Mother Teresa said (you can watch her whole speech here):

I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, that father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

Using any violence to get what we want? Mother Teresa never set foot in the 21st century, but she saw it more clearly than most of us do.

The question is, what will we do about what we know?

The trial of Kermit Gosnell has ended. Ours is not yet finished.

Share

Living connected: small government and a sense of community

small government: Thomas Jefferson

I often think it’s comical–Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive–Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liber-al
Or else a little Conserva-tive!

So sings good Private Willis in Gilbert and Sullivan’s rollicking operetta Iolanthe. And certainly many people do seem to have inherited their politics. I had a friend for many years who was personally conservative, both fiscally and socially, but a major Democratic donor–largely, I suspect, because Mama had been a yellow-dog Democrat.

Continue reading

Share

Today is No Socks Day

No Socks Day

(CCL colorblindPICASO)

Okay, it’s time for a little fun. That’s right, ladies and gentlemen: Today is No Socks Day. It’s a day to kick off your socks and wiggle your toes–and perhaps get a pedicure. No Socks Day is even copyrighted–by Thomas and Ruth Roy of Wellcat Holidays. Say the Roys:

If we give up wearing socks for one day, it will mean a little less laundry, thereby contributing to the betterment of the environment.  Besides, we will all feel a bit freer, at least for one day.

Just think: If everyone in the United States goes sockless today, that’ll be 314 million pairs of socks that don’t have to be washed tomorrow.

Continue reading

Share

Meandering Monday: a few good articles

I don’t know about where you live, but it’s a glorious day here in Southwest Washington. I can’t really imagine that you have your nose stuck to the screen. But if so, I hope you’re outside–and here are some good articles I’ve run across recently in my meanderings around the Internet.

Oh, and don’t forget the sunscreen.

Article: Sharia Do Like It

good articles: woman in burkha

(CCL CharlesFred)

Why you may want to read it: Britain’s Economist runs a feature called Graphic Detail: a new chart or map each day, often interactive and with interesting external links. Oh, I know, it sounds a little wonky, but take “Sharia Do Like It.”

What exactly do Muslims who support sharia law mean by that, anyway? How does Islam in Afghanistan compare with Islam in, say, Kazakhstan? And how do fans of sharia feel about religious freedom, anyway?

Excerpt: Almost 80% of Egyptian Muslims say they favour religious freedom and a similar number favour sharia law. Of that group, almost 90% also think people who renounce Islam should be put to death. Confused? So are they.

Continue reading

Share