Too Stupid to Vote

I bet you thought the days of people "too stupid to vote" were over, once we put all the idiot AlGore voters behind us--you know, the ones too stupid to figure out how they wanted to vote.
You'd be wrong. Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily draws attention to one of Sean Hannity's recent "man on the street" segments of his radio show.

The segment, which took place on Dec. 7, which is Pearl Harbor Day (the day the Japanese attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, for you public school grads out there). It wasn't just that several people had no clue what the day was about that Farah found remarkable:

But what struck me about this simple test was that every single person who flunked the test had voted Democratic in the midterm elections. They did this because they believed the Democrats were "for the people," or "supported labor" or "fought for the little guy."

Lest you think Farah is some Republican Kool-Aid drinker:

In a few weeks, the party of idiots will be running both houses of Congress. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the Republicans deserved to win. I think I've been very clear about the opportunities squandered by the GOP over the last 12 years and especially the last six. But, let's face it. The people who will be running the most important of the three branches of government come January owe their political careers to stupid people, deceived people, people who don't even know what happened at Pearl Harbor.

If you've ever wondered how liberals could come up with the nutty ideas they do--and then stubbornly insist they reflect reality--then this explains a lot. It's because they are usually so profoundly ignorant of history, not to mention a host of other facts, that in their warped world, their ideas actually make sense.

The only problem: their solutions won't work in the real world where we all live.

The really scary part: they're in charge of our nation's lawmaking body for the next two years.

Episcopal parishes split with diocese

I knew there were still Bible-believing folks in the Episcopal Church, despite the efforts of some to portray the church as having gone completely over to the Gospel of Liberalism.

This from the Fresno Bee:

The Diocese of San Joaquin, made up of about 50 churches in 10 counties, is the only diocese in the country to vote to separate from the American Episcopal Church. The division is primarily over interpretation of the Bible and views on the ordination of homosexuals.

In 2003, V. Gene Robinson was elected in New Hampshire as the church's first openly gay bishop. Bishop John-David Schofield of the Diocese of San Joaquin said earlier this month that the practice of homosexuality was unacceptable to God and "an abomination" to Scripture.

Across the country, the 2.2 million-member denomination is struggling to remain unified. In Virginia, two of the state's biggest Episcopal churches — with roots dating to colonial times — are expected to vote next week to sever ties with the denomination.

Expect more Bible-believing Episcopal churches to make this move. A number of denominations are plagued by liberal leaders who would rather be trendy than Biblical, but they still have many members who believe God meant what He said.

Arsonists Helping the Firemen

The Heritage Foundation has a good analysis of the Iraq study group report.

One of the first things it brings out is the rejection of the "cut-and-run-for-victory" strategy of the Democrats, along with the timetable strategy.

It also points out the utter stupidity of the recommendation to bring Iran and Syria to the table. When I first heard this, I thought something along the lines of foxes guarding the hen house, but Senator Joe Lieberman says it well:

"Asking Iran and Syria to help us succeed in Iraq is like your local fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire. These people are flaming the fire."

Most of the Middle East terrorism is either staged or funded through these two bloodthirsty regimes. Instead of bringing them into the Iraq "process," we should instead be preparing to move our forces to these two countries, once the job is done in Iraq (something we might have already been able to do, had not the Democrats undermined the whole operation since before Day One). There will never be peace in the Middle East, nor will there be an end to terrorism, as long as barbaric governments like those of Syria and Iran remain in operation.

Other people's money

There has been a lot of discussion in recent days--and rightly so--about the nature of charity in America. It's been brought to the forefront of public discourse by ABC's 20/20 show last week where Wal-Mart shoppers in Sioux Falls out-gave Macy's shoppers in San Francisco.

A Renew America post yesterday contains a wealth of information on this subject, including some information on why liberal religious types don't misunderstand the Bible when they think New Testament Christians were communists.

Part of the information cited includes Article 1 Section 8 which outlines congressional authority. You will notice that NO power was given to dispense charity, including any for farm subsidies (as I mentioned in my column in the Rapid City Journal last week).

There is simply no support in the Bible or the Constitution for the legal plunder committed by our government today.

That's Exactly the Problem with the Courts

An article from Forbes today identifies exactly the problem we have with the courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."

Looking "beyond the Constitution" isn't a part of Breyer's job. The Constitution is the highest law of our land, and it is the law upon which the justness of all other laws are based. It isn't within the scope, mandate or authority of judges to "make it up as they go."

In his interview, Breyer argued that in some cases it wouldn't make sense to strictly follow the Constitution because phrases such as "freedom of speech" are vague. Judges must look at the real-world context - not focus solely on framers' intent, as Scalia has argued - because society is constantly evolving, he said.

It is true that society is constantly evolving, but human nature is not. What's more, right and wrong are not "evolving." They are transcendent and unchangeable. Something that was wrong yesterday doesn't suddenly become right today because 51% of the people say it is.

"Those words, 'the freedom of speech,' 'Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech' - neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet," Breyer said.

How can someone this obtuse be a judge??? The internet didn't have to be invented at the time the First Amendment was written in order to be able to apply it to the internet. That's like saying, "Well the law doesn't specifically prohibit me from killing a person named 'Arthur G. Jones,' so it it must be okay." There are principles that reasonable people can apply across a broad variety of settings. But Breyer, by his own admission, lacks the reasoning ability and discernment to do this (just one more reason why he and his ilk should be impeached for betraying their oath to protect the Constitution--something you can't do while you're subverting and ignoring it).

Here's another doozy:

Pointing to the example of campaign finance, Breyer also said the court was right in 2003 to uphold on a 5-4 vote the McCain-Feingold law that banned unlimited donations to political parties.

Acknowledging that critics had a point in saying the law violates free speech, Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to the little guy who isn't tied to special interests.

Where in the Constitution is the "exception clause" that says you can ignore it if ignoring it will "make things more fair?"

One last pearl of wisdom from Breyer here. In his defense of a woman's "right" to kill her unborn child, he refers to Roe v. Wade:

"The more the precedent has been around, the more people rely on it, the more secure it has to be," he said.

Secure. Secure like the precedent of NOT allowing women to kill their unborn children was BEFORE they threw that one out in the name of convenience? Like the precedence of states being able to outlaw sodomy, before they threw that one out in 2003?

The simple fact of the matter is these judges are a law unto themselves. The doctrine of precedence doesn't mean squat unless they want it to. If there is precedent they like, then we roll out the holy doctrine of stare decisis. If we DON'T like precedent, well then our society has just "evolved" beyond that.

Congress needs to do it's job and rein in this lawless bunch NOW...and the people need to do their job and hold congress accountable for doing theirs.