A recent letter challenged anyone who has studied history to identify even one founder who would have agreed with Justice Scalia on guns.  I’ve studied our history and here are just a few.

James Mason: “to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them”.  Thomas Jefferson: “no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms” and “let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks”.  Samuel Adams: “the constitution should never be construed to prevent the people…from keeping their own arms”.  John Adams: “arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self defense”.  That just scratches the surface.   The founders, in fact, had a rather strong opinion on the subject.

It is also worth noting that the letter’s author clearly never read the Heller decision.  Scalia does not assert an unlimited right.  The decision explicitly states that some restrictions are constitutional.

The White House called for a “simple up-or-down” vote on health care legislation Sunday as Speaker Nancy Pelosi appealed to House Democrats to get behind President Barack Obama’s chief domestic priority even it if threatens their political careers.

There’s only one thing to say to that:

Ave, Obama, morituri te salutamus!

1. Guarantee an expansive and virtually unfettered right of individuals to pursue all the meaningless distractions that modern life has to offer.
 
2. Restrict and regulate the areas of life that actually have real significance (freedom of expression, freedom of religion, economic freedom, property rights, etc.).

The Western world spent centuries fighting to establish the liberty of the individual.  Progressives seem committed to the idea that this was a big mistake and that the commoners would be much better off if they just submitted to the tender mercies of the progressive government. 

I think I’ll stick with real, old fashioned liberty of the sort that pretty much only existed in (gasp) Western Civilization, thanks.  If that means gentry liberals look down their noses at me, well, so be it.

Part of the allure of idol worship is if you just perform the right ceremonies you can behave as poorly as you want without consequence.

Do you notice the interesting parallel with Progressivism?  If a Progressive makes the right incantations (political correctness) and prostrates himself (literally in the case of Obama, rhetorically in others) before the right idols he can get away with all kinds of bad things both personal and political.  It puts an interesting twist on the notion that Progressivism is a religion that’s substituted God for Government.

Give the faculty member who speaks up credit.  He doesn’t hold back.  Hat tip to Power Line.

The left, of course, continues to be in denial about a basic fact of the modern world: businesses, people and capital can and will go where they are put to the best use.  The left thinks it can raise taxes and expand government and the economy will continue to prosper.  But the fact is that in Blue States like New Jersey, California, New York and much of the Northeast, as government has become more “progressive”, their economies have become more European: high unemployment and low growth.

Yes, there is still a great deal of wealth there.  But it’s a legacy of a dynamic economic past.   The power of compounding interest is a wonderful thing.  Over time though, the wealth will be spent down if it is not replenished.  The free economies and limited governments that allowed the creation of wealth gradually became “progressive” and these regions have been fooled into believing that once-wealthy means always-wealthy. 

A number of years ago I told Mrs. Manifesto that barring a radical rekindling of an earlier ethos in the “progressive” Northeast, I suspected at some point we would likely relocate south or west to a more dynamic area of the country because that’s where the opportunities will be.  I have seen nothing to change my mind yet.

The first objection is on substance.  Some people agree with Obama’s assertion and feel Alito has no grounds for grousing.  However, even the NYT’s Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse recognizes that Obama was off target.  So, the complaint on substance doesn’t hold up.

The second objection is on style.  They complain about a breach of protocol by Alito.  So let me get this straight, the president who bows to foreign monarchs, bashes the previous president while overseas, gives a gift of improperly formatted DVDs to a head of state, returns a bust of Churchill to England and gives the Queen of England an iPod is being defended over someone else’s supposed breach of protocol?  Seriously?