These appear to be the paranoid ramblings of the man in custody for shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 11 others, including a federal judge, in Tucson, AZ. Lots of hard left references in his favorite books, including Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto. Politico’s Ben Smith calls Laughner’s writings “socialist.”
Another Video by alleged shooter in Arizona made 3 weeks before shooting
This stuff is beyond me. Fodder for the criminal psychologists.
Note: Correct last name is “Laughner” not “Loughner” as I originally posted. Sorry. His first name has appears as both Jerod and Jarod. This should settle out shortly as we learn more.
AND we’re back to Loughner. (I should have trusted his own Myspace page which has since been removed.)
Like all decent people, I am disgusted to hear the sad news out of Tucson, AZ: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot and killed along with four others today. Twelve were shot altogether. The murderer was apprehended by heroic bystanders and is in custody.
Not sure of the young murderer’s motives. I’m sure they weren’t worth killing or dying for. Except to him.
Please prayer for the souls of the faithful departed, the well-being of their families, the quick recovery of the wounded, and the delivery of justice.
UPDATE: It gets worse. A small child is among the dead.
The tactics and tools to keep the dominos falling to the right might change, but the energy and ideals don’t. What brought you out to the tea parties, to the street parties, to the lit drops, and to the door knocking and phone banking parties must carry you forward in 2011 and 2012.
2. We defend them—individually and collectively—when they do the right thing.
3. We remind them of their purpose, promises, and limitations when they stray.
Of these, I believe the second point the most important.
We have asked this Congress to cut spending, to end programs, and to take away unjust privileges. I think they’ll do just that. Maybe they won’t move as quickly or as boldly as we’d like, but they’ll begin undoing what previous Congresses have done.
And people will scream.
The way big government types get and keep power is by taking money from some (including future generations) and bribing people. That’s essentially what Obama’s beloved “redistributive justice” means: steal from strangers and give to—or buy—friends.
Those who’ve benefited from this theft ring will howl when Congress cuts off their funds. The new Republican House will be accused of starving children, killing the elderly, and sentencing the sick to death.
It’s our job—those of us who took to the streets in 2009—to stand by our representatives who try to stop this multi-generational theft. It’s our job to praise, to promote, to support brave members of Congress who do brave things.
Two years after the Boston Tea party, the Revolutionary War was well underway. In April, 1775, British Lieutenant General Gage sent troops to Concord, Massachusetts, to seize a garrison held by revolutionaries. It didn’t go so well for the Brits.
By 1776, the Continental Congress declared our independence from Great Britain citing human rights. With words that echo through the centuries, we declared that human beings have certain rights, and:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Where does this new American Revolution go now?
Last night, I celebrated the New Year as do most New Years: by myself, watching subdued, almost depressed events in Las Vegas and New York. The moment gave me a chance to ruminate as midnight approached: what next?
Here’s a short list that came to mind:
1. Let’s Have a Tea Party: After reading the numerous news accounts about 2010 being the Year of the Tea Party, I realized that I may have underestimated the impact of the movement. That’s easy to do, I think, where you’re in the middle of something. It’s clear now, though, that the world sees this rebellion as something to advance, to to admire, or to fear. That deserves a party.
2. Let’s Paint the Future: I say and write this a lot. I will continue to say it and write until it gains some ascendency. The Tea Party movement – or whatever we call its evolutionary posterity – needs to move from defense to offense. Offense includes proposing substitutions for the present system. For example, how do we wind down Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security to minimize or prevent disruptions to people’s lives? How do we restructure the tax system to both pay off our national debt and to encourage economic growth? What will education look like after we eliminate the Department of Education?
3. Let’s Broaden Our Interests: At some point in the recent past, philosophers stopped applying philosophy to the world and began looking at philosophy as an end in itself. That’s when the world stopped taking philosophy seriously. The philosophers had isolated themselves from real life.
If we narrowly study only the Constitution, US History, the Founders, etc., we will become very dull, except to the few others who study nothing but this narrow subject. The world will compartmentalize us away, as it has philosophy.
Conservatives need to use our understanding of the founding principles, not as ends in itself, but as a guideline to apply right reason to problems of the day.
I mention this repeatedly, too, because I sense many of us becoming insular in our studies. Erudition requires breadth of knowledge, especially in adjacent matters. Depth in some area is central, of course, but it’s not the end. Once you’ve hit water, digging deeper won’t make the water cooler or clearer.
* I used the term After the Tea Party. I don’t think the name “tea party” should or will go away. But I think we need to broaden our thinking. The tea party era must give way to the leadership era. If we stop moving, we die.
Clearly a fan of understatement, Ezra Klein once ran a blog called “Not Geniuses.” Now, of course, he demonstrates his ignorance on MSNBC.
Last week, Klein unwittingly advanced the cause of dead constitutions. He did a better job than any proponent could. He said:
The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago.
(William F. Buckley once described a statement like Klein’s as evoking of the sort of pity one feels for the ignorance of animals.)
Getting past Klein’s ignorance and cognitive feebleness (some massive obstacles to circumvent), we see he’s dropped a gem of an argument in favor of dead constitutions.
By “dead,” I mean that the meaning doesn’t change with the changing of the seasons. Proponents of a “living Constitution,” such as Klein and his not-genius friends, believe that the Constitution has no meaning. Rather, they wish the whims and fancies of the day to guide an oligarchy of judicial rulers to determine the definition of life and everything surrounding it.
The case for dead constitutions is simple. They bind us to a set of rules for everybody. Recall the recent debate about the filibuster. The most powerful argument the Democrats could muster was that if you get rid of the traditional right of the minority in the Senate to bollix up the works, the Democrats will deny that right to Republicans the next time they’re in the majority (shudder)
Whether I write “Carthego delenda est” or “Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam,” the meaning is identical today as it was when Cato the Elder said it 2000 years ago. “Carthage must be destroyed.” (For Klein’s edification, 2000 years is even more than “over 100 years.”)
We call Latin a “dead language,” not because it fails to convey life, but because its meaning is set in stone, chiseled in granite, as it were, with “U”s that like “V”s. The advantage of a dead language is that the author’s intent remains understandable for all eternity.
If men like Ezra Klein find the Unites States Constitution confusing, it is not because the Constitution changed over the 223 years of its existence—but because Klein and his ilk refuse to understand the meaning of the words.
(Actually, it’s more likely that Klein has determined the meaning of the words, found that meaning in direct opposition to his tyrannical goals, and decided that playing stupid (superbly) would best advance his collectivist goals.)
To say that we cannot determine the intent of those who ratified the Constitution is to say that all language is meaningless. That’s great mental masturbation for the Derrida’s of the world, but offers nothing to people live real lives.
According to Klein’s reasoning, whoever wrote the Christmas song Deck the Halls meant to imply that men in the 19th century at Christmas time dressed to imply homosexuality. Yes, that’s absurd—just as absurd as Klein’s belief that we cannot know what was intended by the statement “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes.”
Dead Constitutions, like dead languages, give us a fixed point upon which to navigate. Living Constitutions create massive confusion—the kind currently enveloping Ezra Klein’s feeble mind.