Editor’s Note: This list post is presented as part of NewsReal Blog Weekend Double Feature. The original of this list  can be read here. Check out the other half of this double feature — Walter’s list on the political themes in “Star Trek” here.

Science fiction and fantasy have always been ideal genres for exploring controversial political, religious, and philosophical ideas. The absurdity of circumstance in which such stories are set serve to detach an audience from reality, creating a kind of hypothetical laboratory for exploring thoughts which might be rejected elsewhere.

As a libertarian conservative and a life-long Star Wars fan, I was somewhat taken aback by 2005’s culminative installment Revenge of the Sith. Politics had dominated much of the prequel trilogy, but had been kept within the context of the story. Sith was different, as New York Times film critic A. O. Scott noted.

Mr. Lucas is clearly jabbing his light saber in the direction of some real-world political leaders. At one point, Darth Vader, already deep in the thrall of the dark side and echoing the words of George W. Bush, hisses at Obi-Wan, ‘If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.’ Obi-Wan’s response is likely to surface as a bumper sticker during the next election campaign: ‘Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.’

Indeed, Lucas has indicated on more than one occasion an underlying leftist sympathy which shaped his popular saga. As a fan, I find this ironic, since my perception of Star Wars has always affirmed my conservative ideals. Here are a handful of elements from the saga which propagate principles of the Right.

The United States Constitution is one of the most well thought-out works ever created by mere mortals. As the Federalist Papers make clear, America’s Founding Fathers carefully considered nearly every aspect of human nature, the demands of freedom, and the nature of government when drafting it, and created a system of government designed to effectively carry out its duties without imperiling liberty, and calibrated to properly balance society’s competing commitments to self-rule and objective morality, to liberty and security, and more. Under the Constitution, the United States became the freest, most prosperous, and most consequential nation in history.

But to the Left, this magnificent document is at best a relic of a bygone era which has outlived its usefulness; at worst the product of long-dead, bigoted elites. Philosophically, they have inherited President Woodrow Wilson’s view that the Constitution was based on a theory of government mankind has since evolved past:

The makers of our federal Constitution followed the scheme as they found it expounded in Montesquieu, followed it with genuine scientific enthusiasm. The admirable expositions of the Federalist read like thoughtful applications of Montesquieu to the political needs and circumstances of America. They are full of the theory of checks and balances. The President is balanced off against Congress, Congress against the President, and each against the courts. Our statesmen of the earlier generations quoted in no one so often as Montesquieu, and they quoted him always as a scientific standard in the field of politics. Politics is turned into mechanics under his touch. The theory of gravitation is supreme.

The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick cooperation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day of specialization, but with a common task and purpose. Their cooperation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without leadership or without the intimate, almost instinctive, coordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.

Fortunately, the definitions and prescriptions of our constitutional law, though conceived in the Newtonian spirit and upon the Newtonian principle, are sufficiently broad and elastic to allow for the play of life and circumstance.

Accordingly, the needs of their agenda dictate a variety of approaches to the Constitution, depending on the issue. When America needs to be reminded of its irredeemably-evil history, the Constitution is an abomination. When a certain passage seems useful out of context, it becomes an example of the Founders’ wisdom (and pay no attention to that history book behind the curtain). And when a passage seems to get in the way, it’s time to break out the historical relativism.

No more. This weekend, we’re highlighting ten of the most distorted or ignored passages in the Constitution, listed in the order in which they appear in the text.

Let’s get started…

But to the Left, this magnificent document is at best a relic of a bygone era which has outlived its usefulness; at worst the product of long-dead, bigoted elites. Philosophically, they have inherited President Woodrow Wilson’s view that the Constitution was based on a theory of government mankind has since evolved past:

The makers of our federal Constitution followed the scheme as they found it expounded in Montesquieu, followed it with genuine scientific enthusiasm. The admirable expositions of the Federalist read like thoughtful applications of Montesquieu to the political needs and circumstances of America. They are full of the theory of checks and balances. The President is balanced off against Congress, Congress against the President, and each against the courts. Our statesmen of the earlier generations quoted in no one so often as Montesquieu, and they quoted him always as a scientific standard in the field of politics. Politics is turned into mechanics under his touch. The theory of gravitation is supreme.

The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick cooperation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day of specialization, but with a common task and purpose. Their cooperation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without leadership or without the intimate, almost instinctive, coordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.

Fortunately, the definitions and prescriptions of our constitutional law, though conceived in the Newtonian spirit and upon the Newtonian principle, are sufficiently broad and elastic to allow for the play of life and circumstance.

Accordingly, the needs of their agenda dictate a variety of approaches to the Constitution, depending on the issue. When America needs to be reminded of its irredeemably-evil history, the Constitution is an abomination. When a certain passage seems useful out of context, it becomes an example of the Founders’ wisdom (and pay no attention to that history book behind the curtain). And when a passage seems to get in the way, it’s time to break out the historical relativism.

No more. This weekend, we’re highlighting ten of the most distorted or ignored passages in the Constitution, listed in the order in which they appear in the text.

Let’s get started…

There was a time when shooting an unarmed woman or a child would have been the most despicable act anyone could have imagined.  But the creep who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and several other people Saturday seems to believe he’s stricken a blow for Mein Kampf, or gold and silver coinage.  Or something.

We, as a society, have so totally descended into madness that we have lost our way.  We are talking – again – about disarming everybody because many of us cannot tell the difference between right and wrong.  Those who are most totally lost are telling us we mustn’t even try to discern the difference between a lunatic who plots the murder of as many innocent people as possible and the citizens who might have been capable – had they been armed – of dropping him before he could have gotten off a shot.

We’ll hear that this happened in the “Wild West,” as if Arizona itself is to blame. But the Wild West may very well be dead.  The old west is remembered, by those who never saw it anywhere except for movies and TV, as a violent and bloodthirsty place.  But in the old west, the violent didn’t tend to live long.  It was a place where law and order were a matter of necessity and mayhem was not tolerated, especially after the arrival of women and children.

The gunman in Tucson depended on passivity and defenselessness on the part of those assembled.  There’s a reason he didn’t attack Tea Partiers, and it wasn’t because (as some in the media would claim) he was one of them.  It was because he knew they might very well defend themselves.  To be opposed to the right of the innocent to defend themselves is not to be anti-violence.  It is to promote violence.

Leftists have long hated Arizona because it has long been a place where people had enough pride in their own lives, and in their homes, to believe them worth defending.  Since SB1070, my state’s attempt to bring sanity to the illegal immigration mess that besieges our border, the Left has really been gunning for us.  In the wake of Saturday’s tragedy, the moonbats will be coming for our guns with renewed vigor.  But we are not the aliens.  Those gathered Saturday in Tucson to discuss the issues of the day are America.

An editorial in Sunday’s New York Times clearly does not see everyone in this country as quite as American as everyone else.

Gun stores saw a spike in sales this Christmas season, the first one since rumors flew that President Obama might ban assault rifles.  Has the surge brought in scores of militant rednecks? Actually, no.  But women are buying guns in increasing numbers.

Most of my friends are leftists, and most of my female friends hate guns.  “Eeew,” they shriek at me when I tell them about my home arsenal, which now includes a Lady Smith .38 special and a Wyatt Earp-sized .357 magnum.  “How can you have a gun around? Guns KILL people!”

Yes, they do.  Mostly, they kill defenseless people.  Quite often, they are used to kill us.  When we are armed, at least we have a chance to save our lives instead of dying like deer in hunting season.

It may not be open season on law-abiding citizens anymore.  More and more of us are buying guns and learning how to use them.  We are coming to understand that guns don’t free-float around in the air, shooting people without anybody attached to them.  Yes, they can kill people.  But we have something to say about that.

In “A Message from Christmas Guns,” Richard Simms of the Chattanoogan online writes poetically of the special bond that exists between one who loves guns – using them well – and the “inanimate combination of polished wood and metal” that can be used for either harm or good.  “This is for the young men and women who were thrilled by the sight of a new gun under the Christmas tree.”  Yes, an increasing number of women were thrilled by the sight this year.  If they do learn to use their weapons well, some who might not otherwise live to see another Christmas may survive to celebrate the yuletide again.

What is the problem some leftists have with guns, anyway? Indeed, as Mr. Simms notes as he speaks for a Christmas gun, “I cannot think and I cannot do.  I am in your control and in a fraction of a second I can take a life; yours or anyone else’s who might be in my path at that dreadful moment of indecision.”  Well, leftists seem to have a lot of dreadful moments of indecision, which is why, perhaps, they shouldn’t own guns.  But I think I speak for most responsible gun owners when I say that we respect our weapons enough to take them seriously, and take the trouble to learn how to use them the right way.

The choice, as he says, is ours.  Leftists seem to have no use for choice, unless it is exercised in the procurement of an abortion or to pull the lever for a candidate who will take away our choice to do anything else.  Choice is the province of rational human beings – people capable of thinking for themselves.  It is part and parcel of the befuddlement of the Left that no distinction can be made between a cold-blooded murderer, for whom every benefit of a doubt must be allowed, and a woman home alone at night who must keep that killer from making her his next victim.  To leftists, everybody is a victim, and everybody must be considered as befuddled as they are.

The world they would leave us is nothing but chaos.  In the wrong hands, guns can bring nothing but more chaos.  But in the right hands, they can cut through the chaos and – in one moment of decision – snatch survival from the jaws of tragedy.

Feminist Hawk

According to Blogging 101, when criticizing someone for saying something that isn’t true, it’s generally a good idea to point out how the alleged falsehood is, y’know, false. But I guess things work a little differently at Crooks and Liars. Today, they’re ticked off that Sean Hannity and Brit Hume have the gall to suggest that Barack Obama is neither moderate nor a compromiser:

Sean Hannity and fellow Fox Noise contributor Brit Hume continue to push the meme that President Obama isn’t already a centrist and hasn’t been unfortunately more than willing to compromise with Republicans and want him to learn some lessons from Bill Clinton’s time in office, or in other words, they expect him to adopt Republican ideals in the name of “bipartisanship”.

We’re in for one really screwed up ride if Republicans manage to take either house of Congress back this election cycle and more nonsense like this not only from the wingnuts at ClusterFox, but the rest of the cable news Villagers as well. This is just a preview of the crap that we’re going to have to listen to for the next two years which I expect to start immediately following our election results next week if not sooner as we’ve seen here.

The claim that Obama is a centrist who’s made earnest attempts to compromise with Republicans is implied, but ultimately left unsupported. That might cut it if you’re simply preaching to the choir, but outside of leftist circles, it’s going to take more than that to prove that conservative pundits are doing a disservice to the president’s record. Consider:

• Abortion—Obama has enjoyed perfect scores from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Partial-birth abortion is acceptable to him, while parental consent and notification are not. And then, there’s also the ugly matter of his refusal to do anything about Illinois hospitals starving newborns to death after botched abortions. Verdict: Not Moderate.
• Taxes—As I pointed out in September, Obama has proposed multiple tax hikes at the expense of Americans making less than $250,000 a year, despite his “firm pledge” that those very people wouldn’t see “any form of tax increase,” and his proposed budget would require almost $1 trillion in new taxes over the next ten years. Verdict: Not Moderate.

Science fiction and fantasy have always been ideal genres for exploring controversial political, religious, and philosophical ideas. The absurdity of circumstance in which such stories are set serve to detach an audience from reality, creating a kind of hypothetical laboratory for exploring thoughts which might be rejected elsewhere.

As a libertarian conservative and a life-long Star Wars fan, I was somewhat taken aback by 2005’s culminative installment Revenge of the Sith. Politics had dominated much of the prequel trilogy, but had been kept within the context of the story. Sith was different, as New York Times film critic A. O. Scott noted.

Mr. Lucas is clearly jabbing his light saber in the direction of some real-world political leaders. At one point, Darth Vader, already deep in the thrall of the dark side and echoing the words of George W. Bush, hisses at Obi-Wan, ‘If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.’ Obi-Wan’s response is likely to surface as a bumper sticker during the next election campaign: ‘Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.’

Indeed, Lucas has indicated on more than one occasion an underlying leftist sympathy which shaped his popular saga. As a fan, I find this ironic, since my perception of Star Wars has always affirmed my conservative ideals. Here are a handful of elements from the saga which propagate principles of the Right.

Science fiction and fantasy have always been ideal genres for exploring controversial political, religious, and philosophical ideas. The absurdity of circumstance in which such stories are set serve to detach an audience from reality, creating a kind of hypothetical laboratory for exploring thoughts which might be rejected elsewhere.

As a libertarian conservative and a life-long Star Wars fan, I was somewhat taken aback by 2005’s culminative installment Revenge of the Sith. Politics had dominated much of the prequel trilogy, but had been kept within the context of the story. Sith was different, as New York Times film critic A. O. Scott noted.

Mr. Lucas is clearly jabbing his light saber in the direction of some real-world political leaders. At one point, Darth Vader, already deep in the thrall of the dark side and echoing the words of George W. Bush, hisses at Obi-Wan, ‘If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.’ Obi-Wan’s response is likely to surface as a bumper sticker during the next election campaign: ‘Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.’

Indeed, Lucas has indicated on more than one occasion an underlying leftist sympathy which shaped his popular saga. As a fan, I find this ironic, since my perception of Star Wars has always affirmed my conservative ideals. Here are a handful of elements from the saga which propagate principles of the Right.

We may have challenged hip-hop professor and former paid Fox News contributor Marc Lamont Hill quite a bit but I’m still hopeful for him. For some people it just takes a bit longer to get Right in the head.

Consider this encouraging response he published at The Loop 21 to the recent pro-gun rights Supreme Court decision:

As someone deeply concerned with violence prevention, it is tempting to echo the angry sentiments of mainstream American liberals, who regard the latest decision as a major step backward. For them, gun ownership is an expendable rather than inalienable right, one that is worth ceding in exchange for a more peaceful society.  While I sympathize with such a desire, I find the cost of the ticket too high.

As citizens of the United States, we live in a nation founded on revolutionary violence and sustained through a range of violent practices. It was this belief in the redemptive possibilities of violence that informed the creation of the Second Amendment, which allows citizens to keep and bear arms to prevent the creation of an unjust, anti-democratic, or outright tyrannical government. In other words, American democracy is underwritten by the possibility that everyday citizens can fight back if the government no longer acts in the interest of freedom and justice. For Blacks, who have never received the full protection of the State, such a right must be viewed as an indispensable nonnegotiable component of complete citizenship.

…

Gun bans against public housing residents, expressly designed to prevent violent crime, have served to disarm poor Blacks almost exclusively. While rural white communities have done little to encroach upon the gun possession rights of citizens, majority-Black urban centers like Washington, D.C. and Chicago have imposed draconian anti-gun laws on the community. Regardless of intent, these laws have a clear and disproportionate impact on poor people of color.

While many lefties will react to yesterday’s judicial victory for the Second Amendment with scorn for the Supreme Court and wailing about how scary guns are, John Avlon has decided to take a different approach.  Today on the Daily Beast, he takes the decision as a sure sign that gun owners have nothing to fear from the Obama Administration, despite the hysterical lies of—you guessed it—“wingnuts”:

Combined with the Court’s 2008 decision to overturn Washington DC’s handgun ban, the fact that 48 states now have some form of concealed carry permitting, and the current Democratic Congress’ vote to allow guns in federal parks—which was signed into law by President Obama last year—Americans are unexpectedly living through a gun rights renaissance.

But don’t tell that to the fear-mongering-for-fun-and-profit crowd. Facts would screw up their ability to scare people into anti-Obama activism.

]]> http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/06/29/on-obamas-hatred-of-guns-john-avlon-should-leave-mythbusting-to-the-experts/feed/ 2 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/04/17/whats-the-point-of-the-second-amendment-if-you-have-to-buy-your-own-gun/ http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/04/17/whats-the-point-of-the-second-amendment-if-you-have-to-buy-your-own-gun/#comments Sun, 18 Apr 2010 03:54:08 +0000 Jenn Q. Public http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=49223 Many leftist feminist blogs are currently promoting a fundraiser called the National Abortion Access Bowl-a-Thon.  So far, bowling teams across the country have raised nearly $100,000 to help women and girls pay for abortions they couldn’t otherwise afford.  As the organizers explain, “friends + abortion rights + rented shoes = the event of a lifetime!”

Sounds like a blast.

I don’t really care about the fundraising activities of the National Network of Abortion Funds. But since they believe the “legal right to abortion is only meaningful when women have the resources to obtain abortion services,” I figured they’d be interested in my awesome new idea to help subsidize another legal right.  I’m pressed for time, so I just went ahead and changed a few words in their promotional material:

Gun Funds across the country are raising money to make Second Amendment rights a reality for women who can’t afford to pay for their guns — and we need your help.

What is a Bowl-a-Thon? Heck, what’s a Gun Fund?
The Bowl-a-Thon is a nationwide series of local events that allow community members (you!) to captain your own bowling team, participate in a kickass national event – and raise money to help women and girls pay for guns they couldn’t otherwise afford.

Gun Funds are local, grassroots groups that work tirelessly to help low-income and disadvantaged women who want a gun and do not have enough money to pay for it. Gun Funds help women pay for their guns, help them buy bus or plane tickets, and even offer women a place to stay when they have to travel to buy a gun. Gun Funds make a difference in women’s lives … and you can join them!

Why participate in the Bowl-a-Thon?
Because you know that the legal right to bear arms is meaningless if you can’t afford to pay for it. Because you’re pissed at the way gun control legislation has rolled back Second Amendment rights. Because you love being a part of building the movement for Second Amendment justice. Because you’re a crack bowler who wants to strut your stuff. Because you know: friends + gun rights + rented shoes = the event of a lifetime!

Join us today as we strike down barriers to gun access!

So what do you think? Can we get the Left on board with this?

What do we want?  Second Amendment justice!

When do we want it? Now!

—–

Follow Jenn Q. Public on Twitter and read more of her work at JennQPublic.com.

]]> http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/04/17/whats-the-point-of-the-second-amendment-if-you-have-to-buy-your-own-gun/feed/ 17 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/07/guns-for-me-not-for-thee-ma-circuit-court-ruling-on-concealed-carry-case/ http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/07/guns-for-me-not-for-thee-ma-circuit-court-ruling-on-concealed-carry-case/#comments Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:00:56 +0000 Diane Suffern http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=21935

In yet another stunning blow to 2nd amendment rights, the Massachusetts First Circuit Court has ruled in favor of a police officer who confiscated the weapon and concealed carry permit of attorney Greg Schubert.  The Weekly Standard details this and two other cases involving Americans lawfully carrying firearms, practicing a basic freedom as citizens, and subsequently losing ground to do so in the future.

Madison Conservative, a Hot Air Green Room contributer, wrote an excellent post on the topic.  He includes a legal break down of the MA case, detailing the Police department’s initial response to the incident.  Amazing:

On July 26, 2006, Schubert filed a citizen’s complaint against Stern for his conduct on July 21. As a result of the report, the Springfield Police Commissioner recommended that Stern be retrained on Massachusetts firearms law but found no specific wrongdoing on Officer Stern’s part and did not recommend disciplinary action.

Wait.  Doesn’t retraining imply either faulty information or expiration of information if a “refresher course” is needed at all?  Why the need for “retraining” if no wrongdoing occurred?  Why not publicly declare Officer Stern’s conduct to be status quo for your department?  Madison Conservative concludes:

This is an admission that Stern had already been trained on firearms law, and ignored it. That no disciplinary action was taken is disgusting. That no wrongdoing was found is horrific. Ultimately, the fact that the courts upheld this unlawful stop, unlawful search, and unlawful confiscation, is an affront to both the First Circuit Court and the Massachusetts District Court. They view the Constitution as toilet paper.

Keep taking it higher, Mr. Schubert.  Maybe we’ll see what the folks who struck down the DC gun ban think of your case.

Wisdom tells us to pay attention to this case and those related.  This legal incrementalism subtly erodes our ability to fend off those who would seek to harm us and our property, as well as a government seeking to usurp our endowed liberty.  It is the latter which every generation of Americans must ultimately fight to preserve.

]]> http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/07/guns-for-me-not-for-thee-ma-circuit-court-ruling-on-concealed-carry-case/feed/ 6