Stay on target…

Roger Simon makes a good point about yesterday’s Supreme Court voiding of the ‘Defense of Marriage Act:’

One thing Obama and his minions thrive on is distraction — and protest of gay marriage will be distraction one, I promise you.

Play offense, not defense.

You want some offense to play? Here’s a few: the IRS, Benghazi, Obamacare, the dreadful economy, massive unemployment, a deficit the size of Mars, fifty million people on food stamps, every citizen in the country being spied on, scientific nonsense about global warming, the blocking of U.S. energy resources, kowtowing to Islamofascists, Fast and Furious and the rest of the misuses of the Justice Department, porous borders, Mexican drug cartels, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood, nuclear Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, etc., etc., etc.

All that and you still want to worry about gays getting married?

Don’t get me wrong — unlike Simon, I fully realize how the SCOTUS ruling opens the door for even more ‘lawfare’ against the Church (which, to be fair, has some internal cleanup to do about their own emphasis on the sanctity of Biblical marriage–sin is sin, period).  Those behind this campaign have never been satisfied with ‘freedom’ or ‘equality.’  For many of them, the fight won’t stop until everyone is bludgeoned into publicly affirming the so-called ‘alternative lifestyles.’

That fight is coming in the long term, whether we want it or not. 

In the immediate term, however, the issue provides a useful “look, squirrel!” sidetrack to the increasing pressure the Administration has been feeling on multiple fronts.  And this won’t be the only distraction offered up — the background drumming about Syria keeps that one warm in case it’s needed to take the heat off.

Not to mention that while everyone is lathered up in reaction to the court ruling, the Senate looks to quietly pass a bill most Americans oppose…

Let’s stop letting our ruling class lead us around by emotional manipulation, and stay focused on what really matters.  The only reference we need to make to yesterday’s ruling is how it, too, emphasizes the main point:

Government today is involved in way too much, and doesn’t do of any of it well, except to abuse its privileges.  Time for a reset.

Never work in da bizness again

USA Today had an interesting story about prosecutorial abuses:

Americans can sue almost anyone for almost anything. But they can’t sue prosecutors… Nearly 35 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors cannot face civil lawsuits over how they handle criminal cases in court, no matter how serious or obvious the abuses.

A USA TODAY investigation documented 201 cases since 1997 in which judges determined that federal prosecutors had violated laws or ethics rules. Although those cases represent a small fraction of the tens of thousands that are filed in the nation’s federal courts every year, judges found that the violations were so serious that they overturned convictions or rebuked the prosecutors for misconduct. Some of the abuses put innocent people in jail…

The latest test of the extent of prosecutors’ immunity began with a December 1984 murder and a separate carjacking three weeks later in New Orleans. John Thompson was convicted of both crimes and sentenced to die for the murder. A month before his execution date, his lawyers discovered that prosecutors had deliberately covered up a police lab report that showed he could not have committed the carjacking. Then they uncovered still more evidence that undermined his murder conviction.

Given the culture of frivolous lawsuits in this country, I can understand the reluctance to allow routine suits against prosecutors who merely lose their cases. In no way, however, should they have protection in instances of clear, willful violation of procedure or deliberate deception. Police and prosecutors are given literal powers of life and death in order to facilitate law and order. Absolutely no betrayal of that trust should be tolerated — one strike, and you’re out. Permanently.

Regrettably, I’m not optimistic this will ever be a standard we approach.

Why is this hard to understand?

Some excellent thoughts as the Supreme Court once again considers the Second Amendment:

The notion that citizens have no good reason to be armed, because the State can protect them from violent crime, is one of the most dangerous lies Big Government has fed its subjects. The government reduces crime through the police and court systems, but no matter how tirelessly the police work, there is very little chance they can actively defend you from assault. There aren’t enough of them, and there never could be. The very areas of privacy that allow us to relax with our friends and families will always be soft targets for criminals… unless we fortify them ourselves.

Citizen access to firearms has reduced crime rates time and again, but this is more than a matter of practicality. It’s a question of principle. The people of an orderly nation surrender the business of vengeance to the government, replacing it with the rule of law. They cannot be expected to surrender the right of defense. The right to protect yourself, and your family, from injury and death is an essential part of your dignity as a free man or woman. Without the First Amendment, you are a slave. Without the Second, you are a child.

The Western nations which have abandoned this essential understanding of an individual’s right to self-defense have become rotting orphanages filled with dependent children. They’re not dealing very well with the invasion of a determined ideology that has complete confidence in its own righteousness, and few reservations about using violence to assert itself. Losing the dignity of self-defense is part of the degeneration from master of the State to its client. As this dignity fades, the people and their government speak less of responsibilities, and more of entitlements.

The Second Amendment is a concrete expression of the American birthright of independence. With the right of self-defense bargained away, our rights to speak and vote give us modest influence in a collective. The Founders wanted more, and better, for us.