Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Is that not exquisite writing and insight?

The opening and closing paragraphs of this piece about the Hobby Lobby ruling are just beautiful:

 That's a pretty stunning display of sheer ignorance, or more likely deliberate mendacity.  The liberal response to Hobby Lobby is all about emotional exhibitionism, going over the top, conjuring a fantasy villain so everyone can join hands and sing "We Shall Overcome."  It's a hysterical release of energy, bottled up by frustration at Obama's disastrous second term and the looming midterm-election catastrophe.  The Left really needed a win here, but more importantly, they needed emotional validation.  They can still get that by squalling like babies with soiled diapers, and taking note of how many fellow travelers are squalling right along with them. 

Ben Franklin said his colleagues gave us a republic, if we could keep it.  A nation of adult babies and shrieking neurotics doesn't have much chance of hanging on to a republic... as you can see from the big push to abandon it, in favor of a benevolent-dictator Sugar Daddy model of the presidency.  Followers are encouraged to hold their binkies tightly as Daddy tells them another scary bedtime story about the evil corporations and nasty judgmental Bible-thumpers he protects them from.



erp said...

I think Obama is getting ready to resign for some trumped up health problem, but I also think that will make things a lot worse.

Bret said...


What makes you think that?

Bret said...

From the post: '...emotional exhibitionism, going over the top, conjuring a fantasy villain so everyone can join hands and sing "We Shall Overcome."'

Isn't that just the psychological concept of "emotional fusion" which is a natural and extraordinarily important human reaction? I don't think it hurts anything really and I'm pretty sure nearly all humans do that sort of thing some of the time (yes, even those not-of-the-left).

It may be that the left does have more intense reactions to their very few setbacks, simply because they're not used to them. The rest of us have been beat down for so long that we're in a sort of resigned despair so the numerous setbacks we experience just can't get quite as much of an emotional rise out of us.

Anonymous said...

It's the Two Minute Hate.


If it were just personal, I wouldn't care either, but it's clearly drives enough voters to control government policy.

erp said...

It's so hard to put it into words because the left's appeal is emotional and there are no places on earth where (over the past 100+ years) when their ridiculous "policies" were put into place, the result was peace and prosperous. In fact, the exact opposite happens. (Pace Scandinavia please)

"Wishing on a Star" and "We shall Overcome" are catchy phrases and nice tunes, but you can only make your dreams come true by working hard, not taking from those who do and giving to those who don't.

Bret, I think Obama will resign or be removed somehow (optimally the ruling junta would love to set up an assassination by an alleged tea party member) because he's lost his usefulness as a figurehead or as I like to characterize him, the little doggy in the window who delights us with his adorable antics.

He's no longer adorable (literally) and it's getting more and more difficult for the media to cover up for his unspeakable actions in public.

He's a liability now.

Clovis e Adri said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clovis e Adri said...


I must tell you, I've seen better conspiration theories before. You need to add some power play and convergence of vested interests, plus some sex and drug scandal too.

No one does such things as well as they used to, like in the 60's.

erp said...

Clovis, you may need to find a better definition for conspiracy theory. The left is a monolith, not a conspiracy and you can't believe that a foolish fop like Obama is running the show.

BTW - I don't need to do anything and wouldn't if I could because as I said above, I think things will be much worse for us when the next regime is put in place.

Clovis e Adri said...


BTW - I don't need to do anything and wouldn't if I could because as I said above, I think things will be much worse for us when the next regime is put in place.

Now you are getting better at this: to talk unintelligible things like the above paragraph is pretty much part of the conspiracy mystic.

Keep on and I buy your book!

Harry Eagar said...

How about some substantive discussion? How about explaining why corporations are unlimited people in CU but limited in HL?

Where did all the originalists and strict constructionists go?

erp said...

... probably the same place as the answers to all our questions.

You first.

Anonymous said...

We already had it, you lost and so don't remember it anymore.

The key difference in the two cases is that for Hobby Lobby, SCOTUS has already limited the rights of individual citizens in that scope, and so the same limitations apply to corporations. Again, it's the very simple concept that individual rights don't disappear when aggregated into a corporation.

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] How about explaining why corporations are unlimited people in CU but limited in HL?

What AOG said, plus:

I doubt very much you read the Hobby Lobby decision, just as I very much doubt you have yet troubled yourself with reading CU.

Because, if you had, you wouldn't have posed that self-evidently foolish question.

To reiterate, people do not lose their inherent rights, those that governments may not impede, because they happen to be organized as a corporation when exercising those rights.

That doesn't make corporations "unlimited people", no matter how often leftists trot out that old, ignorant, nag.

Having read the CU decision, there appears to be a line of reasoning it has left out (or didn't see the need to address), and which I haven't read elsewhere, which means I could be barking mad, but here goes:

Freedom of speech is a right inherent to everyone simply due to their existence. Consequently, government's ability to limit it must, by definition, be extremely limited. (Presuming, of course, that one believes in inherent rights and contractually limited government. If you don't, then by all means make that clear.)

Assume progressives' position that free speech don't extend to corporations -- unless they are a certain kind of progressive approved corporation.

But corporations are a legal construct. Granting the progressive position means that the government can control speech through the back door, simply by extending the entities that are defined as corporations.

Now I know you can't stand it when people, regardless of their organization, poke holes in progressive shibboleths and therefore desperately wish to stop them doing it, but the rest of use aren't nearly so enamored with your sensibilities as you are.

Regarding HL, read the decision, then quote from the decision as required to show how it is wrong.

Otherwise, I shall take your challenge to engage in a meaningful discussion as vacuum empty.