Allahpundit dismisses the story that ABC News is running about the troops voting Democrat in November:
Doubtless there’s been some erosion of Republican support as the war’s dragged on, even within a profession that’s always skewed a bit right, but to the extent suggested here? With Republicans generally overwhelmingly predisposed to staying in Iraq? Even the left acknowledges that most troops are gung ho to win the war, and that was before 10 months of security gains. Maverick’s surely doing better than this.
Here's a thought, maybe the troops are "gung-ho" to win the war because that's the only way that they can come back home you ignorant fuck.
I dare you to watch this video of this woman testifying before Congress and not get a lump in your throat, she speaks the truth. Thanks to Eric at Red State Eclectic:
I meant to put this up last week:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard a case dealing with the 2nd Amendment. It could prove to be a landmark decision that SCOTUS hands down and may finally put to rest whether owning a firearm is an "individual" or "collective" right. As such, there are plenty of opinions going around before the ACTUAL opinion from the Supreme Court gets handed down. Here's a smattering of them:
Reason Mag- Jonathan Raech - Gun rights protect civil rights even if you are gay.
ABC News - Jan Greenberg - Justice Kennedy may be the "swing" vote in this case, and based on his questioning, it sounds like he's in the "individual" rights camp.
But Dakota Ranger brings up a good point in his post about the Heller case:
We don't licence our other rights, nor do we do background checks for the privilege of driving. When there are politicians that want to give drivers licences to illegal aliens it is disgusting to us law abiding gun owners that we have to go through a background check at every purchase.
The whole idea of having the 2nd Amendment was so that the people would be able to protect themselves from criminals and others who wish to do them harm. But what if the trespasser is the government itself? What if government was so tyrannical, so oppressive that IT was what people were protecting themselves from?
My point is that the idea of having a license program for guns seems antithetical to what the 2nd Amendment is about. Because if the government was the enemy of the people, then a firearm registration program is nothing more than a roadmap to tell the government exactly where the guns are.
A personal hero of mine has his memoirs out this week. "My Grandfather's Son" is Clarence Thomas writing about his life. As part of the media blitz, Jan Crawford Greenburg writes a multipart story for ABC news based on the book and 7 hours of interviews with the current Supreme Court justice.
Sixteen years after the bitter confirmation hearings that would forever put the name "Anita Hill" in any story written about him, Thomas remains one of the most compelling and divisive figures in public life. That is both ironic and inevitable for a man who, on the surface, appears to be a study in conflicts. He is black, but a conservative. He is contrarian and independent, but wants deeply to connect with people. He holds a job he never wanted, but has strong ideas about how to do it. He fiercely protects his privacy, but has written a book that is intensely personal and, at times, anguished.
The stories by Jan Greenburg are enlightening because Justice Thomas is fiercely protective of his private life. His formative years growing up in the South when it was transitioning from the Jim Crow era to integration are particularly interesting. His grandfather would make him stand up in weekly NAACP meetings to read his grades aloud. As a black activist in college, he admired Malcolm X.
Part one of eight segments by Greenburg is here. (Along with video)
