Curmudgeonalia
I see I taste I write Links What?
July 16, 2007

Yo! Liberals! - You Call This Progress?

Karl Spence – ISBN 9780976682608

This is another which you will have to purchase used or remaindered. While a recent book it is no longer in print. That’s a shame, too, since he explores crime, race, sex, faith and law as involved in the Culture War in ways you will not find elsewhere. He gives stats and comments you won’t read in the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and similar organs.

It is a fleet, breezy read, and thoroughly enjoyable, especially if you like dealing with facts—which liberals generally do not. In his preface he observes that “it should be obvious to everyone that the works of man . . . are not all created equal.” Amen to that. It is a mantra I have been pushing on this site since my first year. Sectarian liberals--for whom their version of liberalism is itself a religion--never seem to understand that. Consequentially they are undermining and destroying our society as it has been for hundreds of years.

He observes that “coming on the heels of the baby boom, the [6o’s] ‘youth culture’ abandoned the old values of self-restraint and deferred gratification. It emphasized rights over duties, and it rejected all moral limits not immediately and obviously connected with rights of others—and often trampled even those that are.”

One of his more interesting topics is crime in which he mentions the observations of Tocqueville (who wrote Democracy in America in 1835). He noted that in America citizens viewed crime as a societal problem. It seldom escaped punishment because everyone was involved in furnishing the necessary proofs to ultimately prosecute the miscreant. A century and a half later Solzhenitsyn commented that culprits go unpunished, and are often supported by “thousands of defenders in the society.” Same country they’re talking about. Recognize it?

Amongst other things, we have created a society which tolerates crime and protects criminals. Miranda rights and the recent difficulty in enacting Megan’s Law in many states are but the tip of the iceberg.

Progressive legal thinkers (progressive? thinkers?) never tire of positing that rebuff of the Warren-era legal reforms would bring about a police state. They seem not to recognize that from the original colonies thru the Eisenhower administration no police state existed. Only then did we get saved by the Warren-court. (That’s the Supremes.)

His attack on the Roe era is unrelenting, and his statistics devastating. He demonstrates that all of the claims of the liberals were false. Deaths from abortion were curtailed largely by the discovery and use of antibiotics. Annual deaths from abortion, legal and illegal, had been reduced from 1500 per year in 1940 to 300 per year at the time Roe was passed. NARAL nonetheless inflated these numbers to 10,000. When confronted, its cofounder (Bernard Nathanson) stated: “I knew [at the time] the figures were totally false.”

Necessarily, he deals with the Atheist Crank Litigation Union in discussing prayer in schools, crèches on public property, and related subjects. I was surprised to note that he didn’t comment on the fact that they have totally avoided confrontation with Islam. In California recently it was disclosed that public schools are providing Islamic classes wherein the curriculum is largely controlled by imams, classes are segregated by sex, Christians are banned, prayer hours are included in the curriculum, etc. And where is the ACLU? No idea. Imagine if Christians wanted to pray before a football game sponsored by a public high school . . . never mind having Christian classrooms and Christian prayer in school—during class time.

He reserves precious venom for judicial activists. He notes their insistence that we not be ruled by “the dead hand of the past,” and enquires whether, difficulties notwithstanding, it is a better alternative than rule by activist judges. We can’t have prayer in schools, crush the crime waves, control pornography or protect children, born and unborn . . . not because the constitution prohibits it, but because “a liberal elite has turned the Constitution into a weapon to use against self-government, just as [George] Washington warned.”

The Living Constitution thus becomes less and less the instrument of the people and more “the instrument of unelected and unaccountable judges, imposed by fraud.” Consequently he supports, defends and recommends what the constitution permits—that judges be impeached. It is the only way to get their attention. Contrary to their insistence that they should not be impeached for their opinions, he counters that when they go against both the constitution and public will, they must be! That is what the Constitution means. No misinterpretation there.

Speaking on the conflict over the Constitution’s original and intended meaning, he observes that today’s judicial activists conveniently ignore that when the Constitution was first created, even opponents of “strict construction” never considered that the constitution could be altered by judicial opinion. (Note, that’s could, not should!) The framers of the constitution felt that legislation should be done for the people by their legislatures, and the laws were immutable. No one, including judges, could arbitrarily change them.

He did overlook a deserving quote from Lincoln, who observed that: "if the policy of the government upon vital questions . . . is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

My how different is modern reality. Read it and weep.

Then go do something about it! The recent immigration debacle has proved that when the public demands action, eventually the legislature gets the message. I believe that the fall out from this fiasco will empower the people as nothing else has in my lifetime. Now we know we can succeed if we press hard enough.

Posted by respeto at July 16, 2007 4:00 PM