Liberals ask, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
By J.J. Jackson
Any connoisseur of quintessential American comedic culture has seen the film Animal House and is intimately familiar with the exploits of Delta Tau Chi House at Faber College. As the, "worst house on campus," the fraternity is an assortment of slackers, misfits and childish sorts more interested in debauchery and partying than learning. Because of this the Deltas run afoul of the College administration time and again and are expelled.
This leads up to a climatic, impassioned but ultimately ignorant speech by John "Bluto" Blutarsky in which he tries to rally the Deltas to go out with a bang. During that speech is when he utters the iconic phrase of stupidity, which sums up so neatly why the Deltas were being expelled, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!" Bluto then charges out of the Fraternity House and half-heartedly the rest of the members eventually follow. They then proceed to wreak havoc during the College's annual homecoming parade destroying property and committing mischief.
This scene resembles remarkably well the way liberals act in real life and nothing illustrates this better than the recent case of McDonald v. Chicago where the onerous gun ban imposed by the City of Chicago was successfully challenged and struck down by the United States Supreme Court. The reason the city of Chicago lost the case is obvious to anyone more interested in the truth and who has not spent their time seeking out in debauchery while partying on the tax payer's dime. Mayor Richard Daley however is not such a person.
The City of Chicago lost the case because despite years liberals who are unkind to liberty trying desperately to rewrite the meaning of the Second Amendment to our Federal Constitution into some non-individual right and only a right of the state they were unsuccessful. In defiance of the case's outcome Mayor Richard "Bluto" Daley essentially stood up and made his own ignorant proclamation that this was not over. He has promised a new gun law which will be, by his own admission, a burdensome mishmash regulations designed to allow gun ownership but only after applicants have jumped though a myriad of hoops and paid some hefty fees to the coffers. What he will ultimately try to establish is a way to skirt the rights and privileges of Chicago residents by allowing them to technically own guns but to make doing so so difficult that so that few, if any, will be able to meet all the requirements he will set forth.
This is not unusual for the political left to act this way. Their entire philosophy is that anything they want, regardless of its legitimacy, will be the law and if they don't get their way it will be Hell on Earth until they get it. Only laws that they like when upheld are, "settled law," and beyond challenge. Laws they do not like when upheld must be gotten around at all costs setting up another challenge and another loss for them and another new and innovative way to try and get around the ruling.
Now liberals, when I talk about how they act this way, usually come back with a response similar to, "Well, you conservatives do the same thing!" They will talk about how we have fought against court decisions like Roe v. Wade or even continued to fight against Campaign Finance Reform even after the Supreme Court upheld most of the law as a-ok despite rejecting parts of it. But just like the Delta's who wallow in ignorance, so to do liberals that try this argument.
The difference between conservatives who fight against court rulings like Roe v. Wade and liberals who fight against rulings like those in McDonald v. Chicago is that rulings like Roe v. Wade ignore the Constitution and basic inalienable rights of all mankind. On the other hand rulings like McDonald v. Chicago embrace these basic things. When a conservative argues against Roe v. Wade it is from the stand point that our Constitution specifically states that all persons are entitled to the right to life and that that life may not be taken without due process of law. Of course liberals, who ignore basic biology, argue that the human fetus is not human life so aborting (i.e. murdering) them is just a fine thing to do. But what I find is that when I lock eyes with these sad sacks who think this and when I run down the biological definition of life with them and show how from the moment an egg is fertilized inside the mother's womb that "lump of cells" is indeed human life one of two things happens. Either they start yelling wildly calling me everything from a Nazi to a woman hater trying to filibuster the rest of the conversation or they start to quickly look for a way to simply escape the conversation all together and stop listening to the truth.
Summary: Conservatives argue for the Constitution and the inalienable rights of all persons when they stand up against rulings like Roe v. Wade.
Now compare that to liberals who argue that it ok for the government to either outright prohibit law abiding citizens from owning guns or making it so difficult for them to own guns that they might as well just have banned them in the first place. This approach violates the clear meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution which specifically states that the people, not the states, and not the federal government, have the right to keep and bear arms.
Summary: Liberals who take this stance are arguing against the Constitution and the inalienable rights of all persons when they stand up against rulings like McDonald v. Chicago.
Now of course liberals hate it when I point things out like this because their image of themselves is as that of a champion of the rights of the people. But time and again, when you actually look at what they defend as right you see that they are doing just the exact opposite. Chicago has, for years, had restrictive gun laws meant to keep crime down. Yet in 2009, at the height of these policies, 36 Chicago Public School students had been murdered during the current school year as of May 13th of that year. The City had the grand distinction under the gun ban that liberals love so much and tout as such a great thing as having the highest youth homicide rate in the nation. So obviously the gun ban is not operating as intended. Now of course liberals like Mayor Bluto ... I mean Daley ... will tell us that the murder rate would be even higher if not for their gun bans. That is always their claim which is to make some nebulous statement about how things would be worse if not for their tyrannical leadership and which makes them, in their own minds, seem competent.
Of course there is still rampant gun related crime in Chicago despite the now shot down, pun intended, gun ban which proves the old axiom that criminals do not obey laws and that the only thing that laws like the Chicago gun ban did was infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. But it is not such logic that the liberals are concerned with. They are just concerning with wreaking havoc and they will do and say anything that comes to their minds in order to get people to rally to their side. Yes, they will even rail about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor if they have to and if they think that people would follow them into battle against those stuffy old coots who actually think the Constitution and inalienable rights are important.
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com.
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!