Publius

When leftist/progressives employ ridicule, they seek to destroy - ridicule demolishes. When they employ sarcasm, they seek to destroy - mockery is destruction. When they use the argument from intimidation - accusing their opponents of racism, or lack of compassion - they destroy. When they engage "political correctness" - literally, banning the use of "politically incorrect" words, really, thoughts - they destroy. When they attend speeches by opponents and shout them down so loudly their opponent cannot effectively speak, they are destroying. When they riot, rampage, loot and burn, they are destroying - directly. What they are doing is literally destroying thoughts in the minds of others - before those others can clarify and consider thoughts opposed to the leftists. They are actually doing battle inside the minds of their opponents, shutting down those minds before they can become a threat. It is one thing when leftists do this. The modern leftist is at root a nihi

"Government is just the name we give to the things we do together." Well, no. This is a truly deceptive statement. Because look here, there are many, many human institutions where people get together to do things. Churches. Clubs. Corporations. Non-profits. Families. And these all have their own unique characteristics. If government was simply a variety of these, or vice-versa, why would we bother to have a unique word for it? If government were *merely* a charity, wouldn't we just call it a charity? What is it about government then that makes it unique? I'll tell you. It's the use of force. Government is the sole human institution that legitimately exercises physical force against others. Churches don't commit violence. Corporations don't use physical coercion to get you to buy their products or to work for them. Families don't (shouldn't) do that. BECAUSE government's essence is the use of force, government simply should

I have not sat on a grand jury any time in my life. I am disinclined, having not pored through records, nor listened to dozens of witnesses, to second-guess the difficult decisions these jurors have had to make. HOWEVER. There is a clear problem of trust going on, and it stems from a couple different sources. 1) Grand Juries are usually secret. There are good reasons for this. Simply investigating whether a crime might have occurred, which is what Grand Juries do, collects a lot of evidence which could put people's lives at risk, or could be embarrassing. You want folks to feel free to talk. And you don't want the person being investigated to get unduly smeared. However, the flip side of secrecy is that the lack of transparency can lead to a loss of trust. Clearly, in the two incidents discussed recently, many people who have no idea what went on in the GJ's or what evidence was presented, know, they just KNOW, an injustice was committed! And, because they have no opp

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc. Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane. Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction. To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong. People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality. Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism. Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism. Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points

A response to this article by a (presumably) Millennial telling "other generations" how we've got it all wrong. I guess, how we all need to be nice and considerate and stuff.. Well-done. You've managed to publicly pat yourself on the back for your great moral wisdom - stuff the rest of human race has been aware of and done for hundreds if not thousands of years. This article exhibits typical Millennial fallacies: a) complete ignorance of history and human nature b) feeling superior for believing the right things - things you read on the internet - and which you believe you invented. c) condescending arrogance PC is NOT as you described. PC is in fact about restricting free speech. The whole point of free speech, the reason it is protected? If people only ever said unoffensive things, well, there would be no need to protect that, would there? Nobody would object to unoffensive speech. It is precisely those words and ideas that cause discomfort - often

There are three types of operative clauses in the Bill of Rights. 1) Individual right – an unambiguous, unqualified right of the people 2) Individual civil right – a specification of process intended to protect individuals from government abuse of power 3) individual administrative right - Here are the first ten Amendments (sans 2 nd Amendment) and identification of each type of right next to the operative clause. Amendment I (1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (individual right) , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (individual right) ; or abridging the freedom of speech (individual right) , or of the press (individual right) ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (individual right) , and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (individual right) . (Amendment II, see below) Amendment III (1791) No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner (individual

This whole ObamaCare episode is incredibly evocative of the final chapters of Atlas Shrugged. In the novel, as the country is falling apart, there is chaos and confusion on the part of the pro-totalitarian-government forces and their acolytes. Some admit the whole purpose of the exercise was to gain power for themsel ves, and they don't really care if the nation falls apart to get it. Some are terrified and confused. And some (the "Leader" Thompson in the book) don't know what to do - and that's why they arrest John Galt and try to make him an Economic Dictator - under the premise that he can force all the terrible laws they've been passing to somehow achieve good result. John Galt refused to go along with this charade, knowing that the whole root of the collapse was people using force to replace the choices of others with their own: Galt: "If you order me to issue a directive, I will issue the directive you order me to issue." Thompson: "Oh, bu