Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Crazy Editorial & My Reply Re: McDonald vs. City of Chicago

Below is an editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal, June 30, 2010 regarding the Supreme Court decision announced Monday, June 28, 2010 on the Second Amendment case of McDonald vs. City of Chicago in which the court again upheld the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was an individual right which had to be respected by the states. It is incredible to see the outrageous attempts to try to distort historical reality to which these elitists will use to further their attempts to destroy our freedoms. Emphasis below are supplied by myself.

Editorial | Crazy about guns
June 30, 2010

The phantom right of individual gun ownership got another boost Monday from an activist U.S. Supreme Court majority that seems intent on making law out of conservative orthodoxy.

Writing for the majority in a 5-4 ruling that split along familiar philosophical lines, Justice Samuel Alito took a bad ruling of two years ago and gave it even broader impact.
The 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller , resulted in another 5-4 ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns in the District of Columbia, crippling a tough local gun-control ordinance in a city that is largely under federal jurisdiction. In the current case, McDonald v. Chicago , the Court said that the Second Amendment's supposed guarantee of an individual's right to bear arms is binding on state and local governments.
The good news for anyone who seeks a saner American approach to guns is that the Court didn't seem to know exactly what it hoped to accomplish. Indeed, it didn't even strike down the gun-control measures in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., that were at issue in the case. It sent the matter back to lower courts to determine whether those cities' strict ordinances, which basically ban possession of handguns, are allowed under the Second Amendment.
Moreover, Justice Alito again made clear that gun ownership is not an absolute right, though it is unclear what gun limits the Court majority will accept. At a minimum, one hopes that bans on military assault rifles; tougher regulations regarding gun shows, licensing of dealers and background checks, and restrictions on guns in schools, bars, government buildings and other public places remain possible.
The disturbing part of the ruling is that the Court relied on a selective reading of American history and constitutional development to hand the gun lobby a ruling it will use across the nation to challenge even the tamest local gun measures.
It brushed aside that the single sentence of the Second Amendment ties the "right to bear arms" with the need for state militias and the "the security of a free state," while making no mention of individuals (or, for that matter, guns).
It focused on two cherry-picked historical situations -- the young nation's vulnerability after it revolted successfully against British rule and the Civil War and its violent aftermath in the South -- to identify an enduring individual right that may neuter contemporary communities' abilities to respond effectively to epidemic levels of gun violence.
The reality today, as noted in dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer, is that guns cause 60,000 deaths and serious injuries in the United States each year.
Does anyone believe that's what the Founding Fathers or the Civil War's victors had in mind?

It is hard to comprehend how supposedly educated and (?) intelligent people can cram so many falsehoods and misrepresentations in a few paragraphs as you managed with your “Crazy about guns” editorial of June 30, 2010. The very first sentence calls our individual Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms a “phantom right”, in spite of the very simple and straightforward wording, used in several locations in the Constitution, defining that right clearly as “the right of the people.” What you call “conservative orthodoxy” is the accurate application of the clear and unequivocal intention of the writers and adopters of the Bill of Rights. You say the court “brushed aside” a sentence which you (inaccurately) claim ties the Right to Bear Arms to “state militias” and (unintentionally on your part) to “the security of a free state.” The clear and obvious intention of the writers of the Second Amendment was to provide for free citizens to have the means to preserve a “free state;” free from the despotic and tyrannical intrusions of an overreaching government supported and encouraged by elitists such as your editorial board, making that Right an essential factor in assuring that we would indeed always have the means to be truly “free.” People who have the Right to Bear Arms denied them are not free citizens, they are subjects.
In addition, you apparently totally deny the reality which has been clearly documented through actual legitimate scientifically designed studies as well as the experience of most of the nation where some reasonable level of access to weapons by honest citizens is preserved, that the presence of guns in the hands of honest citizens is an undeniable factor in a lowering of the incidence of violent crime. Jurisdictions with the most restrictive gun laws, essentially disarming the honest citizens, have, without exception, far higher levels of violent crime, including gun related crime, providing obvious proof that restrictive gun laws, rather than increasing safety and security, have exactly the opposite effect. It is equally obvious that such laws have nothing to do with “communities’ abilities to respond …to gun violence.” Legitimate response to “gun violence” is to prosecute criminals, not demonize an object. Guns do not “cause 60,000 deaths and serious injuries” (a grossly inflated figure, and mostly gang and drug related) annually in the United States. Criminals (and to a trivial extent, carelessness) “cause” those events. Guns are used over 2.5 million times annually to deter or stop criminal threats.
Your description of this decision (McDonald vs. City of Chicago) as coming from an “activist” Court majority is ludicrous. The majority ruled in a way that is absolutely and totally consistent with the language of the Constitution and the well documented intent of the framers of that document. This view of the Second Amendment was so well accepted that no one even thought to challenge it throughout most of the history of our nation. Far from being “activist,” this court ruled very narrowly and entirely consistently with the Constitution as written and understood from its creation. It has only been in the last several decades that the distorted view of the Right to Bear Arms only being related to a militia was even brought forward. The “militia” at the time of the writing consisted of the entire body of “the people.” This ruling (unfortunately) allows local and state jurisdictions to continue to tamper with our rights until further challenges are ruled on. The saddest part of this latest reaffirmation of our Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms is that there are four justices on the Supreme Court who place their personal opinions above the clear language of the Constitution and the obvious and well documented intent of those who wrote, debated, and approved that document. That is a frightening reminder of how fragile our freedoms really are and how crucial it is that we elect persons who take their oath to protect and defend the Constitution seriously enough to only consider candidates for the bench who are equally committed to that oath, placing it above any personal opinion or political pressure.

Ronald D. Weddle, MD
4004 Mary Jo Blvd.
Bardstown, KY 40004
502-348-0515 (Home)
502-275-6090 (Cell)

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Liberal Psychopathology

Excellent essay describing the Narcissistic Personality Disorder so prevalent among those with a leftist or statist ideology. Published long before Barack Obama was a national figure. (Which due to his total lack of qualifications for any significant post, was not very long ago.)

Pathology of the Left
By Mark Alexander · Friday, February 25, 2005

Recently, the American Psychological Association published a study by a few "academicians" from Cal-Berkeley and the University of Maryland. The study, entitled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," purported to have identified some determinants that are common to those holding a "conservative" worldview.

As one reads the report, it becomes readily apparent that their "norm" -- that is, their control group -- was somewhere to the left of Barack Hussein Obama1, Nancy Pelosi and her Ya Ya sisters, Babs Boxer and Di Feinstein -- but then, what are we to expect from Cal-Berkeley and UM, or just about any of our nation's "leading academic institutions"?

The authors received more than 1.2 million of your hard-earned tax dollars from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation in order to, by their own account, "consider evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3) fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt; (5) loss prevention; (6) fear of death; (7) threat arising from social and economic deprivation; and (8) threat to the stability of the social system."

In other words, if you (1) have an opinion; and are (2) humble; (3) assertive; (4) a realist; (5) a conservationist; (6) not suicidal; (7) from modest means; and (8) a constitutional constructionist, or worse, a Christian, then you're probably a wacky conservative.

Actually, what taxpayers got was re-warmed 1950-vintage rhetoric on what the authors call "authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality.'' They assert that "one is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives..." (Is it just us, or is that a rather tendentious juxtaposition of murderous tyrants and conservative icons?) All in all, this research stands as a sterling example of academic twaddle, providing "an integrative, meta-analytic review of research on epistemic, existential, and ideological bases of conservatism." The authors' ultimate finding -- for what it's worth -- is that conservatives tend to "arrive at premature conclusions and impose simplistic cliche's and stereotypes," which, ironically, is precisely what the authors have done.

I waited for conservative behaviorist academicians to respond to this farcical pseudo-scholarly diatribe with a brief essay outlining the pathology of liberalism (contemporary, not classical). However, most conservative behaviorist left the academy a long time ago. That being the case, what follows is a rebuttal to this Leftist invective, in the most general terms -- sans the $1.2 million in confiscated wages and a forest of pulp for reprinting in "scholarly journals."

Now then, what, in the broadest terms, constitutes a contemporary liberal -- and why?

Liberals are uniformly defined by their hypocrisy and dissociation from reality. For example, the wealthiest U.S. senators -- Democrats -- fancy themselves as defenders of the poor and advocate the redistribution of wealth, but they hoard enormous wealth for themselves and have never missed a meal. They have always been far more dedicated to their country clubs than our country.

Liberals speak of unity, but they seed foment, appealing to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into dependent constituencies. What constitutes these liberal constituencies? They support freedom of thought, unless your thoughts don't comport with theirs. They feign tolerance while practicing intolerance. They resist open discussion and debate of their views, yet seek to silence dissenters. They insist that they care more about protecting habitat than those who hunt and fish, and protest for the preservation of natural order while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals, while ardently supporting the killing of the most innocent among us -- children prior to birth. They loathe individual responsibility, and advocate for statism. They eschew private initiative and enterprise while promoting all manner of government control and regulation.

Liberals constantly assert their First Amendment rights, except, of course, when it comes to religion or speech that does not agree with their own. Here, they firmly impose the doctrines of secular atheism on everyone else. They hate the idea of self reliance, and Second Amendment rights cause them much consternation. They believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than marijuana and crack smoke. They believe that one nut accused of bombing an abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than Jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They call 9/11 victims "Hitlerian" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They hate SUVs, unless imported and driven by their soccer mom constituents. They advocate mass transit but commute on private jets. They are earth-worshippers and see themselves as the ultimate arbiters of ["climate change" |http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=520]. They believe trial lawyers save lives and doctors kill people. They believe the solution to racism is to treat people differently on the basis of the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They promote peace but foment division and hate.

Ad infinitum...

Why do liberals believe what they believe -- and act the way they act? Psychopathology dictates, or frames, worldview, and worldview manifests in such things as political affiliation. Liberal pathology is very transparent and, thus, well defined.

Generally, liberals tend to be mentally rigid and closed-minded because they are insecure, the result of low self-esteem and arrested emotional development associated, predominantly, with fatherless households or critically dysfunctional families in which they were not adequately affirmed. They exhibit fear, anger, and aggression -- the behavioral consequences of arrested emotional development associated with childhood trauma (primarily rejection by a significant family member of origin as noted above). They display pessimism, disgust, and contempt for those who are self sufficient for much the same reason. They believe that conforming to a code of non-conformity is a sign of individualism, when it is nothing more than an extreme form of conformism for those who are truly insecure.

Liberals fear loss because most have suffered significant loss. Liberal personality disorders are the result of broken families. They fear death because they have little or no meaningful connection with their Heavenly Father -- often the result of the disconnect with their earthly fathers2. They often come from socially and/or economically deprived homes, the result of fatherless homes, but those who are inheritance-welfare trust-babies3 (see Kennedy, et al.) manifest similar insecurities about being helpless without external sustenance. Liberals reject individual responsibility and social stability because these were not modeled for them as children -- the generational implications of pathology.

Sound familiar? And I suspect the profs at Cal-Berkeley and Maryland attributed their own pathological traits to their opposition. It's called projection -- or, yes indeed, hypocrisy.

While the aforementioned environmental and behavioral factors are not universally causal in the emergence of a liberal worldview, they certainly are predominant. Close examination of the early childhood of most liberals will reveal they were "victims" of many of these circumstances, which is, in part, the basis for their "victim mentality."

Medically speaking, there is a diagnosis for Leftist over-achievers like Bill Clinton, Albert Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, et al. They are pathological case studies of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -- the standard reference used for psychiatric evaluation.

The diagnostic criteria for NPD includes a "pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts," which manifests as "a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);" "a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; and a belief that he or she is 'special' and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)," and the subject "lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others...shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes."

Dr. Henry Miller, a 20-year veteran of the National Institutes of Health, notes, "People who suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder are tough to be around. They make terrible bosses, unbearable in-laws and insufferable neighbors. That's why I don't want Al Gore to be president -- or to live next door to me."

Of course, there are many conservatives who were raised by a single parent or in critically dysfunctional and/or impoverished homes. However, somewhere along the way, they were lifted out of their misery by the grace of God -- often in the form of a significant mentor who modeled individual responsibility and character. As a result, they have the courage to internalize their locus of responsibility, unlike liberals, who externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others (read "conservatives") to blame for their ills, and bestowing upon the state the duty for arbitrating proper conduct -- even proper thought.

And a footnote: It's no coincidence that conservative political bases tend to be suburban or rural, while liberal political bases tend to be urban (see http://FederalistPatriot.US/map.asp). The social, cultural and economic blight in many urban settings are the catalysts for producing generations of liberals. Many urbanites no longer have a connection with "the land" (self-sufficiency) and, thus, tend to be largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance -- "It Takes a Village" after all.