« AP catches up with story about WH attempt to exclude Fox from the news cycle — and the nutroots respond accordinglyThis is what a truly unfree, misogynistic, totalitarian, theocratic press and nation look like »

Saturday morning must-reads

Bookworm on Oct 24 2009 at 8:28 am | Filed under: Open Threads

I’m hustling off to the last soccer game of the season, but I have a must-read for you:  Jennifer Rubin explaining some of the Constitutional nuances our White House seems to miss.

Michele Bachmann — a true neocon, dedicated to liberty.

A fascinating account of the moral price educational institutions pay for taking federal funds.

One of my favorite books ever is Max Dimont’s Jews, God, and History: 2nd Edition.  In it, he discusses the different ways in which Jesus and Hillel formulated the Golden Rule.  Jesus made it an affirmative:  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Hillel made it a negative:  “Do not do unto others as they do not do unto you.”  If I remember correctly, Dimont analogized the different formulations to the differences between State and Federal mandates under the Constitution.  The Feds have limited, strictly defined powers, with everything else reserved to the state.  Simply enough, really, when you think about it, but appear still not simple enough for some people, especially on the Left.

Mark Steyn on a Saturday.  Need I say more?

Share With Others:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Fark
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • TailRank
  • SphereIt
  • Technorati
Sphere: Related Content

Email This Post To A Friend Email This Post To A Friend

2 Comments »

2 Responses to “Saturday morning must-reads”

  1. on 24 Oct 2009 at 4:38 pm 1Ymarsakar

    true neocon, dedicated to liberty.
    Dedicated to liberty, indeed, but why neo con?

  2. on 24 Oct 2009 at 4:40 pm 2Ymarsakar

    Meta-Golden Rule: Treat your inferiors the way you would like your superiors to treat you.

    Obviously when the Left tries to arm twist people with government power, the Left would expect the same if we were in power or if they were beholden to the Islamic jihad. But is that true, do they really expect that, or are they like terrorists, claiming the right to kill civilians because they accuse us of killing civilians?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.