If you listen to my words, it would have the same suggestion: that only Latinos would come to wiser decisions, but that wouldn’t make sense in the context of my speech either, because I pointed out in the speech that eight—nine—white men had decided Brown v. Board of Education. And, I noted in a separate paragraph of the speech that no one person speaks in the voice of any group. So, my rhetorical flourish, just like hers [Justice O’Conner’s], can’t be read literally. It had a different meaning in the context of the entire speech.

Judge Sotomayor offered this explanation with such regularity and apparent sincerity that one would actually be led to believe that words can only mean what their author intended them to mean. A novel concept, indeed!

It seems that Originalism has found a defense from another unlikely advocate: the Obama administration. The Obama administration has gone on offense after a YouTube compilation video caught fire when Matt Drudge linked to it on his site. Among many clips of Obama speaking on different occasions was one in which he explained that he was a “proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan.” The title of the clip is, “SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance.”

Well, the White House is firing back via a response from former ABC news correspondent Linda Douglass. In it, she criticizes the compilation video on very interesting grounds. Countering the suggestion that President Obama’s health care plan will eliminate private insurance, Douglass says:

Well, nothing could be farther from the truth. You know, the people who always try to scare people whenever you try to bring them health insurance reform are at it again. And they’re taking sentences and phrases out of context, and cobbling them together to leave a very false impression.

The truth is that the President has been talking to the American people a lot about health insurance reform, and what is at stake for them. So, what happens is that, because he is talking to the American people so much, there are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time and they take a phrase here and there—they simply cherry pick and put it together—and make it sound like he said something that he didn’t really say.

Let us assume, for the moment, that Linda Douglass is correct. The gist of Douglass’ argument is that President Obama has never said anything that would indicate that he wants to eliminate private insurance. The video appears to show him in his own words, but what we really see is a bunch of clever edits of multiple clips spliced together so it appears that the President has said something that he has never said. We will therefore stipulate that the President has never publicly stated that he wants to eliminate private health insurance.

But for our purposes, let us assume even more in order to make the President’s argument as compelling as possible. That is, we shall not only assume that President Obama has never publicly stated that he wants to be rid of private health insurance, but we will go further and assume that President Obama genuinely does not want to eliminate private insurance. We will, of course, have to ignore the uncut video of him saying, with his own words, that he is a “proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan.” Yes, friends, what I am asking you to do is, for a brief moment, behave as the left tends to behave, and ignore plain, dispositive facts. With these assumptions in place, I want to examine what Douglass’ (and the White House’s) objection actually is.

The objection is that, despite a video that seemingly reveals otherwise, it is not true that President Obama wants to eliminate private health insurance. His words have been taken out of context, moved around, and spliced together, making it appear that he said something that he really did not say. Is this not an objection grounded in Originalism? I think it certainly is. And I think the following assumptions are essential to Douglass’ objection:

1. The President’s words have a fixed meaning. If this were not so, then it would make no sense to say that it is untrue that the President’s words mean that he wants to eliminate private health insurance.
2. The fixed meaning of the President’s words is not set by those listening to/reading his words. If this were not so, then it would make no sense to object to the video editor’s particular interpretation of the President’s words.
3. The fixed meaning of the President’s words, whatever it be, is accessible to the public at large. If this were not so, then it would make no sense to suggest that someone is deliberately misconstruing the President’s words.
4. The President’s interpretation of his own words is authoritative. If this were not so, then it would make no sense to suggest that the President’s interpretation of his own words is true, while the interpretation made by the person who created the video is false.
5. The President’s intended meaning is the only legitimate meaning of the words he speaks/writes. If this were not so, it would make no sense to criticize someone for taking his statements out of context in order to splice them together in a way that leaves a “very false impression.”

If these assumptions are not true, then Douglass’ objection falls flat. It is common to hear the left argue that the words in the Constitution have no fixed meaning. “The Constitution,” we are often told, “is a living, breathing document, the meaning of which must change to adapt with the times.” An important thing to note is that the change advocated by most proponents of this argument is not achieved by amending the Constitution, a process that adds words to the document to update its meaning. Rather, the change is achieved by reinterpreting the words that are already there. Changing the Constitution by this method runs contrary the the five assumptions above. Thus, if the previous assumptions are true, then there is a glaring inconsistency between the standard by which the Obama administration wants us to understand the President’s words, and the standard by which that same administration wants us to understand the words of our Framers.

A question that is now prominent on my mind is this: if cutting up various words of the President and splicing them back together results in an illegitimate interpretation of his words, then why does it not follow that cutting up various Amendments in the Constitution and splicing them back together similarly results in an illegitimate interpretation of the Constitution? This is, of course, what happened in Griswold vs. Connecticut, the decision that gave us a sweeping, undefined Constitutional right of privacy–a right that we have since learned is “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (Roe v. Wade). The President insists that we interpret his words according to their original meaning. Is it really too much, then, to insist that the President afford our Framers the same courtesy?

HT: HotAir, @marklevinshow, American Thinker

Mark Levin C-SPAN Interview:

part 1

Click here to view the embedded video.

Links: part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6

Levin’s bio from wikipedia:

Levin is an American radio host, author, and political commentator. He is the host of The Mark Levin Show, a nationally-syndicated talk show that airs throughout the United States on Citadel Media (formerly known as ABC Radio Networks). Levin earned his B.A. and J.D. at Temple University. His book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto debuted at #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list (hardcover nonfiction) the week of April 3, 2009.

Beginning in 1981, Levin served as advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet, eventually becoming associate director of presidential personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; Levin also served as deputy assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education at the U.S. Department of Education, and deputy solicitor of the U.S. Department of Interior. He has practiced law in the private sector, and is president of the Landmark Legal Foundationin Leesburg, Virginia. He holds a B.A. from Temple University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude, and a J.D. from Temple University School of Law.

In 2001, the American Conservative Union gave Levin its Ronald Reagan Award.

Also today, President Obama was interviewed on the today show by Meredith Vieira who asked him if he would support a surtax on Americans making a certain salary.  In his reply the President promised that the “rich” will need to sacrifice for the sake of the community under his health care plan.

Vieira: “But would you support a surtax on people that are making more than $280,000 a year to help pay for this health care reform?”

Click here to view the embedded video.

The cartoon by Ramirez is not the first time the ideals of President Obama have been associated with the ideals of Marx.  During the 2008 presidential campaign it was then candidate Obama who said to Joe The Plumber,  “I think when you spread the wealth around its good for everybody.”  This phrase was later referenced by an Orlando news anchor when during an interview with Joe Biden she attempted to compare the sayings of Obama with the sayings of Karl Marx.  She asked Biden:

You may recognize this famous quote, “From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs,” that’s from Karl Marx.  How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

1.  What do you mean by that?

2.  Where do you get your information?

3.  How do you know you are right?

4.  What happens if you are wrong?

Can you think of other questions to ask?  Comment below.

Psalm 1:1-3

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.

He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither.  In all that he does, he prospers.

HT Pics: interfacelift

I remember thinking that the night before seemed darker than usual. It may have been because of the incredible wind. Living in Blacksburg I had seen strong winds before, but this night the wind was stronger. I stayed awake listening to the wind beat the tree against my window and studying for a pharmacology test – the big one that I had to pass. I eventually went to sleep, but only to be awakened several times throughout the night by sounds of this distinctively strong wind.

The Morning.

The alarm went off and the morning rush commenced. I was in and out of the shower with clothes thrown on and with time to spare for a quick review before the test. I went through the normal pretest routine and checklist.  I had the timing down pat.  I could be out of my front door and in my classroom seat ready to test in three minutes! With my pencils freshly sharpened I was out the door. A gust of wind slammed my front door closed as I rushed out to the car. I remember thinking, “Good grief that wind is strong!” I quickly found a parking space and muscled my way out of the car and into class.

Little did I know, 32 people were being gunned down a mile away as I penciled in the bubbles on the scan-tron. The test was long and when I had finished he had finished and morning was over – but the mourning had just begun. I later found out that several classmates who were first responders had finished their tests early and responded to the shooting and played vital roles in the crisis.  I returned to the house to grab some food and relax after the test and before we were scheduled to be back in class.  I remember hearing an odd noise and thinking, “Is that somebody on a bullhorn outside?” I couldn’t tell exactly what it was because the wind was drowning out the noise, but the noise came and went over several minutes. I remember wondering if the SWAT team was in my apartment complex. I then had a flashback to an event on the first day of classes of the 2006-2007 VT school year when a prisoner escaped from police custody, stole an officer’s gun, evaded capture for two days and killed several people.  My next thought was, “I wonder if there has been a shooting.” I quickly turned on the TV and heard the headlines: “Shooting at Virginia Tech, 2 killed.”

I remained glued to the TV for the rest of the day as the story unfolded. There were many comments on the news about strong winds grounding the helicopters. At one point early on VT announced a convocation service for the next day. It was at that time that I knew that the situation was worse than what we were being told. However, no one knew how much worse. There were 33 fatalities including the killer.

My apartment was located on one of the main streets into the campus.  In my mind I can still hear the sirens and see the line of state police cars pouring into town which did not stop at all that day.  Later that evening a few of my friends and I drove through town.  The Virginia state police were all over campus.  They were imposing figures who stood surveying the scene with shotguns in hand. It was real.

The Mourning.

Almost immediately Matt Drudge’s siren was sitting on top of the Hokie Nation, questions were being formulated, Geraldo was making unfounded ignorant accusations, and Brian Williams and Matt Lauer were on planes to Blacksburg. We awoke the next morning to a sea of media. We were told that the president was coming to town.  Though the line into Cassell Coliseum was insane, my friend and I were able to make it inside for the service.   The service was nice, but I remember coming out feeling frustrated and grieved at the consolations which were offered. The message communicated was that Virginia Tech would seek and ultimately find its solace and healing within the strength and power of its community – within ourselves. Amidst the empty chants of “We will prevail, we are Virginia Tech” and “Lets go Hokies” there was a ray of light that broke through the dark service.  As one person in the crowd spontaneously spoke out the Lord’s prayer, an entire stadium joined in, and for a brief moment we looked outside of ourselves for answers and healing.

The Following Days, Weeks, and Months After.

In the days that followed bodies were buried, vigils and memorials were held, and cards were signed. The campus was filled with makeshift memorials from around the country. I found out that one of my neighbors was a victim. Her cat kept coming to my front door. Everybody knew somebody who knew somebody. This indeed was a headline which hit home.

There is one scene that I will never forget as long as I live. I waited 2 or 3 days before I walked down to the scene with my brother and our friend. It was evening when we walked, and they told me about classes they had once had on the second floor in Norris Hall and described the layout of the rooms. We walked around the building in disbelief. We walked on the front sidewalk across which rescuers carried the bleeding injured. As we walked on that sidewalk in front of the building I said hello to the officer and looked down at my feet. I gasped when I realized what I was looking at—it was a bloodstain.

One Year Later.

Ecclesiastes 1:6 The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns.

Today is one year later and the winds of violence continue to blow through our country as I saw headlines just this week of school closings due to threats. Next year at this time we will be marking the 10th anniversary of Columbine. I fear that there is still a critical lesson to be learned from Virginia Tech, Jonesborough, Paducah, Columbine, Northern Illinois, and others. As a culture we have abandoned the ideal of the absolute dignity of human life. Our culture indoctrinates at an early age with a dogma that tells us we are a clump of cells without transcendent meaning.  The dogma leads us to conclude that we are warts on the face of a random universe that somehow came into order out of a disorderly nothing and continues to randomly progress against the principles of entropy. We should not be shocked when there are those who arrive at a conclusion that human beings have no more absolute intrinsic value, meaning, worth, or dignity than any other speck of matter. Disregard for the dignity of human life sown, disregard for the dignity of human life reaped.

The issues we are now facing need to be addressed with truth. We must seek to cultivate a culture of life that will recover the ideal of human dignity and restore its emphasis in all of our institutions.

Please take time to listen to following responses to the events of 4/16/07.

• Louis Giglio at Virginia Tech on the week after the shootings.
• John Macarthur on Virginia Tech.
• Ravi Zacharias at Virginia Tech.

- Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton

The Gospel of John deals often with the subject of truth. In this Gospel, Pontius Pilate comes face to face with Jesus and is confronted with the claim of absolute truth. Pilate responds to Jesus by asking, “What is truth?” Truth is a subject which continues to be questioned in our day. As the modern age has given way to the postmodern age, our culture’s embrace of absolute truth has given way to an embrace of relative truth. Gone are the identifiable reference points, the meaningful language and understanding, and the understanding of context in the fabric of culture. What is left is a culture that worships the ideals of multiculturalism and diversity. What is left is a culture of fragmented groupings of people who have coalesced around their own versions of truth and personal principles. For a culture to embrace relative truth, absolute truth must first be suppressed. This exercise in futility has indeed been embraced by this culture.

“I Am”

When talking to his disciples earlier in the Gospel of John, Jesus lays claim to the title of absolute truth in declaring, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” Ultimate absolute truth exists in the person of Christ and in every word that proceeds from his mouth. The invisible attributes and truth of God, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived by men, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. From a context of absolute truth the Gospel of God proceeds into a world that has suppressed and rejected the truth.

Matters of Truth

Mattersoftruth.com is a gathering friends who have been encountered by Christ, who are united in Him, and who have been (and are being) transformed by the truth of the Gospel. The participants have come from varied cultures and bring along diverse backgrounds. Through this website these individuals will interact with their culture using the framework of a Biblical worldview. We welcome your visit and invite you to come often and converse with us.

Click here to view the embedded video.