Thoughts on the collectivists’ attempts to split the Tea Party. Count me as an agnostic libertarian who has no problem with evangelical Christians, or church charity.

More thoughts. I, too, am mystified by the commenter who wants to grant tenure to all existing federal laws. To me, one of the benefits of the amendment would be in its potential to clean up the existing code.

Corey Maye has been granted the right to a new trial. In a just world, Radley Balko would get a Pulitzer for this.

Historical ignoramus:

Cantor, Bishop and the other supporters of the amendment believe they are rebalancing the Constitution in a way the Framers would like. But it’s strange that the lawmakers would show their reverence for the Founding Fathers by redrafting their work.

Hey, Dana. The Founders put an amendment process into the Constitution for a reason. Though I suspect that one reason that hadn’t occurred to them would be that people like you would decide that it was a “living document,” subject to perverse interpretation that would eviscerate it of their original intent.

[Afternoon update]

More thoughts on Milbank’s ignorance, from La Althouse.

Why the Tea Party resonates with the American people.

…explained:

SK: This was all the strategy of a fellow named Greg Galluzzo, who was very much following Alinsky’s theory of community organizing. He was a mentor to Obama. He was the founder of this radical group, UNO of Chicago. Obama’s own community organization, the Developing Communities Project, was an offshoot of UNO of Chicago. Galluzzo’s idea was: If you could trap a public official into an immediate yes or no answer, you would win either way. If you’re asking this person for money, which is what they usually were doing, if he says “yes,” you get the money. But if he says “no” – a distinct “no” instead of “maybe,” or “let’s look into this” – then you can infuriate the organization.

GB: They become, in their words, “an enemy.” It’s much easier to say, “This is an enemy of the community.” Any opportunity for subtlety or a nuanced answer that went beyond one word, they would do everything that they could to avoid that…because that sort of answer makes it more difficult to agitate over.

SK: That’s right. These tactics were intentionally polarizing. Think about that word, enemy, and what Barack Obama just recently said so controversially to a mostly Hispanic audience about “punishing their enemies.” That was a slip, revealing what Obama had been taught for years. That was not some one-off coincidental word that he happened to be using. Galluzzo’s and Alinsky’s whole idea was that you identify targets or enemies…And what Galluzzo also said was, “Present yourself as a pragmatist. Present yourself as someone who is beyond ideology, but then use polarizing tactics”…When you really know what Galluzzo is all about, you can get the real story on what Obama did back then.

…of The Nation:

It’s possible that not all of the magazine’s archives are online, or that the search engine didn’t pick up every example. But hey, I at least made the effort, which is more than we can say for vanden Heuvel. Even if I missed a few, I think my point is made: Libertarians have been out in front on this issue from the start. And contra vanden Heuvel and Ames/Levine, not only was libertarian criticism not muted when a Republican occupied the White House, during that time libertarian journalists, wonks, and pundits did a damned sight better job covering TSA abuses, inefficacy, and theatrics than the The Nation.

The mindless criticism of the Koch brothers by those funded by George Soros is also simultaneously amusing and infuriating.