If one of these five Congresspeople are yours, you can do the nation a favor by encouraging them to not go along with this deficit madness.

The EU president says that our current economic plans are a “road to Hell.”

He slammed the U.S.’ widening budget deficit and protectionist trade measures — such as the “Buy America” policies included in the stimulus bill, although Obama has said he opposes protectionism in principle.

Topolanek said that “all of these steps, these combinations and permanency is the road to hell.”

“We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the (EU) is the refusal to go this way,” he said.

I guess we’re only supposed to emulate them when they promote socialism. Anyway, history is apparently not the strong suit of those running either the White House or Congress.

[Update and Wednesday morning bump]

Gay Patriot notes that Congressman Frank is a serial offender in smearing those with whom he disagrees, including the “R” word:

Last fall, he accused conservatives of racism for linking the financial meltdown to the Community Reinvestment Act and the mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

When, on the campaign trail, then-Republican presidential nominee John McCain made an issue of the Massachusetts Democrat’s proposals to raise taxes, increase domestic spending and gut the defense budget,* Barney called the attack on his statements, “an appeal to prejudice.”

Smart as Barney is, he has shown little capacity to understand conservative ideas, smearing his ideological adversaries rather than countering their arguments. Is this the kind of man we want as the “most prominent openly gay politician in America”?

I wouldn’t think so, but you’ve got him.

[Update mid morning]

Ann Althouse says that Barney Frank can’t read:

That’s plain old deference to the democratic process and a resistance to creative interpretation of constitutional text. There is nothing — absolutely nothing — to support the proposition that Scalia thinks it’s a good idea to lock up gay people. It’s the usual notion that judges shouldn’t be basing their decisions on whether they think a statute is a good idea or not. It’s the same point made by Justice Thomas (who, Frank says, is not a homophobe).

As her first commenter says, Barney Frank should be as big an embarrassment to the gay community as David Duke was to the white community.

[Here’s yesterday’s post.]

My disgust at Congressman Frank knows no bounds, and it’s not because I’m a “homophobe.” It’s because he’s an arrogant power-hungry corrupt demagogue. In his vile ad hominem attack on Justice Scalia, calling him a homophobe, he attempts to delegitimize his arguments, just as he and others attempt to shut down other debates by calling those who disagree with them “racists,” or “haters” (as one foolish commenter did here the other day).

Part of the mendacity of their argument, of course, is to blur the distinction between process and result. My understanding of Justice Scalia’s position is not that he is personally opposed to gay marriage (though he may well be, perhaps is likely to be). It is that there is no intrinsic right to it in the Constitution, and if proponents want there to be, they have to amend the Constitution. What he personally thinks about it, or whether or not he is truly homophobic (I doubt that, at least by any sane definition of that word, as opposed to “being opposed to changing the long-understood definition of marriage”) is completely irrelevant, and orthogonal to the Constitutional validity of his position.

It is similar to Roe, in which many (perhaps even most) believe that if you favor Roe you favor abortion on demand and if you oppose it, you oppose that. But as I’ve noted in the past, one can be pro-choice, or indifferent to it as a matter of law (which is pretty much my position) and still think Roe a Constitutional atrocity, because it granted a right not to be found there, other than in emanations of shadows of penumbras. Similarly, one could (in theory) be morally opposed to abortion, but think Roe rightly decided (though there are very few actual people who would take such a position).

As Ed Whelan notes, Scalia’s position was not about whether or not he likes the Defense of Marriage Act, but whether or not it is Constitutional. And if he is a homophobe, he’s in pretty good company:

The Defense of Marriage Act was approved by overwhelming majorities in each House of Congress (85-14 in the Senate, 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton. Senators in favor of DOMA included Biden, Bradley, Daschle, Kohl, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, Sarbanes, and Wellstone. Millions and millions of voters in state after state have acted to preserve traditional marriage. Does Frank regard all these Americans as “homophobes”?

Scalia’s position is based on his view of originalism, not on his view of gay marriage, just as are his positions on numerous other issues for which fascists like Barney Frank revile him. My reading of him is that he, more than probably any other sitting member of the court, pretty thoroughly divorces his views of the issues from his assessment of their Constitutionality, which is what a justice is supposed to do. Which of course is exactly why the Franks of the world slander him:

Frank wants liberal activist justices who will indulge his and the Left’s own policy preferences on homosexual matters (and so much more). That’s his real beef with Scalia, and he’s masquerading it under the “homophobe” label.

I’ll leave to others whether Frank’s name-calling is a tactic designed to distract attention from his role in causing the ongoing financial crisis.

I wouldn’t argue with the proposition.

[Afternoon update]

Heh. Scalia urges patience with Barney Frank’s heterophobia.