Rod Dreher on Pothead Andrew Sullivan's Bust

Noting the lesson we've all come to learn - laws are not for famous and wealthy.

BTW - Andrew has some good coverage of yesterday's anti-socialism march.

Honey, lose the bong.

Andrew Sullivan is a Pothead?

Cape Judge objects to Sullivan's special treatment when he got caught breaking the law.

Sullivan, according to Collings's summary of the case, was charged on July 13 and ordered to, in effect, pay a fine of $125 or go to court. He elected to go to court. In late August, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office filed a request with Collings to dismiss the charges because "further prosecution of the violation would not be in the interest of justice."

Collings found the request, and the vague explanation, puzzling, given that the U.S. Attorney's office routinely prosecutes pot cases, even involving small amounts. So he called a hearing, held September 2. There, Sullivan's lawyer, Robert Delahunt, Jr., explained that the charge could complicate his client's attempt to become a U.S. citizen. (Sullivan is British by birth. He is also HIV positive, as he has often noted on his blog, and U.S. law continues to discriminate against potential citizens who are HIV-positive, a subject Sullivan has written about often.)

Collings found that explanation unsatisfying, too: even if the charges were dismissed, Sullivan would still have to tell U.S. immigration officials that he had been charged with a federal crime. Moreover, many other people in similar situations--applying for citizenship--had not been granted such a favor. Collings wanted to pursue the matter, but the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the case replied that Collings had to respect prosecutors' discretion.

I know personally of several people with permanent green cards who spent months in prison on minor things facing deportation. They aren't afforded the opportunity to massage their hardships, illness, tragedy into some kind of discrimination complaint.

When you're applying for citizenship, you know breaking laws mucks up your attempts.

I like Andrew, I read his blog from time to time. Turning his lawlessness into some kind of an "America is a terrible place that discriminates against him but he desperately wants citizenship here so the charges must be dropped" is the excuse of a weasel.

Get off the pot and be a man.

NRO Piece on Andrew Sullivan

Responding to the below entry on Sullivan's blogeroo about writer David Brooks:

[Brooks] writes a column - a sadly misguided view of what's wrong with conservatism - that he could have written at any time in the last ten years. Why can he not tell us what he thinks of Palin? A wonderful writer he sure is.A profile in courage he isn't.

This is a stupid and malicious charge....

The charge is malicious because David is the opposite of what Sullivan says. Brooks is an intellectually honest writer, constantly holding up his views and assumptions to scrutiny and unfolding evidence, and in search of the truth of things. There is deep integrity to David's work. Beyond that, Brooks is one of Washington's most decent and civil individuals. Unfortunately, none of these things can be said of Andrew Sullivan these days. Even Sullivan's colleagues at The Atlantic would, I think it's fair to say, agree with that assessment. He has become an embarrassment to them, and to the magazine with which he is associated.

Sullivan responds thus:

I am being called "crazy" again. But no one at the Corner has the intellectual honesty to discuss the lies that the McCain camp has been putting out: specifically the lie that Obama funded sex education for kindergartners, the lie that Sarah Palin initially opposed the Bridge To Nowhere, the lie that she never requested earmarks for Alaska as governor, the lie that Palin visited the battlefield in Iraq, the lie that she didn't use her public office to persecute a former relative, and on and on. You will read nothing about these glaring lies in the public record at National Review. But you will learn that I am insane.

What does that tell you?

That people scratching below the surface are surprised that Andrew has taken this tack?

For instance:

The former relative, married four times, is a cop found guilty of drinking and driving while on duty in a cruiser, tased his stepson and who also agrees that McCain choosing Palin as a running mate is a marvelous decision.

Obama did push sex ed in kindergarten - looney "age appropriate" rape stories, naming body parts and explaining the mechanics of sexuality in the context that their family cannot be trusted as they are lurking boogeymen after their genitalia - with the caveat that parents have an opt out when reality is we don't.

Here is the transcript right out of Obama's own mouth.

RUSH: Oh, this has got 'em fit to be tied. How dare they say this about Obama? Well, let's go back in 2007, on November 20th, Obama spoke at a Planned Parenthood event, and he said this about Alan Keyes, who was his opponent in the Senate race in 2004.

OBAMA: I remember him, uh, using this in his campaign against me, saying, "Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners." (laughter) And, you know, which -- I didn't know what to tell him. But it's the right thing to do.

What's Gotten into Andrew Sullivan?

He seems to be caught up in a wild pack of scandalomegalomaniacs.

He's insisting that the Palins were involved in an elaborate cover up of their daughter Bristol's delivery of Trig.

She's five months pregnant and Trig is four months old. Do the math.

It's beneath him to be sanctifying the feces of a couple of scumbag bloggers.

He's got another entry on his blog exploiting Palin's non-support of the wacko explicit sex-ed programs.

Are we supposed to conclude by that nudge and wink that Palin's objection to exposing children to fringe strangers acting out kindergarten vagina monologues is the cause of teenage promiscuity?

I hope he doesn't join the hoi polloi.