Would Conservative Court Striking Down ObamaCare Be ‘Judicial Activism’? Only According To Liberal Relativism

William F. Buckley famously provided an example of “relativism” as:

“the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around”  — William F. Buckley, Miles Gone By: A Literary Autobiography

[For the record, it was Greg Gutfeld on the April 3rd edition of "The Five" on the Fox News Channel, who adapted that particular Buckley analogy to ObamaCare and "judicial activism."].

When Obama and other liberals try to frame a Supreme Court decision – particularly when that decision has not even been rendered and the grounds of that decision have not even been provided – as “judicial activism,” it is beyond dishonest.

Liberal commentator Ruth Marcus hits on this ”disservice” to justice:

I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice.

Again, the SCOTUS not only hasn’t issued its ruling yet, but they most certainly haven’t provided their grounds for their ruling!!!  For Obama to dictate to the Supreme Court that “if you rule against me, you are an unelected and therefore illegitimate and discredited body, but if you rule for me, then you can go back to being legitimate again,” does profound and disturbing injury to our constitutional republic founded upon the separation of powers.  And Barack Obama ought to live in infamy for that act of treason against the Constitution of the United States of America that he falsely swore to uphold and defend.

What is “judicial activism,” stripped of the delusional relativistic spin that Democrats want to apply to pervert something that has so often outraged conservatives???  The answer is that it is inventing concepts not found in the Constitution whatsoever – such as “penumbras and emanations” used to justify Roe v. Wade.  EVEN RUTH BADER GINSBURG HAS SAID THAT ROE V. WADE WAS TERRIBLE LEGAL REASONING!!!  And the spirit of judicial activism can be summed up in famous liberal justice Thurgood Marshall, who expressed the essence of his judicial philosophy as follows:

“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”

THAT is what judicial activism is.  “You do what you think is right” (substitute your own will in place of the law) “and let the law catch up” (ignore the law altogether because you are re-creating it and what it said prior to your imposing your will on it frankly doesn’t matter to you one iota).  Considering a law and seeing glaring issues of unconstitutionality and then striking down that invalid law is NOT “judicial activism.”  It is what the Supreme Court is SUPPOSED TO DO and what the founding fathers DESIGNED IT TO DO.

Chief Justice John Roberts had an interesting point to make about his judicial philosophy when he was going through the nomination process:

John Roberts: “I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”

Contrast that with Thurgood Marshall’s “I impose my own will on the law and force the Constitution to say whatever I happen to want it to say at any given moment” view.

Some articles I’ve written hit at some of the VERY legitimate constitutional questions raised by Supreme Court Justices:

It’s A ‘Tax’ When It’s Convenient For Us But It’s A ‘Penalty’ When It’s Convenient For Us: Deceitful ObamaCare Attorney Mocked By Supreme Court Justices

Key SCOTUS Vote Kennedy: ObamaCare ‘Changes The Relationship Of The Federal Government To The Individual In A Very Fundamental Way’

Left Shocked And Panicked That Supreme Court May Not Like ObamaCare Fascism

Scalia ‘Benchslaps’ ObamaCare Mouthpiece: ‘Those Cases Dealt With Commerce; THIS Case Is Aimed At People Who AREN’T Participating In Commerce (people without insurance)’

Scalia ‘Benchslaps’ ObamaCare Mouthpiece: ‘Those Cases Dealt With Commerce; THIS Case Is Aimed At People Who AREN’T Participating In Commerce (people without insurance)’

And just to add insult to that injury to the U.S. Constitution there’s the fact that there is the headline ”CBO: ObamaCare Price Tag Shifts from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion“ and the even more shocking fact of ”Another Little ObamaCare Surprise: How About A SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLAR Funding Gap?“

Everything – and I mean EVERYTHING - that Obama has said about ObamaCare and the Supreme Court has been a demonstrable lie.  Founding Ideals has gone after some of what Obama has said:

Dishonest Statement:

“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,”

The Truth:

The law passed by a very narrow majority (220-215 in the house with 39 Democrats voting against it). That certainly wasn’t a strong majority. The program was so divisive that massive protests were held in opposition to the bill and its passing energized the nascent Tea Party. Even today a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare.

[Further, it passed in the Senate by such a tiny necessary majority that the Scott Brown election - with Scott Brown running on the promise that he would be the "41st vote" to stop ObamaCare - threw a huge monkey wrench into the Democrat campaign to ram it through and necessitated all kinds of procedural gimmicks such as "to deem it passed."]

Dishonest Statement:

“With respect to health care, I’m actually — continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional.”

The Truth:

There is no precedent where the Federal government has forced people to purchase a good or service from a private company.

Mere Hyperbole:

“That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.”

A more honest answer:

The CBO’s estimate is that 20 million people that will lose coverage because the perverse economic incentives encourage employers to drop coverage for their employees. No one knows what the net gain will be. (Based on other Obama success stories like Cash for clunkers, Solyndra, etc – I predict that the number of net newly covered individuals will be much less than 20 million)

On April 3rd, in a question and answer, Obama said:

OBAMA: Um, we have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a[n] economic issue like health care that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner, right? So we’re goin’ back to the thirties, pre-New Deal.

Again, that is simply FALSE.  In FACT the Supreme Court has struck down at least TWO laws that had been passed on the basis of the same “commerce clause” that was used as the grounds for ObamaCare.  In 1999, in States vs. Morrison and in 1995, in United States vs. Lopez, a broad interpretation of the commerce clause and expansive federal powers under the guise of regulation ”economic issues” were struck down by the Supreme Court.  Which is to say that Barack Obama not only as a former lawyer, but as a “constitutional scholar,” is openly lying to the American people.

The Supreme Court has struck down on average provisions of two laws every single year.  What Obama said is beyond ridiculous.

In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court quite literally struck down the laws in all fifty states and wrote the new law by itself.  And for the same liberals who celebrate that law to demonize a Supreme Court for striking down a law that clearly extends the commerce clause beyond ANYTHING that the founding fathers envisioned is itself demonic.

There is also this fact that came out of the exchange with Obama:

during the Q&A, the moderator is the chairman of Associated Press, Dean Singleton, who said, “Mr. President, you said yesterday it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. Yet that’s exactly what the court’s done during its entire existence.”

Which gets us back to the fact that overturning ObamaCare would hardly qualify as “judicial activism.”  It is simply the Supreme Court’s job to consider a law brought before them and compare it to the Constitution to see if said law is supported by the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Obama is a liar without shame, without honor, without integrity.  That is a fact.

Justice Antonin Scalia said something interesting in a debate with ACLU president Nadine Strossen about the idea that liberal “judicial activism” would one day come back to haunt liberals:

                 Scalia: Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court –

    26:57 Strossen: — I think that day has come! (laughter) –

    26:58 Scalia: And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.

I’m to the point where I actually hope that right-wing justices rise up and do unto the left as the left has done unto us for the last eighty years.  So here’s to hoping for some right-wing judicial activism to re-balance the scales that have tipped so far away from our Constitution that it’s not even funny.  We’re far past the point of being able to negotiate with liberals to fix the problems that will necessarily implode us and leave us a bankrupt banana republic.

P.S. The infamous Supreme Court “wheat” decision from 1942 that ObamaCare defenders keep citing is one of the things that desperately needs to be overturned if we’re ever going to actually have anything to do with the Constitution again.

What’s So Terribly Wrong About Obama’s And Democrat Party’s Socialism, In Words Of Many Great Thinkers (Well, And Two Not So Great Ones)

I was looking for a particular quote (Winston Churchill’s just below) and found it.  I also found a lot of other quotes that I had to do my little part to help preserve for posterity about the evils of everything the modern Democrat Party stands for and the destruction it has already done and surely will continue to do the the United States of America:

On speaking about communism: “We pretend to work; they pretend to pay us.” — Vladimir Voinovich

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. — Winston Churchill (1903)

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. — Margaret Thatcher

Every time government attempts to handle our affairs, it costs more and the results are worse than if we had handled them ourselves. — Benjamin Constant, Brazilian statesman

There are severe limits to the good that the government can do for the economy, but there are almost no limits to the harm it can do.  — Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate

Every time government attempts to handle our affairs, it costs more and the results are worse than if we had handled them ourselves.  — Benjamin Constant, Brazilian statesman

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. — Barry Goldwater

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. — Robert A. Heinlein

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away mans initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.  — William J. H. Boetcker.

Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. — Ludwig von Mises

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. — P. J. O’Rourke

There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it, A politician who portrays himself as “caring” and “sensitive” because he wants to expand the Government’s charitable programs is merely saying that he’s willing to try to do good with other people’s money. Well, who isn’t? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he’ll do good with his own money – if a gun is held to his head. — P. J. O’Rourke

The Tenth Commandment [thou shalt not covet] sends a message to collectivists, to people who believe wealth is best obtained by redistribution. And the message is clear and concise: Go to hell.  — P. J. O’Rourke

Government’s view of the economy should be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. — Ronald Reagan (1986)

Give me control over a man’s economic actions, and hence over his means of survival, and except for a few occasional heroes, I’ll promise to deliver to you men who think and write and behave as I want them to. — Benjamine A. Rooge

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend of the support of Paul. — George Bernard Shaw

If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves. — Thomas Sowell (1992)

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. — Norman Thomas – Socialist Party Presidential candidate (1948)

No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. — Mark Twain (1866)

In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of citizens to give to the other. — Voltaire (1764)

No republic has long outlived the discovery by a majority of its people that they could vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. — Alexander Tytler

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, CONFUSES the distinction BETWEEN Government AND Society. As a result…EVERY time We object to a thing being done by Government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.  — Frederic Bastiat

Here are a few others that expose the corrupt heart of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party:

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”–Thomas Jefferson

“That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world” — John Adams

Is it not High Time for the People of this Country explicitly to declare, whether they will be Freemen or Slaves? It is an important Question which ought to be decided. It concerns us more than any Thing in this Life. The Salvation of our Souls is interested in the Event: For wherever Tyranny is establish’d, Immorality of every Kind comes in like a Torrent. It is in the Interest of Tyrants to reduce the People to Ignorance and Vice. For they cannot live in any Country where Virtue and Knowledge prevail. The Religion and public Liberty of a People are intimately connected; their Interests are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together. For this Reason, it is always observable, that those who are combin’d to destroy the People’s Liberties, practice every Art to poison their Morals. How greatly then does it concern us, at all Events, to put a Stop to the Progress of Tyranny. It is advanced already by far too many Strides. We are at this moment upon a precipice. The next step may be fatal to us. Let us then act like wise Men; calmly took around us and consider what is best to be done. Let us converse together upon this most interesting Subject and open our minds freely to each other. Let it be the topic of conversation in every social Club. Let every Town assemble. Let Associations & Combinations be everywhere set up to consult and recover our just Rights. — Samuel Adams, 1772

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” — Samuel Adams

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Benjamin Franklin

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. — Thomas Jefferson

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” –Patrick Henry

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”  – Thomas Paine

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”  – Thomas Jefferson

“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.”  – Thomas Jefferson

“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” –Thomas Jefferson

“The Tenth Amendment [i.e., "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"] is the foundation of the Constitution.” — Thomas Jefferson

“He that goes a borrowing goes a sorrowing.”  – Benjamin Franklin, from his writings, 1758

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” — Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

“Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.” — Benjamin Franklin, letter to Collinson, May 9, 1753

“To contract new debts is not the way to pay for old ones.”– George Washinton, to James Welch, April 7, 1799

“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible.” George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

“I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse.” — James Madison, to Henry Lee, April 13, 1790

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… they may appoint teachers in every state… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.” — James Madison

“Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789

“Loading up the nation with debt and leaving it for the following generations to pay is morally irresponsible.  Excessive debt is a means by which governments oppress the people and waste their substance. No nation has a right to contract debt for periods longer than the majority contracting it can expect to live.” — Thomas Jefferson

“It is a miserable arithmetic which makes any single privation whatever so painful as a total privation of everything which must necessarily follow the living so far beyond our income.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Hay, 1787

“The same prudence, which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public monies.”–Thomas Jefferson, to Shelton Giliam, June 19, 1808

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.” –Noah Webster

“A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.” — Benjamin Franklin

“I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt, and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing, by every device, the public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing.” — Thomas Jefferson

“If the debt which the banking companies owe be a blessing to anybody, it is to themselves alone, who are realizing a solid interest of eight or ten per cent on it. As to the public, these companies have banished all our gold and silver medium, which, before their institution, we had without interest, which never could have perished in our hands, and would have been our salvation now in the hour of war; instead of which they have given us two hundred million of froth and bubble, on which we are to pay them heavy interest, until it shall vanish into air… We are warranted, then, in affirming that this parody on the principle of ‘a public debt being a public blessing,’ and its mutation into the blessing of private instead of public debts, is as ridiculous as the original principle itself. In both cases, the truth is, that capital may be produced by industry, and accumulated by economy; but jugglers only will propose to create it by legerdemain tricks with paper.” –Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813.

“I sincerely believe… that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

“To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”  — Thomas Jefferson

“If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” — Thomas Jefferson, to Thomas Cooper, January 29, 1802

“We are endeavoring, too, to reduce the government to the practice of a rigorous economy, to avoid burdening the people, and arming the magistrate with a patronage of money, which might be used to corrupt and undermine the principles of our government.”–Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mr. Pictet, February 5, 1803

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” –Thomas Jefferson

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” –Thomas Jefferson

“Still one thing more, fellow citizens — a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”– Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar of paper emitted.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1791.

“The maxim of buying nothing without the money in our pockets to pay for it would make of our country one of the happiest on earth.” –Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1787.

And in light of our Washington leaders stated goal of re-inflating the housing bubble: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”–Thomas Jefferson

Mind you, all of these men’s views can be summarily dismissed if you consider the following man a “great thinker”:

“I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” – Barack Hussein Obama

A few great non-founding father quotes regarding the socialism of the modern Democrat Party:

“The collectivist mindset, as embodied by the necessity to be organized through a centralized, bureaucratically-dominated, legislatively-driven authority, where accountability for individual welfare is subservient to the required acquiescence demanded by the tenets of Marxism, is contrary and in diametrical opposition to America’s core mandate for personal freedom and the naturally inherent psychological need to have ownership in life’s outcomes. The road to dictatorship can start with the most noble of beginnings and can be, ironically, augmented by the very people it ends up controlling. For it is so that an orientation of dependence becomes an addiction to need.” — O.D. Harrisson

“There are many who are losing faith in God and Government. For some, God may be a question, but for all of us Government is a fact.
Our government was intended by our Forefathers to be a tool of the people, used to facillitate our freedom and provide for our common good. Government was to exist to administer our will, not to become our administrator.

          Because this is the people’s government, not a political party’s government or any one individual’s government, we do not look to it to solve all societal ills or install perfection among us. That is the way our founders designed it, that is the way it has worked for well over two centuries and that is the way we want it.

          When taxed inappropriately we lose our economy, when regulated beyond need we lose our freedom, when treated like children we lose our self respect and when lied to we lose our rights. So when government goes wrong, it is we who are wronged, but also it is we who are wrong for letting it happen” — O.D. Harrisson

“What were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats.” — Rep. Jeb Hensarling

“Rarely in history has a nation so passively accepted such a radical change in the military balance. If we are to remedy it, we must first recognize the fact that we have placed ourselves at a significant disadvantage voluntarily. This is not the result of SALT. It is the consequence of unilateral decisions extending over a decade and a half. By a strategic doctrine adopted in the ’60s, by the bitter domestic divisions growing out of the war in Vietnam, and by choices by the present administration.

          All these actions were unilateral-hence avoidable. They were not extracted from us by clever Soviet negotiators. We imposed them on ourselves by our choices, theories and domestic turmoil. It is therefore in our power to alter them.” — Henry Kissinger

“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.” – Thomas Sowell

“It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense. … They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society.” — Adam Smith, “Wealth of Nations,” Book II, Chapter II

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.” – Albert Einstein

“Some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.”  — George Orwell

“Life’s tough. It’s even tougher if you’re stupid.” — John Wayne

And one that is particularly important to read and understand today:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 9, 1939

An eerie prediction of false messiahs and the stupidity of “intellectuals” who believe them:

A journalist named Stephen Laurant had been jailed circa 1935 for questioning Nazism:
“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Jewish doctor Herta Knotwolf: “So many worship him [Hitler] as their savior, their redeemer from unbearable poverty.  Many are filled with some worry, but all are united in the words, ‘Now things will change.’”

While it is unlikely that posterity will ever regard me as a great thinker in comparison to the numerous great thinkers I cited above (with the one singular exception of Barack Obama above), I hope you don’t mind me quoting myself:

“If you tax people who work and give it to people who don’t work, you will end up with fewer and fewer people who work.”

:)

Obama Wants To Force You To Surrender ‘Money You Don’t Need’

At the center of his tiny, shriveled little cockroach soul, Barack Obama is a Marxist.

Allow me to recite the central tenet of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  And please, PLEASE someone explain to me how Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party are NOT Marxist given that they believe the SAME garbage.  Liberals constantly huff at the suggestion that they are socialists as though it is the silliest damn thing they have ever heard.  The thing is that they don’t want their ideology identified with socialism merely because it is a bad word.  BUT “IT” IS A BAD WORD FOR A REASON, AND “IT” IS IN FACT PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE.

The shoe fits, and Obama and his socialist Democrats need to wear it.

Obama Aims for the Money You Don’t “Need”
Mike Brownfield
July 13, 2011 at 9:55 am

Over the past several weeks, America has seen on grand display in Washington a singular mindset emanating from the White House: We must raise taxes so that we can keep on spending. This week, though, America was treated to something different—a glimpse inside President Barack Obama’s mind, a roadmap of his economic worldview. And what was revealed was a philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with America’s job creators.

That insight came during the President’s press conference on Monday in which he broached the subject of raising taxes as part of the debt limit deal:

“And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

If you read between the lines, which doesn’t take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don’t “need” belongs to the government, as writer John Steele Gordon explains in Commentary. And, Gordon writes, Obama’s statement “demonstrates an astonishing economic illiteracy”:

To be sure, someone earning a great deal of money has an income greater than what he spends. . . But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy?

How much income is too much? It’s hard to say, and the President doesn’t put a number on it. But that high-tax policy is so important to the President that he is willing to personalize the issue, offering up the fact that he has made a boatload selling books and can afford to pay taxes on it, as he did in his Twitter town hall when he remarked:

“But what I’ve also said is people like me who have been incredibly fortunate, mainly because a lot of folks bought my book . . . for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me.”

On top of personalizing the issue, the President is pulling out all the stops in a take-no-prisoners demagoguery campaign, ranging from the subtle to the explicit. His criticisms of tax loopholes for corporate jets and oil and gas companies are legion, his calls for millionaires and billionaires to “pay a little bit more” are anything but subtle, and his threats over the failure to reach a tax-soaked debt limit deal are frightening.

The President’s “your money is the government’s money” mindset is having an impact on the mind’s of America’s job creators. A new survey of small business owners and executives prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows how the U.S. political environment has impacted the business environment, and the insights are troubling.

According to the survey, a vast majority of small business owners (84 percent) say the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. Tellingly, the threat of regulation and taxes are the two issues in Washington posing the greatest threat to their business, while economic uncertainty, America’s growing debt and deficit and Obamacare are top challenges as well. And when asked whether they’d like Washington to lend a hand or get out of they, 79 percent choose the latter.

And therein lies the difference. When President Obama sees successful businesses, he sees green. And when they look back, they see red. The President wants to take more so he can spend more and do more, whereas those who are the engine of America’s economy just want the government to do less so they can thrive. Unfortunately, a meeting of the minds seems a long way off.

Democrats are at their hearts Marxists and fascists who believe that you and everything you produce belongs to the government – and that the government should belong entirely to THEM so that they have the power to decide who wins and who loses.  I’ve written about this fact at length before.  Again, this is a central tenet of Marxism and socialism, but for some reason we’re not supposed to be able to call these people what they clearly are.

Mind you, this disgraceful little turd Barry Hussein is a HYPOCRITE Marxist, as the following evidence of what a stingy, selfish, greedy little swine Obama was with his own money just a few short years ago when he was a rich liberal who didn’t think anyone was watching.  Amazingly, the facts show that Obama didn’t seem to think there was such a thing as “money he didn’t need” then:

Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

Obama seemed to “need” every penny of his money when he was selfishly refusing to give basically ANYTHING to the poor that he now so hypocritically and self-righteously claims he cares about.  And that is a FACT.  So when this vile little hypocrite weasel self-righteously lectures us on how much we should be willing to give more in taxes to Big Brother, just realize it is coming from the very worst kind of demagogue and liar.

Then there’s the fact that if these rich liberals want to give more money, THEN THEY CAN AND SHOULD GIVE MORE MONEY.  They can give to charity; they can give to a government fund that uses the money to pay down the debt when they do their taxes.  They keep talking about how generous they should be but they never seem to be generous with their own money.

Let me go on quoting from the same article on liberals and “paying their fair share”:

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And don’t forget the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These people just make me want to lose my lunch into a bucket.  That’s something I wouldn’t mind donating to the government.

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?”  It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function.  Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands.  Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups.  It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity.  James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”  In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state.  They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful.  And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter.  He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government.  He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling.  Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger.  And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor.  And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact.  Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

But let me be even more specific and address Obama directly.  Obama says rich people – who already pay a massive share of the income taxes in America – should have more of their money seized so it can be redistributed in the form of student loans.  What is interesting is that this massively subsidizes the university system that has been almost entirely hijacked by the ideological left.  The more money becomes available in student loans, the more these supposedly “caring” liberals increase the cost of college tuition (the price of which has inflated FAR more than the price of ANY OTHER good or service).  So what happens?  Obama takes money OUT of the private economy, and OUT of the hands of the people who actually create jobs, and puts it into the pockets of liberals in universities who then turn around and raise the cost of tuition to screw college students.  And this “progressive” boondoggle has been going on for YEARS.

THAT’S what liberal compassion looks like: it bascially looks just like the hypocritical, self-righteous face of Barack Obama.

Do You Truly Love Your Country? It’s Now Official: That Means You’re A Right-Wing Republican

I’ve been saying DemonCrats (that’s “Demonic Bureaucrats,” which is what “Democrat” truly stands for) despise their country.  Now I’ve got über-liberal Harvard to back me up.  Which is to say that this isn’t a case of Sarah Palin blasting away at Democrats and claiming Democrats don’t love their country; it’s an example of the liberal intelligentsia itself claiming that Democrats don’t love their country:

Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing
By Paul Bedard
Posted: June 30, 2011

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades.  A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.

“Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s  political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation,  primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from  Harvard.

“The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans,” write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.

Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them.

“There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization,” the two wrote.

The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations:

• When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
• It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
• It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they’ll make a political contribution by 3 percent.

What’s more, the impact isn’t fleeting. “Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,”said the Harvard report.

Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, though should head to Republican towns. “Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place.”

Conservatives have American Indendence Day, which we celebrate on July 4th in honor of our Declaration of Independence.  Democrats hate the Declaration of Independence because it bases our separation from Great Britain on GOD and establishes the new nation that would consequently be born as a Judeo-Christian one.  Liberals have Marxist May Day, i.e. DEpendence Day, instead.

It’s rather interesting, actually.  I think of the analogy of the “Naksa”, or Israel’s defeat of Arab armies in the 1967 Six-Day War.  It’s a day of celebration for Israelis, and a day of mourning for Palestinians.  It’s a shame that Independence Day is nothing worthy of celebrating for Democrats.  But when you realize that the independence and liberty the founding fathers created was independence and liberty from big government totalitarianism, and that Democrats yearn for the very thing that our founding fathers delivered us from, it starts to make perfect sense.  Ben Franklin said, “Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”  And Democrats who dream of a big government nanny state say, “Amen!  Where can see sign up for that?”

Liberals have always despised the Constitution, because it gets in their way of imposing their will on society.  A couple of very recent examples:

Time Magazine: “We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.”

[...]

The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”

And let’s not forget Fareed Zakaria, who recently said America should be more like Iceland – which ripped its Constitution up and is now writing a new one on Facebook.

We can go back to Woodrow Wilson, “the father of the progressive movement,” and see how Democrats have always felt about the Constitution:

President Woodrow Wilson was an early progressive who actively rejected what the founding fathers said and intended. He argued that the meaning of the Constitution should be interpreted by judges, and not based on its words.

In his book, Constitutional Government in the United States, Wilson wrote: “We can say without the least disparagement or even criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States that at its hands the Constitution has received an adaptation and an elaboration which would fill its framers of the simple days of 1787 with nothing less than amazement. The explicitly granted powers of the Constitution are what they always were; but the powers drawn from it by implication have grown and multiplied beyond all expectation, and each generation of statesmen looks to the Supreme Court to supply the interpretation which will serve the needs of the day.”

Wilson and other progressives have failed to understand the consequence of rewriting the Constitution’s meaning and ignoring the intentions of the founding fathers. If this generation is not bound by yesterday’s law, then future generations will not be bound by today’s law.

If law is not a body of rules and can be arbitrarily manipulated, then the rule of man trumps the rule of law. And the founding principle that “all men are created equal” is replaced by “some men are more equal than others.” When people are governed by self-anointed rulers instead of elected representatives, they cannot be free.

When the Constitution was written, it was a radical departure from the despotic governments of its time. While Europeans were being ruled by the arbitrary edicts of kings, Americans revolted so they could become a self-governing people.

Because the founding fathers understood human nature, they structured the Constitution to permanently protect the people from the human shortcomings of their leaders. Human nature has not changed since America’s founding. So the need still exists for the protection provided by the Constitution.

And as Mark Levin points out, we can actually go back before that to see how liberals undermined America and undermined the Constitution by finding judges who would “interpret” it rather than just read it.  Consider slavery, and consider the fact that the Democrat Party was the party of slavery and that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party.  And what justified slavery in the face of our founding documents which clearly condemned slavery?  Liberal activist judges:

Levin: Activist Supreme Courts are not new. The Dred Scott decision in 1856, imposing slavery in free territories; the Plessy decision in 1896, imposing segregation on a private railroad company; the Korematsu decision in 1944, upholding Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens, mostly Japanese Americans; and the Roe decision in 1973, imposing abortion on the entire nation; are examples of the consequences of activist Courts and justices. Far from being imbued with special insight, these decisions have had dire consequences for our governmental system and for society.

And we can go back well before that, too.  We can go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, who warned us of the horror of judicial activism:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.  But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Democrats don’t love America.  They haven’t for a long time.  For my entire life, in fact.

America is based on the idea that man can govern himself, and that man can govern himself and should govern himself, within the just parameters of the Constitution they so painstakingly crafted for us:

The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powell anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic if you can keep it” responded Franklin.

The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.

The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.

But Democrats have always despised our founding fathers and the republic they gave us.  Thomas Jefferson said:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

I think of Jefferson’s words when I hear the union mobs that shout down others and riot while mindlessly chanting, “THIS is what Democracy looks like!” (See also here).

And Democrats are at the core of this anti-American garbage.  See here.  And here.  And here. And here.  And here.  Democrats were completely at home voting for a president who believes:

“I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

And when you read our founding fathers, and understand their arguments and their worldview, you can readily understand why Obama has to characterize the founding fathers and the Constitution they wrote as “blind.”

Because Thomas Jefferson also said things like:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”

And:

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

And:

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

And:

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

And:

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

And:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

But these notions are fundamentally incompatible with the vision of “America” Democrats have for this country.  Which is why the founding fathers must be destroyed; their integrity demolished; their wisdom undermined.

Don’t tell me you love America, Democrats.  You hate it.  You’ve hated it for a long time.  That’s why you embrace the following vision of this founding father:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The problem is that yours isn’t a founding father of America, but rather the founding father of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  That quote that Democrats all affirm came from Karl Marx (see Obama’s paraphrase: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”)  And if you are a Democrat who doesn’t affirm that statement, than explain to me as a Democrat why this central defining statement of communism – which flies in the face of what America’s founding fathers said - is in fact demonic and evil.  And then explain to me how that statement has no part with the Democrat Party.  Please.

Update, July 2: Someone sent me the link to this excellent piece by Ellis Washington which raises some of the same issues I raise above.  It’s worth a read.

Mexican-’Americans’ Boo U.S. Soccor Team AND THE AMERICAN FLAG. Democrats Help Them.

These are the people that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party want to screw the American people to in order to “win” (read “purchase”) their vote:

Mexican-American soccer fans boo the U.S. flag in Gold Cup? Not nice, los estúpidos
Rick Chandler
Jun 27, 2011, 5:12 PM EDT

Nice comeback win by Mexico to beat the U.S., 4-2, at the CONCACAF Gold Cup in Pasadena on Saturday. But Mexican fans, did you have to boo the U.S. flag? I mean, you live here and everything. You’re U.S. citizens, presumably. No one’s saying you have to root for the U.S. soccer team … pulling for Mexico in this game was completely understandable. But booing the flag, and other acts of hooliganism directed at the U.S.? Unless you believe that all of those folks traveled north from Mexico just for the game — and I don’t — then it’s obvious that people living and working in the U.S. booed and disrespected the American flag. You took it too far, los salvajes.

From the Sporting News:

Other than a column in the Los Angeles Times, the atmosphere at Saturday’s game was hardly noted. When it was, the crowd was called enthusiastic or impassioned.

How about boorish?

Certainly not all 93,420 fans, but enough to leave you wondering just what the U.S. did to get Mexico so enthusiastic and impassioned.

The antics weren’t anything new. In a 2005 World Cup qualifier, the Mexican crowd booed the U.S. national anthem and some fans chanted “Osama! Osama!” during the game. Two years ago fans threw containers holding urine and vomit at Landon Donovan.

If American fans had done that to Javier Hernandez on Saturday, there would be a national manhunt. But almost any criticism of Mexican fans is viewed as intolerant, if bit downright racist.

The question is: How much must we tolerate?

And how far do you take national loyalty at a sporting event? Your country of origin may be Mexico, but if you’ve come to the United States for a better life for you and your family, shouldn’t there be some sense of loyalty to your adopted land?

That’s like me moving to Canada, living and working there for a couple of years, then during the Winter Olympics shooting arrows at the Always Enjoyable Giant Inflatable Beaver. I just wouldn’t do that. Sure, I’d root for the U.S. in hockey, but I’d realize that Canada is my adopted home, and I’d also carry several strips of backbacon in my pockets. In other words, I’d find a place in my heart for both.

Mexican-American soccer fans, I think you went over the line. Apologize, or we’re canceling the George Lopez Show.

***
In Gold Cup final, it’s red, white and boo again [Los Angeles Times]
Sorry, Mexico, great win but fans were embarrassment [The Sporting News]

Democrats – who are themselves as un-American as these “Mexican-Americans” – want to sell out the American people in order to buy the votes of these disloyal slimeballs.

My view?  If we’re fortunate enough to overcome the biased media propaganda and win the White House and Senate in 2012, we need to kick down doors and haul illegals off to Mexico where they belong.  And then we need to build a giant fence to keep them where they belong and put a few military bases along the border so they can aggressively patrol it in the interest of national security.

If you get the sense that this kind of crap burns my butt you are correct.  Nobody needs to correct me and lecture me that there are Hispanic Americans that are just as repulsed by this loathsome display of ingratitude as any other decent American.  I have been blessed to know Hispanics who are prouder of America than 99.9% of their fellow Americans – because they remember where they came from, and they know America is a land of opportunity rather than a land to be exploited.

But the simple fact of the matter is that this kind of despicable display from “Mexican-Americans” HAPPENS ALL THE DAMN TIME:

Public School Teacher Says American Flag ‘Offensive’; Praises Picture Of Dear Leader Obama

Celebrating Cinco De Mayo In These United States Of Mexico

Who’s The Real American In This Picture?

Liberal Rallies Pimp Hard-Core Totalitarian Socialism

Illegal Immigrants: Amazingly, Conservatives Don’t Want These People In America

There are two groups of people living in the United States of America: there are conservatives who genuinely care about this country and its founding vision, and then there are Democrats and Hispanic and all these other anti-American “special interest groups” who want to exploit this country and feed of its people like leeches until our nation collapses.

Democrats have been saying they believe in the Constitution – as long as they can “fundamentally transform” what it means by ignoring it’s plain historical meaning in context and instead find “penumbras and emanations” – for most of the last fifty years.  We’ve got sneering liberal attitudes such as this one expressed in Time Magazine:

“We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.”

Richard Stengel goes on to butcher everything legitimate Americans stand for:

The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”

When I enlisted in the United States Army, I took an oath.  Did I vow to defend “the spirit of liberty”?  No.  I swore this:

“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Do you notice how that oath contradicts everything that the wretched liberal weasel Richard Stengel says?

For the record, members of Congress and federal judges take oaths that also REQUIRE them to “serve” the Constitution.  Liberals take it too.  They are just too damned dishonest to give a damn.  They’re like “Slick Willie” Clinton explaining how he didn’t really lie because it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.  Only most of them do it to the Constitution rather than to White House interns.

And Richard Stengel is hardly the only liberal whose “honesty” extends to letting us know what liberals REALLY think about the Constitution.  Fareed Zakaria has said America should be more like Iceland – which ripped its Constitution up and is now writing a new one on Facebook.

Liberals despise the fact that we have a Constitution that protects us from them, and have done damn near everything they could to erode it away so it means whatever the hell they want it to mean at any given moment.

Basically, I swore to defend my country against liberals who are constantly trying to use our Constitution for toilet paper all the while paying lip service to it.  And of course the real constitutional crisis in this country is that we’ve elected a president who thinks the same loathsome way that Richard Stengel does.

I still remember the words of Michael Scheuer, who had led the CIA unit that pursued Osama bin Laden:

SCHEUER: Well, look at our borders, Sir. If National Defense doesn’t include border control, then National Defense is a nonsense. They don’t care — look at the jobs they have given to the men and women in Afghanistan that are impossible to do. They don’t care that so many of those young men and women are losing their lives, and not having a chance to win because they’re not supported.

They want to play games at home. They want to stay in power forever. They want their office. They don’t want to protect the United States. They somehow think that America is eternal and can never be defeated. Well, they’re going to be in for a great wakeup call, Sir.

And he’s right: they DON’T care.  They don’t give a flying damn.  Seriously.  They truly couldn’t care less.

I wrote this about “what didn’t matter” to Democrats a year ago, but it applies to Democrats every bit as well today as it did back then:

It doesn’t matter that illegal immigration is costing  the American taxpayers billions of dollars every single year that  are overwhelming our economy:

“Costs on average for every illegal alien headed  household about $19,600   more if they consume the city services than  they pay in taxes, so the   rest of the taxpayers have to part costs.  Schools become overcrowded,   English as second language programs push  out other programs.”

It doesn’t matter that the same illegal immigrants who are a burden  to our country are in fact a burden to their own damn country.  And that if  they’re a burden to their own country, how in the hell are they not a  burden to ours?

It doesn’t matter that the very Mexicans who are demonizing our  tolerant immigration laws don’t seem to care about how harsh the Mexican government is about dealing with THEIR illegal immigrants.

Not only do Democrats side with the people who boo the American flag, but they don’t even give a damn that they side with the people who boo the American flag.

Damn liberals and their damn George Soros “Open Society” and open borders crowd.

They are all going to hell.  And they are trying to take the once great United States of America down with them.

Update: here is an article detailing thirteen obvious factual errors in Richard Stengel’s despicable take on the U.S. Constitution.  Which clearly means the stupid people at Time Magazine should give him a raise.

Obama Says ‘Rich’ Really WANT To Pay More In Taxes – So Let’s Make It Voluntary

Obama said one of those things that Big Brother-style totalitarian demagogues always say in his speech yesterday:

Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach.  Some will argue we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans.  It’s just an article of faith for them.  I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more.  I don’t need another tax cut.  Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut.  Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare.  Or by cutting kids from Head Start.  Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn’t be here without.  That some of you wouldn’t be here without.  And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me.  They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them.  Washington just hasn’t asked them to.

These fascist rodents are always the same.  I think of Joe Biden a few years ago:

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people,” Biden said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: “It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

It’s the patriotic thing to do to help your Führer make your country an even better Utopia.  Of course, you WANT to help your Führer make your country a better Utopia, he tells you.

Just try not doing what the Führer wants and see how long it takes Dear Leader to come after you.  The correct answer is “not very.”

It’s your patriotic duty to pay your “fair share” of taxes, all ye rich people.

“Patriotic doodie,” more like.

Allow me to quote from my article yesterday to point out a little itty bitty problem with that colossal load of crap:

We need to balance our insane budget deficit, Democrats say.  And it’s time the rich paid their fair share.

All the top 10% of earners paid is 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.  That’s nothing.  It’s those poor poor who suffer the most.  The bottom 50% have to pay a whole bunch of nothing.  It’s just brutal for them every April.  They want to write a check to the government, but only the rich get to do stuff like that.  And the bottom 40% are so screwed by our federal income tax system that they actually are forced to accept free money in addition to paying a whole bunch of nothing.  Unless the Associated Press is lying about it.

The bottom fifty percent aren’t paying any federal income taxes at all.  Damn traitors, every single rat bastard one of them, by Joe Biden’s view.  And then think of the stinkhole useless treasonous cockroaches who constitute the even more bottom forty percent who not only don’t pay federal income taxes, but actually get money redistributed to them from the taxes of those “patriotic” rich people who are paying their fair share and yours as well.

This wagon train full of fecal matter riding around and around in a dusty circle is like Hitler ranting that every good Nazi had a patriotic duty to go to the Russian front to fight to the death, because no “patriotic” Nazi would ever surrender.  Or that Jews really like going to Auschwitz because, after all, it’s a camp, and who doesn’t like going to camp?

You’ve got to be stark raving mad to believe idiocy like this.  Or a tyrant bureaucrat from hell, which is the same thing except it pays a lot better and provides much better benefits.

This is just another example of Obama being a cynical, manipulative liar without shame.

But let’s give Obama the benefit of the doubt.  Let’s give him a chance to demonstrate that he actually believes his own bullturd statements.  All Obama has to do, given that he believes the rich want to pay more in taxes – “want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them” – is to make paying taxes voluntary for them.

You can pay as much as you want to the government for how wonderful they’ve been to you, as a matter of fact.  It’s called a “Gift To Reduce Debt Held by the Public.”  Liberals can write the government a check for as much as they want on their tax forms.  And the fact that they DON’T pay more in taxes when they easily COULD if they really wanted to is the proof in the pudding that liberals are hypocrites.  But since Obama truly believes – because he’s not a cynical lying weasel at all – that the rich really, truly want to pay more and more and more in taxes if they’re only asked, let him make taxes voluntary for the rich.

I’m sure Republicans would agree to that.

And think of what a bonanza we’ll get.

Obama’s got poisonous fangs.  Don’t believe him when he folds them up and tells you that you really like getting screwed just before he rapes you.

Then there’s another little thing Obama said at least twice in his speech that should set your “fascist alert” antenna twitching:

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy.  Think about it.

and

In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans.  But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society.  And I refuse to renew them again.

I am thinking about it, Barry Hussein.  And it seems to me as though you are telling me that you think you own all our money, and are just letting us keep as much as you can “afford” to let us keep.

Brit Hume knocked this one out of the park when Obama was demagoguing taxes last year:

But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.

This sense of the primacy of government is reflected in the high percentage of stimulus funds used to bail out broke localities and protect the jobs of government workers. Democrats are proving once again that they are indeed the party of government.

Understand that when Obama says the kind of crap that he’s saying, it comes from a thoroughly Marxist view that you and everything you produce is in reality government property, and he can simply decide to take it as “the people” need it.

Another way to put this is to simply demand that a liberal show you the part of the Constitution that allows the government to demand that 5 percent of the population be compelled to pay for half of a massive out-of-control federal bureaucracy whether or not they like the party that’s running it or the way it’s being run, while 50 percent of the population (that tends to vote overwhelmingly for the party that is redistributing the wealth) doesn’t have to bear any costs in running that government at all.

And not caring if the rich are forced to pay even more just because you’re not rich has the stink of not caring about what happened to the Jews just because you weren’t a Jew.  Which is all the more appropriate to point out given that the Nazis confiscated the Jews’ wealth after demagoguing them, too.

Progressivism is just another dangerous radical ”ism,” just like Nazism or facism or Marxism or socialism or communism.

Obama’s central premise in his incredibly demagogic speech was that, for America to be America, we need to make one group of people pay more so that another group of people can keep on avoiding responsibility.  That’s a lie.

America doesn’t need more taxes to remain America; it desperately needs less out-of-control federal spending.

The Fiscal Year 2000 federal budget was $1.9 trillion.  It was Bill Clinton’s budget.  Was America an evil place when Bill Clinton ran it, liberals?  So just why is it that Obama needs $3.8 trillion to make America a good place now?  How does trillion upon trillion upon trillions of dollars in deficit spending make America a good place?  How is it that cursing our children with staggering, back-breaking interest payments on the debt we racked up for them ends up being defined as “caring for our children’s future”?

Do you know that the interest payment alone on our debt is exected to be $800 billion a year by 2020?  That’s just over eight years away.  As you consider Obama’s speech, ask yourself if that’s showing your kids love.  I would argue that it is the most hateful and cynical thing imaginable.

Our founding fathers understood this.  That’s why Thomas Jefferson said that, “It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.”  That’s why Benjamin Franklin - who also said “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote” – warned us that “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

And, with $3.8 trillion budgets with more than forty cents of every dollar of it adding to our deficit, adding to the $200 trillion in debt that we’ve already accumulated, the end of the republic is very much at hand.

Mainstream Media ‘News’ Is Another Word For ‘Leftwing Propaganda’: Look At The Difference In Coverage

Let’s start with a very recent story of an NAACP president and a quote alluding to violence:

NAACP President Attacks Huntsville School System, Threatens Legal Action
Nick Banaszak
WHNT News 19 Reporter
4:00 p.m. CST, February 14, 2011

HUNTSVILLE, AL — Already dealing with an ongoing financial crisis that’s forcing layoffs and possible school closures, Huntsville City Schools now faces the threat of a lawsuit from the NAACP.

Local NAACP chapter president Alice Sams ripped the school system in a press conference Monday morning, while also presenting a list of demands the organization wants fulfilled immediately.

Sams and other leaders from Huntsville’s black community are accusing Huntsville City Schools of creating a divided system tilted against black students. The NAACP said the school district has failed to abide by a 1970 federal court order that officially eliminated segregation in schools for Alabama and other southern states.

“We have compiled a list of concerns, which in short is entitled ‘What We Want,” said Sams. “If satisfactory steps are not taken to satisfy our concerns, we may petition the state department of education to take over Huntsville City Schools and request Department of Justice and federal court intervention.”

NAACP officials say the alleged inequalities will only be made greater if several schools targeted for closure in predominantly black North Huntsville end up shutting their doors. The organization cited a forty point achievement gap between black and white students on standardized state tests, calling the results unfair and unacceptable. Sams said the blame did not fall on students or their parents, but rather on schools she claims are inferior compared to those in predominantly white South Huntsville. School closures are a likelihood as the district aims to overcome a $20 million budget deficit.

“It is our opinion that we have a divided system,” said Sams. “One for black students in the north end of town, separate, unequal and academically unsucessful; and one for the white students on the south end of town…All efforts to terminate the 1970 court order will be opposed by us until concerns to satisfy the racial and academic inequalities as stated are resolved.”

Sams ended her speech with a bold statement.

“Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitable,” said Sams, who quoted former president John F. Kennedy. When asked to clarify her remarks hose who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitableand how it applied to the context of the school system, she referred back to the original quote.

“You know what the quote means,” said Sams. “I quoted the president (Kennedy). He was a peaceful president, so I did a quote. You can interpret it anyway you want to, I just quoted.”

School board attorney J.R. Brooks declined our request for an on-camera interview and did not respond to the NAACP’s claims. He only said the school district had always been in compliance with federal court orders issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, and that the school board had no control or authority over people who had voluntarily moved in and out of North Huntsville since 1970.

Nothing in the mainstream news coverage about this as a racist remark or an instigation to violence.  No depiction of, “Violent revolution is inevitable.  And it will all be whitey’s fault when it comes.”

Now the media could have heard the words “violent revolution is inevitable” from the NAACP and immediately associated them with the views of a different black organization:

Here’s the new political correctness:

SHABAZZ:  I hate white people.  All of them!  Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him!  You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.

That certainly isn’t all that the guy Obama wanted to protect said:

Samir: We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

“I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

Now, it would have been very easy for the mainstream media to take the statement, “Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” and point out that in this case the inevitable “violent revolution” means killing crackers, killing white babies, and dealing harshly with white, dirty cracker whores.  And the revolution will be over when “whitey dead.”  You’ve got a call or at least a prediction of violent revolution coming from a specifically black and race-based organization, and you’ve got a very detailed description of what such black and race-based violent revolution would look like.

But they didn’t.  After all, John Kennedy said those words, and he was a Democrat, so it obviously can’t be bad.  And the black president of the NAACP is, of course, a sacred cow in the mainstream media, and her motives are beyond questioning.  Ever.

Now let’s look at how the mainstream media deals with conservatives who would dare to quote great minds of the past who held great warnings for the future:

Sharron Angle Joins Calls for Armed Revolution in America
Several prominent figures have hinted that they’d like to see armed Americans storming the Capitol.

Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee for Harry Reid’s Nevada Senate seat, has called for armed revolt against the government. Glenn Beck’s new novel, The Overton Window, encourages concerned citizens to pick up a weapon, too. And they’re not the only public figures calling for violent insurrection. 

In January right-wing radio host Lars Larson asked Tea Party favorite Angle where she stood on Second Amendment issues. She replied:

“You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

“I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, My goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

We presume she means “take Harry Reid out” by means of the ballot box. Or even more charitably, perhaps for dinner to discuss the bizarre and extreme direction American politics has taken since Barack Obama’s election in 2008. Because Angle is not the only prominent figure, or even the only politician who has recently called for armed revolution.

Rick Barber, a candidate in the Republican primary for Alabama’s Second Congressional District, released an ad which ends with an actor dressed as George Washington declaring “Gather your armies.” Presumably to storm the same Congress that Barber is hoping to join.

The Overton Window, Beck’s new novel, is also out today. According to a Washington Post review, it is a parable on worthy insurrection in which earnest, plucky American patriots arm to fight an evil plot by elites bent on a government takeover. Beck calls it ‘faction’—which is a melding of ‘fact,’ and ‘fiction,’ apparently. “If the book is found tucked into the ammo boxes of self-proclaimed patriots,” writes the reviewer Steven Levingston, “…Beck will have achieved his goal.” 

“The Overton Window,” Levingston concludes, “risks falling into the tradition of other anti-government novels such as The Turner Diaries, by William L. Pierce, which became a handbook of extremists and inspired Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.”

Meanwhile, in Oklahoma City in April 2010, Tea Party leaders and conservative members of the state legislature decided to try to create an armed state militia “to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty,” according to the Associated Press. The group hopes to get legislation to recognize the new force by next year. 

At around the same time as that plan was announced, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota told WWTC 1280 AM that she too wanted people “armed and dangerous,” on the issue of Obama’s energy bill, “because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson,” she said, her words becoming eerily familiar, “told us, ‘Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people—we the people—are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.”

Violent revolt is a regular theme of Rush Limbaugh’s too. And Sarah Palin made what some considered to be her own coded call to arms when she aired a new catchphrase—”Don’t retreat, reload”—for her followers.  She later said, during a speech in Nevada, that she was telling people, “Their arms are their votes. It’s not inciting violence. It’s telling people, Don’t ever let anybody tell you to sit down and shut up, Americans.”

Will the deniable words and twisted justifications for violence reach critical mass and push one unstable person over the edge? Hopefully we’ll never have to find out. (Or at least find out again.)

That’s Newsweek making all those sweeping connections, hardly insignificant stuff.  Did they look at all the hatred and calls for violence coming from the left and see a pattern?  Not with the king size blinders over their left side, they sure didn’t.  They take a couple of quotes from rightwing figures, run them through the filter of leftwing analysis such as the Washington Post who of course see “rightwing hatred and intolerance,” and then say, “See how evil they are?”  So Newsweek can connect Glenn Beck directly to Timothy McVeigh because another leftist publication made that connection for them, and Newseek is merely ”reporting the facts.”

Take a look at this long, long, LONG, LOOOOOONG expose of urgings of hate and violence coming from the left and from leftwing media.  And of course that’s just one of many such compilations.  Read through that and then tell me that you can’t identify any trend to connect to the left wing.

The media could obviously, of course, do unto the left exactly what they manage to do unto the right on a daily, almost second-by-second basis.  But they won’t.  Because they are leftwing propagandists, and honesty, facts and truth are the last things on their minds.  I am quite willing to entertain the notion that NAACP president Alice Sams did not intend to make a call to violence.  But if you’re going to argue that Sharon Angle did, at least be fair for once in your life.  If quoting something because John F. Kennedy – the president who got America deeper into the Cold War, deeper into Vietnam and very deeply indeed into the Bay of Pigs mess – wasn’t violent, then why must quoting something that President Thomas Jefferson said be taken as violent?  If we’re going to be fair for just two seconds?  Shouldn’t the benefit of the doubt swing both ways once in a while?

But it never does.

So the media as a matter of routine blithely ignores all the giant logs of hate and anger and outright calls of violence there are coming from their own beloved left, but man do they spot every splinter coming from the despised right.

Now, you could point out that the NAACP president quoted John F. Kennedy whereas Sharon Angle quoted a hated founding father who helped lay the foundation for the even more hated Constitution.  Which of course the left only hates less than the Holy Bible.

But that only gets us back to the rabid bias and the contempt for truth that the media manages to exhibit every minute of every day.

For the record, I am not a journalist and I do not profess to be one.  I do not claim that I am “objective” and “nonpartisan.”  So please don’t call me a hypocrite for doing the same thing that I say that mainstream media is doing.  If you do so, I will immediately quote what I wrote here and correctly call you an idiot.  Because unless and until the mainstream media says, “We’re a bunch of liberal ideologues and we all only see things from a leftwing perspective and denounce the right as a matter of reflex,” I’m NOT doing what the mainstream media does.  Because unlike the mainstream media, I tell you exactly what perspective I’m coming from.  The banner directly under my “Start Thinking Right” site name reads, “Michael Eden’s discussion of the two forbidden subjects – politics and religion – from a conservative perspective.”  Unlike the deceitful mainstream media which reveals naked bias every single day, I never claim to be a neutral observer and objective reporter of the facts.  Rather, I proudly report the facts from a stated Judeo-Christian and conservative world view.  I never smuggle in my ideological bias and then report “opinion” as news like the mainstream media does in virtually every story they cover.

For the further record, I don’t denounce the mainstream media for their leftwing point of view; I denounce them for their blatantly false self-depiction of neutrality and objectivity when it is clearly not true.

When Assessing Obama, The Best Word Turns Out To Be ‘Contempt’

How many times have we heard some breathless-with-adoration mainstream media “journalist” tell us that Barack Obama is a “constitutional professor”?

What we actually find when examining the record is that Obama is more like a “constitutional demolition expert.”

Take a look at two recent developments to witness Obama’s contempt for our Constitution and the Separation of Powers that has kept it intact for going on 230 years:

Judge in La. holds Interior Department in contempt over offshore oil drilling moratorium
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN , Associated Press
Last update: February 2, 2011 – 8:05 PM

NEW ORLEANS – The federal judge who struck down the Obama administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt Wednesday, and ordered the federal agency to pay attorneys’ fees for several offshore oil companies.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman chided the department for its “dismissive conduct” after he overturned the agency’s decision to halt any new permits for deepwater projects and suspend drilling on 33 exploratory wells after the Deepwater Horizon blast, which killed 11 workers and triggered the massive spill.

After Feldman overturned the government’s moratorium in June, the agency issued a second nearly identical suspension.

“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this court’s preliminary injunction order,” he wrote.

A magistrate will consider how much the companies’ attorneys should get.

An Interior Department spokeswoman wouldn’t comment. A lawyer for the companies hailed the ruling.

“We’re obviously delighted with the court’s recognition of the government’s manipulation of the judicial review process,” said Carl Rosenblum, an attorney for Hornbeck Offshore Services and other companies that sued over the first moratorium.

Realize that the Interior Department isn’t in contempt; Obama is in contempt.  The Secretary of the Interior serves at the pleasure of Barry Hussein.  The Interior Department is pursuing the will of the president.  And the president has contempt for the court, contempt for the law and naked contempt for the Constitution.

And simultaneously there is this (story from Legal Insurrection):

Monday, January 31, 2011
Florida Judge Rules Against Obamacare, Injunction Denied As Unnecessary Since Entire Law Unconstitutional

Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is unconstitutional.  Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional.

Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient.  In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived.  By contrast, in the ruling in Virginia last year invalidating the mandate, the Judge severed the mandate from the rest of the law (but denied an injunction preventing the rest of the law from taking effect). 

Here is the key language from the Order showing that Judge Vinson expects the federal government to obey the declaration that the law is unenforceable in its entirety:

“…there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).

There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.”

In this sense, this decision is far more sweeping than the Virginia case, and presents a greater problem for the Obama administration which arguably does not have authority to implement any aspect of Obamacare.

Here is the conclusion of the Order (emphasis mine):

“The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” …

In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.

For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. 

In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.”

[Please click on that article for more on this story.]

“Contempt” is all over Obama on both of these major federal cases.  Obama is all about contempt.  Along with hypocrisy, contempt is the blood that flows through his veins.

To put it succinctly, to whatever extent Obama knows a damn thing about the Constitution, it merely makes him all the more in contempt of it, and all the more personally contemptible.

This “constitutional expert” is on the record tacitly saying, “I’m the pharaoh; I’m the emperor.  And the Constitution means whatever the hell I want it to mean.  And federal judges be damned.”

Barack Hussein’s contempt for our freedoms and the Constitution which guarantees those freedoms is evident in other areas, as well.  And we see that this rabid intolerance for freedom characterizes the thinking of the left.

For the record, this contempt for the Constitution extends beyond Obama and contaminates his entire Democrat Party. 

Even when liberals like Obama pay lip service to the Constitution, they only do so as a purely rhetorical device in order to ignore everything it stands for.  Because the REAL intent of the Democrat Party is “to control the people.”  Democrats believe that there is no constitutional limit on their ability to regulate the lives of the American people.  And “Democrats” and “democracy” are antonyms. 

Obama is making the founding fathers spin in thier graves.  And they will keep spinning in their graves until Obama is finally out of the White House on his ear in disgrace.

Obama is our first Afrocentrict socialist redistributionist radical president.  His vision of the Constitution is – to phrase it in his own terms when he demonized the Constitutiona and the founding fathers who wrote it – “fundamentally flawed.”  And because of that fundamentally flawed thinking, Obama believes that the Government should stand in the place of God and owns everything that the people create and produce.

Crisis In Egypt Underscores The Problem Of Islam – AND LIBERALISM

It has rightly been said that Islam is a murderous totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion.

That fact makes an “Islamic democracy” a contradiction in terms.  You simply cannot have both.  If you want a democracy, you cannot have Islam; if you want Islam, you cannot have a democracy.

If you have a large population of Muslims living in a country, there are only two alternatives for governing that state: a totalitarian dictatorship, which is what we essentially have seen in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, or a religious theocracy such as we see in Iran today.

Even alleged counterexamples, such as Turkey, are transforming.  Turkey is steadily becoming “less Europe, and more Islam.”  And I believe – primarily as a student of Bible prophecy – that Turkey will ultimately end up in the Islamic column.  It will ultimately be one of the Islamic nations that attacks Israel in the last days.

Jordan, which is at least less thuggish than most other Islamic countries, is reaping the whirlwind of Islamic unrest just as Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and Algeria.

Democracy becomes nothing but a tool for radical Islam – which itself utterly despises democracy.  Tayyip Erdogan compared democracy to a bus, saying, “You ride it to your destination, and then you step off.”

Other Muslims are even more crystal clear: Tarek Ramadan states:

“We must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals.  Our Prophet Muhammad … and the Quran teach us that we must use every conceivable means and opportunity to defeat the enemies of Allah.  Tell the infidels in public, we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on.  The only law we must respect and apply is the Sharia’s.”

Imams in England say, “You have to live like a state within a state until you take over.”  And Mohamed Akram says of America, Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”  While Omar Ahmad says, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant … The Quran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

For the record, I found all the above quotes from Tulsaworld.com.  And of course there are a million more where those came from.

We have a problem.  We want the world to benefit from democracy.  We want to spread the superiority of democracy as a political system.  We want to benefit from the fact that no democracy has ever once attacked another democracy.

But Muslims take our democracy, pervert it and exploit it for their own ideological advantage with a very radically different political system in mind.  And we tolerate this why?

One of the things that makes Islam so dangerous is that it puts itself and it’s prophet Muhammad above and beyond questioning or criticism.  As a case in point, the Danish cartoons revealed that the entire Muslim world will go berserk and literally become murderous over even the slightest “slights.”  Compare the Danish cartoons to the routine insults suffered by Christianity, such as placing a crucifix bearing an image of Christ in a jar of urine and calling it “art.”  That mindset represents the death of even the possibility of a free society.

Liberalism and secular humanism merely weakens our own society and makes us more ripe for the picking: to begin with, liberals react through their cultural relativism (e.g., “pluralism,” “multiculturalism”) by essentially saying, “We must not offend.”  And they proceed to actually help the radical Muslim extremists impose their system.  Liberal media routinely attack Jesus Christ and Christianity, but they are only all too willing to self-censor themselves when it comes to Muhammad and Islam.

And yet Christianity brought us the democracy liberals claim to love, while Islam is antithetical to it.  Liberals are literally helping radical Muslims poison the tree of democracy and freedom.

There’s more.  One of the reasons we so frequently see liberals enabling radical Islam is because it turns out that liberals and the sorts of radical Muslims I have already introduced share the same tactics.

Case in point: three quotes from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

• The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” And it was. — P.36-37

• …The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.  Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

• …the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

You look at what the Muslims are saying above, and you look at what liberal Saul Alinsky is saying here, and they are advocating identical tactics, with basically the same goal in mind: Muslims want sharia, with total power over a government that itself has total power; and liberals want control over a big government system which extends over every sphere of life.  And both say, “make the enemy live up to their own rules.”  Let’s take advantage of their morality and use it against them as a weapon.

And, of course, when Muhammad was weak (e.g., his Mecca phase), Islam was tolerant and peaceful; when Muhammad’s forces became strong (his Medina phase), Islam suddenly became profoundly intolerant, determined to impose itself and determined to use as much force as was necessary to attain its ends.  That is exactly what the American political left says.  And the only thing that that American liberals are truly intolerant of is Christianity and political conservatism.

And what is even more frightening is that America today actually has a president who actually lectured and taught from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as a community organizer.  As Discover The Networks points out, “For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Also, beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, the Alinskyite grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley‘s National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO).”

Part of this idea of using your opponent’s own morality against them turns into the strength of radical Islam and the weakness of liberalism when the two confront one another.  As one example, think of Jimmy Carter undermining the Shah of Iran – who clearly was a dictator, but a pro-American dictator.  Carter allowed the Shah to be deposed, and got as his reward the Ayatollah and an Iranian theocratic regime that undermined and ultimately deposed Carter via the hostage crisis that played out day after day through the Carter presidency.

And here Obama is apparently doing much the same thing: we find out that Obama has secretly been backing rebels of the Mubarak regime from the Wikileaks papers.

Barack Obama invited the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood when he gave his speech in Cairo – the very same group that is poised to wreak havoc in that same city today.  And Obama – who is on the record siding with the Egyptian demonstrators against secular tyrant Mubarak – was pointedly absent from siding with the Iranian demonstrators against theocratic tyrant Ahmadinejad.  That contrasted with Obama making statements against Mubarak’s regime such that the Egyptian foreign ministry says  Obama’s words actually “inflame the internal situation in Egypt“  as the situation turns increasingly deadly and more and more signs are being written in English for American media consumption.  Bizarrely, it is almost as if liberals prefer Islamic theocratic tyrants over secular Muslim leaders.

It’s very easy to pooh-pooh thugs like Mubarak or the Shah and denounce their despotism.  But if you take away the thug, what else is there to control a people who will ultimately insist upon an Islamic theocracy?  You roll the dice and take your chances.  And in Islam, the “chances” have a pronounced historic tendency to become anti-American theocracies.  Which become even worse dictatorships then the ones that bleeding-heart liberals decried in the first place.

Liberals decry religion as being anti-democratic, never realizing that it is they – rather than religion – who are profoundly anti-democratic.  A few quotes from the founding fathers whose vision created the first sustained democracy:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”
- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.”
- Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

“Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”
- Charles Carroll (signer of the Constitution), Letter to James McHenry, November 4, 1800

“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”
- Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol III

The Egyptian crisis reveals the problem of Islam:  You cannot have a nation of Muslims without tyranny.  It is only a matter of which form of tyranny you prefer.  Conversely, the same crisis is also revealing the problem of liberalism.  Because as they weaken our Christian religious foundations, the same liberals who would undermine Hosni Mubarak also undermine the very pillars that would enable us to resist the conquest of democracy by Islam.  And they further erode our once great democratic system by employing the very same tactics that our Muslim enemies are using against us.

Secular Humanist Left So ‘Tolerant’ They Want To Purge Anyone Who Isn’t Just Like Them

“You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right” – Psalm 52:3

What can one even say except, “Welcome to ‘God damn America,’ Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama style”???

Wounded Marine, 1st Lieutenant Clebe McClary, ‘Too Evangelical’ For Air Force Academy PRAYER Luncheon

On 01.22.11 by Sad Hill

Marine 1st Lt. Clebe McClary

Next, they’ll be trying to snuff out officers who are too straight, or too white…

(Gazette) A religious rights group is calling for the removal of the Air Force Academy’s top officer after a flap over a speaker planned for a February prayer luncheon at the school.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation says the academy’s choice of retired Marine 1st Lt. Clebe McClary shows that superintendent Lt. Gen. Mike Gould remains tilted toward evangelical Christianity and tolerates an environment where proselytizing is accepted.

Lt. Gen. Mike Gould

“We’re done,” said academy graduate Mikey Weinstein, the foundation’s founder and a frequent foe of religious practices at the school. “Gould needs to go.”

An academy spokesman, Lt. Col. John Bryan, defended the choice of McClary and said the planned prayer gathering is optional and inclusive of a broad spectrum of religious views.

“Nobody is being forced or coerced to go to this luncheon,” Bryan said.

McClary is a wounded Vietnam veteran who overcame his disabilities and now says he’s in the “Lord’s Army.”

Bryan said he’s heard McClary speak and came away with inspiration for overcoming obstacles rather than religious philosophy.

“He’s a nationally recognized motivational speaker,” Bryan said.

McLary’s website lists testimonials from celebrities including The Rev. Billy Graham and former Denver Broncos coach Dan Reeves.

The academy first sought retired Army general and former Secretary of State Colin Powell to speak at the luncheon, but when he couldn’t make it due to schedule conflicts, McClary was picked to keynote the annual event. He’ll be paid $2,500 and airfare reimbursement.

Weinstein points to McClary’s website for evidence that the speaker is too evangelical for the academy.

“To him, USMC will always mean a U. S. Marine for Christ,” McClary’s website says.

“Such statements are not only antithetical to the clear mission of the United States Air Force Academy, they are totally anathema to the purportedly globally inclusive purpose of this National Prayer Luncheon,” Weinstein wrote in a letter to Gould and Defense Department officials.

Several groups, including the Colorado branch of the American Civil Liberties Union have written Gould in support of Weinsten’s effort.

Weinstein has battled the academy in recent months over the school’s failure to include him in a conference on the school’s religious tolerance practices and the academy’s initial failure to release results of a survey that showed concerns about prosyletizing there.

Gould hasn’t responded to Weinstein’s latest letter.

PLEASE let the United States Air Force Academy Public Affairs know what’s on your mind. Tell ‘em Sad Hill sent ya…:

Mailing Address
HQ USAFA/PA
2304 Cadet Drive Suite 3100
U.S. Air Force Academy, CO 80840-5016

Phone: 719.333.7731
Fax: 719.333.4094

Community Relations: pa.comrel@usafa.af.mil
Media Relations: media.pam@usafa.af.mil

Team Napolitano labels returning veterans as ‘lone wolf extremists’: HERE

McClary’s Biography: HERE

Rev. Franklin Graham banned from National Day of Prayer: HERE

Week-Kneed Christians: HERE

Hat tip: Dad/Mom

The “Military Religious Freedom Foundation” is for anything but the military, or religion, or freedom.  It is for atheism.  It is for imposing IT’S religious ideology of secular humanism and specifically excluding anything Christian.

Let’s get this straight: atheism IS a religion.  The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion, and in point of fact atheism has all the same worldview components that any religion has.  There are many religions on the planet, and some (like most forms of Buddhism) don’t believe in God, while others (like Hinduism) don’t believe in a personal God.  So the fact that atheists don’t believe in God, and the fact that they believe very differently from Christians, hardly disqualifies atheism from being a religion.  It is one religious view among many.  The same thing goes for secular humanism, which basically is the same worldview as atheism, only with a more positive myth about human nature.

So as much as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation might erupt into a frenzy at the very thought of Christian proselytizing, these hypocrites are all too willing to engage in massive proselytizing of their own.  They impose their atheistic worldview in the name of “religious tolerance” or “religious neutrality” all the time.  When in fact it is anything but, being a small extremist minority worldview, and when in fact it has the most gruesome history of ANY worldview in the form of state atheism, i.e. communism.

This was a voluntary and optional prayer gathering.  No one was forced to go.  But the fascist Military Religious Freedom Foundation is frothing at the mouth that men and women who want to pray to Jesus Christ should be able to pray to Jesus Christ.  They want to force people to not be allowed to pray as they will and to whom they will.  These atheists want to force others to be like them.

Want to argue with me?  Try out another story going on at the same time.  A homosexual activist (and homosexual activists are almost universally atheist and are universally liberal) attended a Christian event and specifically sought out a Christian psychologist who specifically told him she only used “a Christian biblical framework.”  The homosexual activist told her that was exactly what he wanted.  Then he proceeded to literally wear a wire so he could record her praying for him.  And now he is spearheading an effort to destroy her and have her credentials revoked.  It wasn’t about a Christian counselor trying to brainwash a poor unsuspecting homosexual with her religious bigotry; it is about an amoral homosexual activism movement trying to shut down and destroy anyone who doesn’t share their particular form of extreme bigotry.

You say, well, that particular example happened in England; it could never happen here.  Think again, because if anything it gets even more Orwellian on this side of the ocean.

People like these, wherever they’re from, love to claim that the American founding fathers – who produced the greatest, most powerful and most enduring democracy in human history – were a bunch of atheists; the only problem is that nothing can be further from the truth.  The fact of the matter is that our founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian; and the one or two who weren’t (such as Benjamin Franklin) readily acknowledged that the Christian religion was a good thing rather than a bad one.

Consider this:

The phrase “Founding Fathers” is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin–this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith [see John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, 1987, p. 43].

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55–a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

What do you call people who deliberately distort American history in order to advance an agenda that said American history clearly reviles?  I hope you don’t call such a suppression of truth “American.”

This blatant un-American attempt to deny and suppress religious freedom occurred at a place of learning, at a university.  So let us see what the founding fathers thought about the cornerstone of learning in an ordinance that they passed in 1787:

Northwest Ordinance (1787), Article III:

Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged…

106 of the first 108 universities established in the United States were explicitly founded for the very purpose of proselytizing the Christian faith.  The intent to proselytize the Christian gospel is literally engraved on the cornerstones of every single one of our greatest universities.  It was not our American founding fathers, but profoundly un-American fascists who tried to sever the historic connection between America and the religious faith that made her great.

What makes the Northwest Ordinance even more interesting and relevant is that it was passed at the very same time the Constitution was being written and ratified.  Which is to say that only a fool would argue that the very same men who passed the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 would turn around and denounce the very same idea in the Constitution at the very same time.

Especially when our founding fathers are all over the historical record making such statements as this:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

Especially when these same determined men had just fought a terrible war over this statement:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

And yet, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (see Psalm 14:1-3).  Fools abound.  And the defining characteristic of fools is that they aren’t particularly interested in reality.

The most dogmatic statement about religion of all came from the mouth of the father of our country and our democracy during his Farewell Address:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

The bottom line is that the greatest of all Americans would have called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation precisely what they are: “traitorous wretches” who are trying to tear down the indispensable supports undergirding the foundation of America and American democracy.

It is time to wake up and fight for your country.  History is replete with examples of majorities who had their country seized from under their feet by small determined minorities of vile usurpers.  As one example, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party never won more than 37% of the vote; yet he and his Party and its loathsome ideology came to dominate Germany.  And yes, Adolf Hitler was a big government socialist atheist.

Get off your butts and FIGHT for your country, Americans.  FIGHT for the vision of America handed down to us by our founders that made this country the greatest in the history of the world.  If you keep sitting on your butts thinking that others will do all the fighting for you, you will wake up one day and wonder what the hell happened.