‘Separation Of Church And State’:The Theory That Government Should Grow Larger And More Powerful And Religion Should Grow Smaller And More Marginalized

Those who claim that the doctrine of the separation of church and state is in the Constitution are frauds.  It is NOT.  The concept existed in a private letter written by a man who did not write so much as a single word of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights which followed the Constitution.  Oh, and Jefferson’s intent in using the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” was wildly taken out of context and applied in a manner in which Jefferson is even now rolling in his grave (and see here).

What is the clear result of this doctrine?  It is one thing: that government should have absolutely no limit on its growing power and influence while religion should be marginalized and forbidden from increasing areas of discourse.

Now the government of “God damn America” can impose abortion and the radical homosexual agenda on the church and the church is immoral for publicly decrying the impositions.

Another great authority, one Franklin Delano Roosevelt, said that there ought to be a wall of separation between LABOR UNIONS and the state:

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Not that that mattered.  I mean, FDR didn’t have much more to do with the Constitution than Jefferson did, but somehow you don’t see liberal Supreme Court Justices dictating that all government unions be immediately abolished citing FDR the way they so gleefully cite Jefferson to undermine and replace religion in America.

But wouldn’t it be nice if FDR phrases such as “a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government” and that government labor unions represent “the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it” the way they exploited Jefferson’s phraseology???

But lets just stick with the words of the founding fathers.  Because we can stick with them all the livelong day and make our point.  In fact, let’s just stick with the words of Thomas Jefferson for a while.  Because it’s rather easy to demonstrate that the liberal justices who decreed that Jefferson’s words were the soul of the Constitution even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution dishonestly and blatantly ignored pretty much absolutely everything else that Jefferson ever said.

It’s a shame that the liberals on the Supreme Court fixated on Jefferson’s words that could be twisted and distorted to attack religion in America rather than focus on OTHER words of Jefferson that would have shaped a better society such as:

“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”

Why hasn’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed America with these words by Jefferson the way her ideological liberal judicial forerunners changed America with words by Jefferson???

A nation in which there was a rigid separation of labor unions from government would be a far better and stronger one than the one that we have now which wars against and undermines the influence of religion.  And I say that conclusively based on the clear words of our founding fathers that the liberal justices of the Supreme Court chose to deliberately and studiously ignore while instead choosing a few words radically out of context to hamstring the free exercise of religion.

“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

“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

“…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

I would argue it’s a damn shame that liberal justices seized Jefferson’s “wall of separation” line while refusing to acknowledge what Thomas Jefferson said about THEM and their fascist abuse of judical-tyrant power:

“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

I hope you see the hypocrisy by now.

Liberals are people who want to destroy the last vestige of true religion in America while imposing the union agenda in the church’s place.  And if they can literally read a phrase such as “wall of separation between church and state” while specifically omitting the rest of the context of the letter those words are found in, and then blatantly ignore the very clear intent of the founding fathers that America needed to be what Lincoln described as “one nation under God,” well, they’re liberal ideologues and that’s what liberal ideologues do.

Which is why the beast is coming.

I Prayed For Mitt Romney And Boy Did God Ever Hear Me! I Beg You To Do The Same – Because This Is A Beseech God In Sackcloth Moment For America

I’ve written about the biased and dishonest polls that the mainstream media have been stuffing down our throats the last several weeks.  But nevertheless, the consensus has been – even among conservatives – that Romney’s campaign wasn’t gaining any kind of serious traction.

I knew that the debates would be critical.  And particularly this first debate last night that was anticipated to be watched by 50 million Americans.

So every single night on every single walk, I took a little time to specifically pray for Mitt Romney’s campaign and particularly for his debate with Barack Obama.

I prayed that the Lord would give him wisdom and discernment and that kairos sense of timing in saying what needed to be said at the precise moment that it would be most powerful to say it.  Knowing that Romney would have to be very aggressive and yet somehow be likable, I prayed that he would be able to strike the perfect balance.  I prayed that Romney would be able to keep all of his facts and points in his head without coming across as stiff and rehearsed.

And I also prayed for Obama, too.  I didn’t quite know how to pray; prayer is a sacred thing for me and I have never in my life went before the Lord and prayed that somebody would be hurt or humiliated.  But the word “exposed” kept popping into my mind.  I began to earnestly pray that Obama would be exposed for what he was.

Anyway, I set out on my walk at 6 pm Pacific time and started my recorder just before setting out for my slightly over two-hour hike.  And when I came home, I turned on the TV to see what was going on.

Marco Rubio was speaking to Sean Hannity.  And it was when I heard Rubio say the exact words, “The president was exposed tonight….” that I realized that my prayers had been answered.  And of course it just kept getting better and better the more I heard and the more I watched.

Virtually every single thing I had specifically prayed for was specifically answered.  It was just amazing.

I know that I am not the only one who has been praying for Mitt Romney as America’s only hope to take this nation away from the failed leadership of Barack Obama.

But I know that a lot more Christians need to step up and seriously start praying for what is going to happen on November 6.

Isaiah chapter 5:1-7 contains a powerful metaphor that may well represent America if we are not careful.  This was a nation that powerfully began as one nation under God, with a Constitution that was for a “moral and religious people.”  But what God sowed He has not been reaping as we have instead degenerated into “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

And so God says:

Now I will tell you
what I am going to do to my vineyard:
I will take away its hedge,
and it will be destroyed;
I will break down its wall,
and it will be trampled.
⁶ I will make it a wasteland,
neither pruned nor cultivated,
and briers and thorns will grow there.
I will command the clouds
not to rain on it.”

I don’t want that to happen to my country any more than Isaiah and the prophets wanted that to happen to Israel as that nation rejected God and turned on His ways.

There’s another haunting passage in Ezekiel 22:30

“I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before Me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none.”

America doesn’t have much time left.  Especially if Barack Obama is re-elected and is allowed to finish what he started.

We need to pray.

I believe that when Christians give up on America, God will give up on America.  And as long as God’s people keep praying and keep building up the wall and keep standing in the gap on behalf of the land, God will keep fighting for us.

The next debate is between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden on October 11.  The second Obama-Romney debate will be on October 16, and the third will be on October 22.  Pray for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan!

But don’t just pray for the debates or even for just the candidates; pray for the campaign and the campaign staff.  Pray for THEIR wisdom and discernment; pray that ALL of the people who are important to the Romney-Ryan campaign team would know what to say and when to say it.  And in the same way, pray that God would expose the Obama-Biden team for what they truly are.

Finally, pray for the wisdom and discernment of the American people.  Divine wisdom is ignored by those who have turned off their consciences and therefore turned off their minds.  Jesus was the wisest man who ever lived, and spoke Words of truth, but the people He came to as His own shouted, “Crucify Him!”  Pray that the American people would know the truth and respond to it.  Pray as you never have before for your nation while you still have a nation left to pray for.

If You Think Founding Fathers Didn’t Want This Country To Be A Christian One, Put This In Your Pipe And Smoke It

I’m a big fan of David Barton because David Barton is a big fan of Jesus Christ and a big fan of the United States of America as viewed through the lens of our founding fathers.

Versus Barack Hussein Obama and his mockery of the Bible (write about Obama’s butchery of these passages here):

Of Jesus, The Woman Caught In Adultery, Public Morality, The Law – And The Consequences Of Ignoring Our Developing Social Crisis

I had an interesting discussion with an intelligent young libertarian that we didn’t have time to finish.  It involved the libertarian (and liberal) notion that morality shouldn’t be legislated.  An interesting fact about that view is that the very view itself amounts to legislating your morality as opposed to the person’s morality that holds that morality SHOULD be legislated.

It is simply a fact that every single law presupposes somebody’s view of morality.  Any law that says “X is wrong and the consequences are therefore Y” or “You must do X and the penalty for not doing X is Y” are invariably based on somebody’s view as to what is right and what is wrong.  You simply cannot avoid “legislating morality”; it is only a question as to whose morality ought to be legislated.

My friend believes that moral issues such as prostitution and narcotics offenses should not be crimes and should not be punished by the legal system.  He specifically said that people shouldn’t be put in federal prison for such non-violent crimes.  Why not?  After all, he says that he himself doesn’t believe in drugs and would never use a prostitute.  His answer: Because he doesn’t believe that it is right for him to hold other people accountable for his moral views.

Well, let me say a few things in addition to the aforementioned fact that EVERY law and for that matter every striking down of every law that has been on the books (e.g., “sodomy laws”) represent somebody’s morality.  The first emerges from Abraham Lincoln – and why he was the first Republican rather than the first libertarian.

In 1858, Democrat candidate for president Stephen Douglas, in arguing that slavery ought to be legal (more specifically, that slavery not be made ILLEGAL) assumed a view that the government could be completely neutral in regards to a moral issue like slavery (or abortion, or homosexuality, etc.) and allow each person the right to own a slave (or abort a baby or marry a same-sex partner) as he or she chose.  I’ve described the exchange Douglas had with Lincoln before:

Douglas said that, although he was “personally against” the institution of slavery, “popular sovereignty” ought to determine whether slavery was legal or not. Does that sound familiar? The state isn’t “for” slavery or “for” abortion or – in the case of prostitution – “for” prostitution; it ought to be completely “neutral” and allow people to decide for themselves. In their Sixth Debate at Quincy on October 13, 1858, Abraham Lincoln’s famous response to Douglas was:

“So I say again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas says he “don’t care whether slavery is voted up or voted down,” whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue logically if he don’t see anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

The fact of the matter is that if government permitted blacks to be owned as slaves, it was not taking a neutral position. It was implicitly accepting the view that blacks were less than fully human, and therefore could be owned as property if someone chose to do so. And if the presuppositions justifying slavery were wrong, then as Lincoln said, one simply could not have “the right to do wrong” – even by popular vote. In the same way, by permitting unborn babies to be aborted, the government is not taking a neutral position. Rather, it is likewise implicitly accepting the view that the unborn are not fully human, and therefore can be regarded essentially as property rather than as persons (property that may be destroyed at will).

On issues such as abortion, or prostitution, or homosexual marriage, or narcotics crimes, I do not accept the argument that would be legislating my moral view and that doing so is somehow wrong for me to do.  That is because 1) the other side is equally legislating ITS moral view, and if the other side has a right to legislate its morality than I certainly have just as much right to legislate mine. 2) I further submit that in all of these issues, I am not merely legislating “my” morality; rather, I submit that God has made it plain that He is against these things the same way that I am, and I further submit that the entirety of Western civilization is similarly on my side on all of these issues. 3) there is no such thing as “neutrality” on a moral principle or issue.  You simply ultimately must take one position or the other.  When it comes to legalizing abortion, for example, the government cannot claim “neutrality” because they are affirming that ultimately abortion is permissible and it is not wrong for someone to have one.   And it therefore boils down to 4) as Lincoln argued: a person cannot have a right to do something that is wrong.

During our conversation, my friend brought up a fascinating point as supporting his view that we should not be legislating morality: he brought up Jesus and the example of the woman caught in the act of adultery.  Here’s the story (John 8:3-11 from the NIV):

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.  In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”  They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.  When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”  Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.  At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.  Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

I should point out that this story – as famous as it is – is NOT in the earliest manuscripts of the Book of John and was quite possibly not in John’s Gospel as he wrote it.  It is also not found in any of the other Gospels.  I could therefore simply dismiss this account as a later addition to the Gospel and at the very least argue that one shouldn’t make sweeping conclusions on the basis of a story that may not even have been part of Jesus’ teaching.  I’m not going to take that path in the rest of my interpretation of this passage and in fact believe the passage is an authentic event in the life of Jesus, but you should realize that option is available.

My friend cited this story in John’s Gospel to support his view that Jesus was essentially a libertarian here and abrogated the notion of the law punishing someone for moral issues like adultery.  And the implicit assumption is that what applies to adultery would likewise therefore apply to prostitution, homosexual marriage and narcotics crimes (i.e., to all the so-called “victimless crimes”).  Is he right?

Take a moment before reading on to think about how you would respond to this and upon what grounds you would so respond before reading on.

Let me point out a few things that need to be understood.

1) Jesus is not abrogating the Law of Moses here.  In a passage that was unquestionably the words of Jesus, we have this: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17).

Interestingly, on John’s (Johannine) theology, it was the pre-incarnate Christ who gave Moses the Ten Commandments to begin with.  John 1:1-3 famously teaches that Jesus as the Word was God the Creator.  It teaches that “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”  It was Christ who created the universe and created man in His image so that He could one day assume the image of man in the Incarnation.  And it was the pre-incarnate Christ who appeared to Moses in the burning bush.

It’s not like Christ as God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Creator, Yahweh the I Am, gave Moses the law and then later came to earth and decided that the stuff about punishing adultery was wrong.  There is a great deal more going on in this account of what Jesus did and why He did it.  And particularly, given that Jesus specifically taught that He had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, one simply does not have warrant to assume that contrary to what Jesus said He actually DID come to abolish the law.

2) Part of that “great deal more” that is going on is overtly stated in the account itself:

 ”Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

This was hardly a mere matter of asking Jesus whether the Laws of Moses were valid or whether the specific Law of Moses pertaining to punishment of adultery was valid.  The pharisees dragged this woman before Jesus to trap him.  The woman was merely a pawn in their game.  Basically, they were seeking to put Jesus in an impossible dilemma: if Jesus said that the woman should be stoned, then Jesus would be guilty of demanding the death penalty which was reserved for Rome and therefore Jesus would be guilty of insurrection against Rome.  And don’t think the Pharisees would not have immediately raced to Pontius Pilate and made sure that Pilate was aware that a dangerous insurrectionist was walking around inciting Jews to commit violence.  And if Jesus said the woman should not be stoned, then Jesus would be guilty of abolishing the Word of God and the Law and teachings of Moses and therefore a blasphemer and a heretic.  Jesus had to answer the Pharisees in a manner which did not invite either of these two above interpretations.  If the woman actually had been stoned to death, she would have died not as a result of her adultery but for being a political tool in the effort to entrap Jesus.  That must be seen as the proper background for Jesus’ answer.

3) There is also something very wrong with this picture:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery.

How many does it take to tango?  Doesn’t it take TWO people to commit adultery?  Where’s the man?  Why isn’t he there?  Just how was it that ”this woman was caught in the act of adultery” but they didn’t catch her partner?

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that I to this very day believe that people caught in the act of adultery should be stoned to death.  Does that therefore mean that I would or should agree that only the women should be stoned and the men should get off scott free?  Must I hold that stoning the women is better than not stoning anybody?  Because that’s the specific circumstance that Jesus was confronted with.

By this point in time, the Pharisees had actually long-since ceased following the “laws of Moses” and were instead following “a hedge around the law” of Moses in its place.  They had developed all sorts of laws in sources such as the Talmuds, the Mishnah and the Midrashim and had added levels upon levels and layers upon layers of laws to surround the law of Moses ostensibly to keep a person from breaking the law of Moses by making it such that he or she would have to first break a whole series of laws just to GET to the Law of Moses.

Jesus described these additional laws in Matthew 23:1-4 (NLT):

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses.  So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach.  They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden.

Unfortunately, they had an uncanny way of providing loopholes for themselves.  The woman could and should be stoned to death for her crime of adultery, but the man who committed adultery with her and presumably informed the Pharisees of her crime was let off the hook.

And in condemning the woman to death, Jesus would have been providing His assent to this entire unjust system that had arisen around the Law of Moses in addition to being labeled as an  insurrectionist against Rome.

How was Jesus to render His judgment about a system which stoned a woman to death as an adulteress while the man who had committed the same act of adultery with her walked away whistling and able to do it again?

In answering the way that He did, Jesus on the one hand could not be called an insurrectionist against Rome; those who were about to stone the woman put their stones down because of his words.  On the other hand, He likewise could not be said to have abrogated the Law of Moses.  Because He didn’t tell them NOT to stone her; He merely called attention to the fact that those who were about to be executioners because this woman was a sinner were themselves sinners.  It was the perfect answer for the trap the Pharisees had set for Jesus; in fact it was the ONLY answer for the trap.

4) Jesus’ mission and ministry itself was also involved.

I’ve heard death penalty opponents ask the question, “Would Jesus sentence somebody to death?”  And of course, you’re supposed to read John 8:3-11 and conclude “Oh my gosh!  No, He wouldn’t have!  The death penalty is wrong!”  But let’s ask another question on the same view: “Would Jesus sentence somebody to life imprisonment?”  And of course, on the same view that you use above, the answer is, “No.  Jesus wouldn’t have done that, either.  He would have forgiven the criminal.”  On the view that is being taken of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, Jesus would have forgiven the criminal for his crime – regardless of what it was – and told him, “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

You end up with a category fallacy, as I shall explain. 

We run into two problems in understanding the John 8 passage as Jesus teaching that adultery – and all the other aforementioned moral issues and “victimless crimes” – should no longer be punished.  One is everything I’ve said above, and the other was speaking in John 8 as One who did not come in the Incarnation to judge and condemn people for their sins, but rather to deliver and save people from their sins.  That’s the category fallacy I was talking about.  It doesn’t mean that Jesus was saying that all laws be set aside.  He wasn’t teaching that we can or should do away with the Law of Moses, or that public moral crimes such as adultery and homosexuality and prostitution, etc. etc. be allowed to flourish without any punishments.  Rather, he was saying to those who were merely trying to set a trap for Him by dragging a woman before Him in order to get Him to commit insurrection against Rome that if her accusers were going to demand she be punished for her sins, then her accusers should be punished for theirs, as well.

One day, for the record, Jesus will return as King of kings and as Lord of lords.  And He will very MUCH come to judge and render judgment.  And yes, people WILL be held accountable to the moral law and they will be punished for their crimes against men and against God.

There’s an increasingly popular view that liberals and libertarians share: public moral issues such as homosexual marriage and prostitution and the narcotics industry don’t hurt them as individuals and therefore we should simply step aside and allow those who want to “fundamentally transform” America to have at it.  My response is twofold: number one, if your argument is “It’s not hurting me” and that’s all you care about, you’re not a patriot because you only care about yourself.  Your marriage won’t implode so you don’t care if homosexual marriage and prostitution and widespread narcotics use become the law of the land to go along with adultery and abortion.

Well, that was the exact same attitude that the Germans had as they watched the Nazis take the Jews away.  They weren’t Jews so it didn’t affect them and they didn’t care.  Martin Niemöller summed up the reality that “It doesn’t affect me” is a rather morally idiotic way to live.  This idea that “it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care” is the essence of “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

The second thing is that these issues DO affect you.  Because they affect all of society all around you. 

George Washington said the following in his farewell address.  In his very last words to the nation, the father of our country issued us this warning:

“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.”

Fellow founding father John Adams expressed a very similar warning this way:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We reject our religious tradition and degrade public morality at our peril.  I write about the constant liberal attempt to rip up the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution and take away our right to keep and bear arms and protect our homes and our properties from both private individual criminals and public sector bureaucrat tyrants alike.  They decry the violence they see around them, but will never realize that it was their “fundamental transformation of America” which they have pursued for the last sixty years that broke down our society and turned it into a violent place to begin with.  I write:

Liberals have worked hard for the last fifty years to take away our morality and our religion. In so doing, they have given us the very violence that is now spiralling out of control. Liberals are the kind of people who have taken away prayer. Liberals are the kind of people who have refused to allow the posting of the Ten Commandments because “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” and God-as-Government forbid that children be allowed to do something like that. Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed godless abortion upon society to the tune of 54 MILLION innocent human beings butchered since 1973. Liberals are the kind of people who have destroyed fatherhood, because according to liberals fathers did not father children, but strictly non-human lumps of biological goop such that they should not be allowed to have any influence whatsoever as to whether their own babies be allowed to even live. Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed pornography on us because liberal justices are moral idiots who are morally incapable of differentiating between art and XXX-rated sex movies. Liberals are the kind of people who imposed no-fault divorce without limit or condition upon us because breaking up families is more important than asking couples who took a vow to one another under God to work to resolve their differences. Liberals are the kind of people who turned marriage itself into a perverted mockery by saying that the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman be adulterated to include whatever the hell politically correct understanding depraves the minds of the left next.

These are the people that George Washington said, “These people are NOT patriots.” These are the people that the founding fathers said we needed to be armed to protect ourselves against as they take away the God-given rights of “the people” to protect ourselves against the very tyranny they continually seek to impose upon us.

Abortion has been the death of fatherhood.  When a man and a woman have sexual relations, does a man father a child?  No!  Not on the liberal abortion view!  No child was born; only a lifeless inanimate lump of goo arose.  That man is NOT a father and should have NONE of the rights of a father.  And therefore if he wants his child, he is compelled to stand aside and do nothing while his child is murdered at the “choice” of his child’s mother with absolutely ZERO say in the subject.

In the black community you’ve got two out of every three babies conceived being murdered in their mothers’ wombs.  What ought to be the safest place in the world for a baby is the most dangerous place.  And you wonder why 71% of all black children are raised without fathers?  Those ”non-father fathers” are merely living according to the Democrat/liberal reality that fathers do not matter and that they should have no choice and no rights as fathers.  They didn’t “father” anything and they have no rights and no “choice” even if they think they DID “father” something; so they should therefore have no responsibility and there’s the door right over there.

You say, “It doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.”  But your poor kid or grand kid has to go to school and then walk home from school surrounded by increasingly psychotic little thugs who never had fathers to teach them right from wrong and discipline them when they chose the latter over the former.  More and more boys are growing up having no idea what it means to be a “man” apart from what their mothers who have become embittered against men tell them.  With the clear result being that boys are growing up to be far worse than the “non-father fathers” who abandoned them.  Morally intelligent people are watching their society become more toxic by the day all around them.  And they damn well know that this decay is hurting them.

Meanwhile the number of workers who support each retiree continues to plummet every single year. Seventeen workers contributed to every retiree’s benefits when the Social Security program began. Now it’s down to 2.3. By 2035 it will be down to 2-1. Meanwhile we have murdered more than 54.5 million future workers since 1973. Any fool ought to know that the trend isn’t good. And yet we keep piling on more and more and more idiocy because “it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.” One day we’re going to wake up to find ourselves in a collapsing banana republic and then we’ll wish we’d cared.

Don’t tell me it doesn’t affect you.  Because I’ll know from that moment that I’m talking to a moral idiot.

The same applies to prostitution.  Do you really think that’s a ‘victimless crime’?  You don’t think the wives and the fiances and the girlfriends of men who use prostitutes aren’t hurt by this public moral depravity?  You don’t think the children of these men aren’t hurt by it?  You don’t think that the women who prostitute themselves aren’t victimized by an action in which they literally sell their bodies to be used like sex dolls?  You don’t think that life hurts their children and hurts their family members?  You don’t think that when women prostitute themselves it in fact hurts ALL women as men develop an increasingly widespread attitude that women are merely objects to be used and discarded when you’re finished using them?  You don’t think that ANY location where prostitutes gather to further poison society doesn’t become a toxic cesspool that won’t lose its value, thus directly hurting that community?  Yes, prostitution hurts society.  Prostitution hurts society at every single level.

Let me cite an article that was in the Los Angeles Times on a different subject that creates the same sort of problems for a community: the different subject was panhandling.  Liberal cities like Arcata – known as “the Berkley of the North” – has tried to ban the panhandlers they once encouraged to flood into their city.  In addition to the trash, the drug needles, the human feces all over, these “tolerant” liberals discovered that they were killing their city’s businesses as shoppers increasingly avoided areas where they would get repeatedly and aggressively hit up for money.  You don’t think prostitution doesn’t create an even BIGGER drag on businesses?  You don’t think that prostitution – which brings in gangs and pimps and turf wars along with many other things that make decent people avoid those areas like it had the plague – doesn’t do the same things to the unfortunate businesses that find themselves next to a hell hole?  You don’t think that as businesses fail, jobs leave the area, tax dollars leave the area, the area itself suffers decline and blight, and people aren’t HURT?

You cannot have a right to do wrong, Lincoln said.  What kind of person would actually say, “There’s nothing wrong with prostitution, and I hope my little girl sells herself for hundreds of anonymous men to sexually use her?”  What kind of people would encourage their wives or their mothers to become prostitutes?  If you think that prostitution is a good thing that will help civilization flourish, if you truly believe that women are the sort of dumb farm animals who won’t mind if their men use women for money that rightfully belongs to their households and to their children, then you are a particular kind of sick idiot.  But please have the basic decency NOT to say that while you personally believe it’s wrong and you would never do it yourself that people ought to have the “right” to do this obviously very wrong thing.  The wisdom of Lincoln refutes you right along with the results of the fruits of your attitude on society.

Marriage is under direct attack from so many different liberal policies it is beyond unreal.  Defining marriage as a mere societal convention that has no divine value or transcendent significance, such that it can be redefined according to whatever is the politically correct attitude that happens to be in vogue, is hardly the way to support the institution of marriage.  If marriage means everything, than marriage means absolutely nothing.  It is either a union of one man and one woman under the sight of God or it isn’t.  People are increasingly asking, “Why should we bother to get married?”  Because marriage means less and less, and there is less and less stigma for those who simply don’t bother to marry because there is no longer any value in marriage.  And therefore there is less and less permanence and stability and more and more fracturing of more and more families.

Liberals want to say race is the leading indicator as to poverty.  They are WRONG.  The leading indicator of poverty is single parent households.  There is absolutely no question that regardless of your race or any other factor, that marriage is the place where children thrive and abandoning marriage results in abandoning children to impoverished lives. 

Let us return again to adultery.  What should we do?  Re-legislate the Law of Moses and stone them?  That would be something, wouldn’t it?  Imagine how many despicable people wouldn’t be around to plague society any longer?  That being said, obviously we’re not going to stone adulterers any time soon whether it’s a good thing to do or not.

Tragically, it is very difficult to put the immoral cat back in the bag and embrace public morality once that love of and pursuit of national public morality has been lost.  Once a nation begins to decline, it is very difficult to turn the ship around.  Degenerating from bad to worse to collapse is the pattern that we have observed over and over and over again.

The first thing that we can do as we realize the enormous hole we have dug ourselves in is for the love of God to STOP DIGGING.  Quit attacking marriage, the family, religion, religious values and morality while assuring the people that doing so will do no harm.  Quit saying “it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.”

The second thing to do is to try to undergird marriage and fight as a society to keep families together.  No-fault divorce and easy convenient divorce have got to go.  And of course, there is no point fighting to preserve marriages and keep couples together unless “marriage” means something that is truly worth fighting for to begin with.

The third thing to do is to find a way to punish public immorality and make acts of public immorality shameful the way it used to be.  We don’t have to resort in jails or even in a return to the stocks.  There are more ways than ever today to publicly shame those who engage in shameful behaviors to go with community service and fines.  But of course, here’s the conundrum: no perpetrator of a shameful act will never truly feel shame if the people that become aware of his or her shameful act are not offended and outraged by the behavior.  The more immorality there is that comes to characterize society at large, the more apathy there will be, and vice versa.  The more tolerant we are as a society toward adultery and divorce, the less stigma there is to commit adultery and to have divorces, the more adultery and divorce you’re going to see.

There was a time when a person possessing common sense could consider the consequences of having an adulterous affair and conclude that the consequences were simply not worth the “rewards” of the act.  As there are fewer and fewer consequences, we have inevitably seen an increase in the number of Americans who have said, “the hell with it.”

And that’s precisely why we’re going to hell.

No one is more victimized by these things than children.  Children of these tragedies perform more poorly academically, have less social competence, have worse health, and have far more behavioral problems than children of mothers and fathers (note: NOT homosexual couples!).  And of course these dysfunctional, scarred children grow up, and the vicious cycle spirals more and more out of control.

Is there a way out?  There is, but America won’t take it.

Which is why the beast is coming.  We’re living in the last days and the devil is panting with eagerness to introduce his Antichrist to the world that will be looking for a messiah of its own choosing after our depraved world collapses under the weight of its wickedness.

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.