Liar-In-Chief Obama Demagogues Congress On Student Loans (Fact: House GOP PASSED Student Loan Interest Rate Fix OVER OBAMA’S VETO THREAT)

Meet Barack Obama, the liar in chief, from several days ago:

Obama to UNLV crowd: Student loan legislation a ‘no-brainer’
By Sun Staff (contact)
Published Thursday, June 7, 2012 | 12:15 p.m

President Barack Obama, welcomed to the stage at UNLV’s Cox Pavilion with chants of “four more years,” used his speech today in Las Vegas to push Congress to approve legislation to keep student loan interest rates at their current level and push colleges to keep tuition from rampantly increasing.

Everybody’s got to do their part, colleges, students… and Congress, the president said in his lunch-hour speech that ended about 1:20 p.m.

During the talk, he said Congress must act to keep student loan interest rates at their current level. To neglect to do so, he said, would cost the average student an extra $1,000 to attend college.

“This is a no-brainer,” Obama said, “so, I’m telling Congress, get this done.”

Apparently, it’s either not a “no-brainer” or Obama doesn’t have any brains.  Because what he’s claiming flies in the face of the facts.

When Obama demagogued student loan interest rates and claimed it was a “no-brainer” to fix the issue, he in fact was at that very moment BRAINLESSLY threatening to veto a Republican-passed bill that in fact fixed the student loan issue.

From over two full weeks ago:

GOP ignores veto threat, passes student loan bill
Published April 26, 2012

The GOP-led House passed a bill Friday to keep interest rates on millions of federal student loans from doubling this summer, ignoring a White House veto threat and setting up another likely election-year battle.

The House approved the bill by a 215-195 vote, also amid pressure from conservative groups that essentially said the government cannot afford the $5.9 billion cost right now.

President Obama also wants to keep down the interest rates, but the White House doesn’t agree with House Republicans’ plan to pay the costs, by cutting a preventive health fund created under the president’s health care overhaul law of 2010.

Democrats argued on the House floor the fund mostly benefits women. Republicans call it a loosely controlled slush fund.

Nobody wants to see student loans go up,” House Speaker John Boehner said before the vote. “Now were are going to fight over women’s health. Give me a break. This controversy was created by my colleagues across the aisle for political purposes.”

The White House called the proposed cuts politically motivated and not a serious response to the problems students face.

Despite the bill passing, it will likely go nowhere in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Democrats want to pay for the measure by boosting payroll taxes paid by high-earning owners of some private firms.

Both parties essentially support the basic plan — extending the 3.4 percent rate for one year on the undergraduate Stafford Direct Loans. The rate would revert back to 6.8 percent without intervention.

The GOP’s Student Interest Rate Reduction Act would, more specifically, take money from the health care law’s Prevention and Public Health Fund for prevention, wellness and public-health activities. It is administered by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who has full discretion on how to spend the money.

Sebelius testified Thursday on Capitol Hill that the GOP plan to strip the fund would “doom future generations to pay higher and higher health bills and get mediocre results.”

Republicans also have called on the president to reimburse taxpayers for this week’s college tour, where he touted his student loan plan.

Boehner said the president’s trip to three big universities in swing states were obvious campaign stops and that his efforts to make the loan rate a campaign issue is “pathetic.” He said it makes the most powerful office in the world look “smaller.”

“The emperor has no clothes,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

Republicans have also argued Obama’s economic policies have resulted in roughly 50 percent of recent college graduates in America either unemployed or underemployed — in part because the health care law is making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers.

Boehner’s suggestion that the president reimburse his travel expenses followed a similar letter Wednesday from the Republican National Committee to the Government Accountability Office.

“Throughout his administration, but particularly in recent weeks, President Obama has been passing off campaign travel as ‘official events,’ thereby allowing taxpayers, rather than his campaign, to pay for his reelection efforts,” committee Chairman Reince Priebus wrote.

The White House, though, described the trips as part of Obama’s “official responsibility” to hear from students and discuss how to stop interest rates from doubling in July.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Meet the Republican Party – the only people who have actually passed legislation to keep student loans at their present rate.  Democrats have done nothing but slander, lie and threaten to veto that Republican-passed legislation.

There’s only one man who will be completely responsible for the student loan interest rate hiking up: and Barack Hussein Obama is wearing that man’s underwear.  Barack Obama is lying.  As usual.

I hope you kids who voted for Obama can dig deep in your pockets to pay this huge interest rate your party and your messiah are going to force you to pay.  You rancid little punks deserve it.

Meanwhile, this weasel-in-chief who has now ATTENDED MORE FUNDRAISERS THAN THE LAST FIVE PRESIDENTS COMBINED is constantly campaigning at taxpayer expense.

Barack Obama is a liar, pure and simple.  If student loan interest rates go up, it will be because this lying turd demonized and demagogued and lied and slandered on this issue.

Scott Walker Wins, Communists (A.K.A. Democrats) LOSE HUGE

Democrats are communists, and even the true blue state of Wisconsin has just OVERWHELMINGLY rejected their fascist tactics.

A liberal group used clear voter intimidation tactics to threaten people to vote (Democrat).  “Fascist tactics” is a technically accurate term here.

Democrats do not live in the real world, as what we just saw in Wisconsin proves.  What was the left saying not long ago???

From the überfascist publication The Nation only a couple of months ago:

The Power of Recalls in Wisconsin
John Nichols on March 17, 2012 – 8:31 AM ET

With Wisconsin recall elections looming against four Republican state senators—as well as Governor Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch—the state’s politics was thrown for another loop Friday when a targeted senator up and quit.

State Senator Pam Galloway, a Tea Party favorite and one of Walker’s steadiest backers in the legislature, announced her immediate resignation from the legislature and her decision not to contest the recall election.

The move had dramatic repercussions:

1. Republicans have lost the complete control of state government that allowed the governor to advance an austerity agenda that was defined by attacks on unions and deep cuts in public education and public services funding—along with the harshest voter ID law in the nation, a rigidly partisan redistricting of legislative districts and what critics complain has been a battering of the state’s open-government tradition.

2. State Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald, (brother of Assembly Speaker Jeff) a Walker ally who is targeted for recall, has lost his position as the dominant player in the legislature. He now must enter into a power-sharing agreement with minority leader Mark Miller, a progressive Democrats who led a historic walkout by his caucus during last year’s struggle over Walker’s labor law changes. Committee assignments will be redone to reflect what is now a 16-16 split in the Senate.

3. Governor Walker, who has threatened to call special sessions of the legislature to deal with pet projects, will now only be able to do so if he can work with the Democrats—something he has not done up to this point.

4. If, as expected, the federal courts reject the state’s redistricting plan, it could be sent back to a legislature where Democrats can now play a critical role in drawing the maps. That could result in a significant upturn in their fortunes going into this fall’s elections.

5. Republicans have lost their premier candidate in one of four state Senate recall elections that are now scheduled for May 8 primaries and a June 5 election. Galloway had raised major money and organized a campaign of consequence before announcing that family health concerns had led her to exit the legislature. Now, Democrat Donna Seidel, a popular former county official in the Wausau-area district and the assistant minority leader in the state Assembly, emerges as a clear front-runner for a seat that—if she wins—would tip the Senate to full Democratic control.

All of these changes were made possible by the recall power, which allows citizens to petition for new elections. This old progressive tool of accountability was used last summer to force a number of Republican senators who supported the Walker agenda to defend their seats.

Going into last summer’s recall votes, Republicans held a 19-14 advantage in the Senate. Two Republicans were defeated, leaving the GOP with a narrow 17-16 advantage—and giving moderate Republican Senator Dale Schultz the power to temper his party’s excesses. Now, with Galloway’s exit, the chamber goes to the 16-16 split.

After the next round of recalls, it is possible that Democrats could end up with full control of the Senate, potentially by a margin of up to 19-14—or, if Fitzgerald is defeated by upstart challenger Lori Compas, 20-13.

Additionally, a new Democratic Senate could sit with a new Democratic governor, as Walker’s recall is now all but certain to take place on the same day as the senators.

What has happened is remarkable. What could happen is historic. And the people, using the recall power afforded them by progressive reformers of a century ago, are making it happen.

I wanted to post this example of liberals claiming victory in Wisconsin before it got purged with all the rest of their bogus smack talk.

It’s time to eat your cockroach poison and start flailing around wildly on your backs, Democrats.  You just got sprayed with the nasty crap that you were so damned determined to spray on Walker and every Republican you could smear.  And this is what, the third time you’ve had your asses handed to you after previously trying to recall state senators and a judge???

Even in a blue state like Wisconsin, you just got utterly rejected.

As of my sending this out to the world, Walker is up by a massive 20 points with 40% of the precincts reporting.  And the race was called within what?  About forty minutes of the returns coming in???  In a race all the liberals were saying would go to the wire?  This is a state that Obama won by ffifteen points just a few years ago!!!

I guess voters like the guy who created tens of thousands of jobs while taking a $3.6 billion deficit that his Democrat predecessor left for him and turning it into a $150 million surplus without raising taxes.  And I guess they don’t like Democrat politicians who act like cockroaches when the lights get turned on and flee the state rather than vote.

And where was Obama?  The cowardly little political weasel was flying all over doing fundraiser after fundraiser but you could turn over every rock in Wisconsin and you wouldn’t find him supporting the recall that his cockroach minions started last year.  The Slimebag-in-Chief literally flew over the state while going from Minneapolis (where he did three fundraisers) to Illinois (where he did another three fundraisers) so the man who took more money from Wall Street than ANY POLITICIAN IN HISTORY and the man who has raised more money than any cyncial money-grubbing politician in the entire history of the human race could whore himself for more money.

How did Obama lead?  Well, it’s my understanding he sent a tweet.  I guess I’m glad Obama isn’t supporting me, because this is a guy who only knows how to support himself at other people’s expense.  If you’re a Democrat, you truly ought to be ashamed of the turd you elected.

I’ve got to just laugh my very best mocking laughter as the same Democrats who wildly cheered when Obama was raising and spending more campaign money than anyone in human history are now crying and whining that Republicans are outspending them.  It must truly suck to get hung on your own petard.

Every model that Obama’s campaign had for his path to victory counted on Wisconsin.  And that state is VERY OBVIOUSLY now in play for Mitt Romney.  Which is to say that if Obama has to even defend one of the most reliably Democrat states in the nation, well, he’s just starting to look more and more and more like Jimmy Carter.

Update, June 7: Democrats have been whining about the spending gap between Democrats and Walker, claiming something like a $7-$1 dollar difference because of all the conservative money pouring in from across the nation.  The media has widely reported this Democrat talking point.

It turns out that it’s a lie, like pretty much everything else the left says: the fact is that the same media that reported every dollar coming in from conservatives somehow omitted $21 million coming in from the unions.  Which is to say that liberals are furious that their out-of-state money wasn’t as much as the Republicans’ out-of-state money and therefore out-of-state money is anti-democratic even though they tried to raise as much of it as they could themselves.

Debt Ceiling Fight: Despite Lamestream Media Propaganda Claims, Sometimes ‘Compromise’ Is NOT A Good Thing

1 Kings 3:16-25

One day two women came to King Solomon, and one of them said: Your Majesty, this woman and I live in the same house. Not long ago my baby was born at home, and three days later her baby was born. Nobody else was there with us. One night while we were all asleep, she rolled over on her baby, and he died. Then while I was still asleep, she got up and took my son out of my bed. She put him in her bed, then she put her dead baby next to me. In the morning when I got up to feed my son, I saw that he was dead. But when I looked at him in the light, I knew he wasn’t my son.

“No!” the other woman shouted. “He was your son. My baby is alive!”

“The dead baby is yours,” the first woman yelled. “Mine is alive!”

They argued back and forth in front of Solomon, until finally he said, “Both of you say this live baby is yours. Someone bring me a sword.” A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, “Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.”

Splitting the baby in half in the name of “compromise” is NOT a good thing, for the record.

Democrats are people who are VERY happy with a dead baby.  The nearly 54 million babies they have killed in the abortion mills ought to be proof enough of that.

You can’t turn on your television or read a newspaper or a magazine without being told that compromise is good, and the Republicans are not compromising enough.

Obama ranted at a recent press conference, “Can the Republicans say yes to anything?”

Well, to quote the idiotic chant of certain famous fool, “Yes, we can!”

Republicans said “yes” to the Ryan Plan.  They also said “yes” to the ONLY plan that actually is in writing and actually passed in either branch of Congress.  Both the Ryan Budget and the cut, cap and balance bill would have averted the debt ceiling crisis that looms in front of us now.  But could the DEMOCRATS say “yes” to anything?  Not only did they say “no” to the Ryan budget, but they actually refused to say anything at all regarding the cut, cap and balance plan as Harry Reid tabled it without allowing a vote.  Harry Reid shut down debate and refused to allow the House-passed plan to come up for a vote because he doesn’t want the Democrats to have to go on record rejecting a balanced budget amendment – which would prove that whenever a Democrat talks about balancing the budget or actually cutting spending they are LYING.

Reid also demonized the cut, cap and balanced bill as “the worst legislation in the history of this country.”  Because he must have been all FOR the Democrat-passed Fugitive Slave Act.

And of course, you find out that Democrats couldn’t even say yes to the Obama budget, which would have increased the debt by $12 TRILLION and which failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate 97-0.  And that was an abject disgrace and proves as much as anything what a completely failed leader Obama truly is.

So it’s demagogic and dishonest to say that the Republcans somehow can’t say yes to anything, or even to suggest that the Democrats can.  For the record, the Democrats have produced NO plan; they have utterly FAILED to lead.  So they frankly have nothing to say “yes” to to begin with.

Barack Obama and the Democrats are despicable liars and demagogues.  Unfortuntely, the American people are becoming the sort of bad people who believe lies.

If the country were at some 50-50 balance between liberalism and conservatism, maybe one would be justified in calling for “compromise” with Democrats now.  But thanks to Obama, it simply isn’t.  We’ve veered wildly to the left, and so at this point when were more like 70-30 liberal, “compromise” just means status quo Obama liberalism.  No thanks.

After the 2008 election, Republicans came hat in hand seeking compromise with newly crowned King Obama.  But King Obama said unto them:

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

It’s kind of funny now that – after a historic ASSKICKING of Democrats by Republicans in 2010, suddenly Republicans are supposed to “compromise” with the Democrats who ran roughshod over them for the preceding two years of libery tyranny.

Is it a good thing to compromise, the way the media keeps framing this issue?

Keep in mind, the Republicans won a landslide victory in November 2010 after Democrats utterly refused to do anything to cut their reckless and radical spending.  They didn’t “compromise”; they were dragged to this point by the most massive political defeat in more than 70 years.  To try to claim that Democrats are “compromising” now is rather like claiming that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan graciously decided to “compromise” after World War II.  They got their asses kicked over their ears, and the rest is just reality, not “compromise.”

And the Republicans ALREADY HAVE compromised.  Keep in mind the do NOT want to raise the debt ceiling; rather, they want to cut spending NOW (and if we WERE to cut spending now, we wouldn’t NEED to increase the debt ceiling).  The Republicans are willing to raise the debt ceiling; they are NOT willing to go back on promises they ran on and won on and increase taxes.

Also keep in mind that Democrats have also ALREADY RAISED TAXES BY $500 BILLION (i.e. half a TRILLION dollars).

Why on earth should “compromise” mean that they should agree to raise taxes again?  Particularly when Democrats have produced ZERO plans to cut spending and are essentially saying “Trust us not to screw you like we did the last three times we told you to trust us on cutting spending.”

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner apparently actually had an agreement in principle with Obama to raise taxes by yet ANOTHER $800 billion on top of the $500 billion ObamaCare tax hike.  But almost immediately thereafter Obama welched on his own deal, demanding an extra $400 billion.

The New York Times – falsely and demagogically characterizing the Republicans as “The Party That Can’t Say Yes” (That already demonstrated to be an outright dishonest lie above) said of this reneged-upon deal:

“So, on the eve of economic calamity, the Republicans killed an overly generous deal largely over a paltry $400 billion in deductions.”

“A paltry $400 billion.”  Only liberals could be so stupid and so utterly depraved.  This is proof-positive that hundreds of billions of dollars mean absolutely nothing to these people.  They are recklessly irresponsible fools before this country collapses never to rise again.

If the New York Times was honest (they are not, of course – which explains why they are virtually bankrupt), then they would be pushing Obama to agree to accepting $400 billion LESS in revenues.  After all, it’s only “a paltry $400 billion,” right???  These people live in a realm of dishonest lunacy.

Is compromise a good thing?

How about this for a compromise.  Suppose we propose to eradicate the 72 million registered Democrats in the United States.  Get out that great big giant can of RAID and just wipe out all these cockroaches.  Well, the “reasonable” thing to do according to liberals would be to compromise.  So obviously on this principle Democrats would be all for a plan to eradicate 36 million Democrats; because that would be going halfway, after all.

Obama and the Democrats have repeatedly cited “corporate jets” in their recent demagoguery and demonization.  This is EXACTLY parallel to the fiasco of the “luxury tax” that annihilated the yacht construction and maintenance industries in the early 1990s:

The general thinking is that the rich can afford it, and an extra 10 percent tax isn’t going to stop the fat cats from indulging in their toys. What most people don’t realize is that those able to buy a new boat also have the ability to decide not to buy. And that is what they have done.

Since the luxury tax came into effect last Sept. 30 for newly ordered boats, nobody has bought a new boat on which the tax would apply! The National Marine Manufacturers’ Association, the industry association that tracks such things, can’t find a single sale in the whole country! Not one! However, the association has been able to document in excess of 100,000 layoffs (blue-collar workers — not fat cats) and numerous boat manufacturers going out of business. All during which not a single dollar of luxury tax has been collected.

A more detailed article on the 1990 tax and how it is remarkably similar to what Obama and Democrats are now proposing is available here.

It is the same failed fools with the same failed Marxist class hatred mindset.  The Democrats rescinded that tax in 1992 – but not until they destroyed more than a 100,000 jobs.  Their policy was based on Marxism and hate.  And it failed then just like it will fail now.

EVERY SINGLE TIME we have cut income tax rates we have INCREASED REVENUE.  And EVERY SINGLE TIME we have increased income tax rates we have DECREASED REVENUE.  What history proves is that when we increase the income tax rates “on the rich,” the rich respond by sheltering their money as they are forced to massively cut back on their job-creating investments by protecting themselves.  And what invariably happens is that the percentage of tax revenues paid by “the rich” dwindle while the percentage of tax revenues paid by the poor (in the form of excise taxes) increase.  This is a documented fact going back to the days of FDR:

Do you see what happened?  FDR kept raising income tax rates on “the rich” and demanding they pay more; but revenues from income taxes fell from 38% of revenue to only 24% of revenue (and corporate tax revenues fell from 43% to 29%) , while revenue from excise taxes borne mainly by the poor (e.g., liquor taxes, cigareete taxes) skyrocketed from 19% of total revenues collected to 47% of total revenues collected.

This is what happens in actual FACT.

If that isn’t enough, even OBAMA acknowledged that it would be stupid to raise taxes in a recession:

…In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”

Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

Our economy is still in terrible, terrible shape.  79% of Americans say we are still in a recession.  And to quote Obama, “you don’t raise taxes in a recession.”

So how about if I listen to Barack Obama and argue that raising taxes would be an utterly TERRIBLE “compromise” to make.

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.

Democrats WHO HAVE NO BUDGET PLAN OF THEIR OWN Unceasingly Demonize Republicans For Bothering To Have A Plan

Keep this in mind: the Democrats DO NOT HAVE A BUDGET.  President Obama – our Disgrace-in-Chief – submitted such an absolute laugher that not even a single DEMOCRAT in A DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE could vote for it.  It isn’t a Republican talking piont to claim that President Obama has no plan and he is not leading; it is a documented FACT.  But that is only half of it, because it has now been 782 days since the Democrat-controlled Senate passed any kind of a budget.

Democrats have no ideas whatsoever.  They have no budget whatsoever.  Their entire plan consists in demonizing Republicans who are trying to lead in spite of the fact that the failure in the White House is a Democrat.

The following was true a month ago when Democrats had no plan other than to lie and demonize.  It is still true today:

May 25th, 2011 11:29 AM
Dem Strategy for 2012: Hide Our Record, Demonize the Opposition
by Bill O’Connell

The most recent trial balloon was in New York’s 26th Congressional District special election. There Democrat Kathy Hochul ran on the demagoguery that Paul Ryan’s budget plan, which her Republican opponent Jane Corwin supported, meant the end of Medicare. Hochul said:

“We had the issues on our side—did we not have the right issues on our side?” Ms. Hochul said at her victory party, as supporters chanted “Medicare! Medicare!”

We had the issues on our side? “We can balance our budget the right way and not on the backs of our seniors,” she said. Democrats said the program [Medicare] should be steadied through other measures. Okay, tell us, just what are those measures? Anyone?

Where is balancing the budget on the back of seniors in the Ryan plan? Better yet, how does the Ryan plan stack up against the Democrats plan? Oh, that’s right, the Democrats don’t have a plan. The Democrats want to continue the status quo of spending us into oblivion. They want to take the only real plan on the table, the Ryan plan, and not challenge it with ideas of their own, but try to hang it around the necks of the Republicans.

SenateDemocrats were expected to bring up the House Republicans’ 2012 budget plan for a vote this week, but not their own plan, which remains under lock and key.

The Democrats want to get the Republicans in the Senate on record as supporting the Ryan plan as did all but four Republicans in the House. They believe that by pointing to support for the Ryan plan, they are home free to retake the House while retaining the Senate, reelect President Obama and finish the job of destroying America, the America we know and the America our founders envisioned. But don’t take my word for it, listen to Harry Reid.

“There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion,” Reid told the Los  Angeles Times last week. “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this  stage.”

After all if you have a plan, people can look at it and evaluate it and from where the Democrats are coming from it would be suicidal to actually admit through a vote what they are trying to do.

Next to the lackluster economy and a persistently high 9 percent unemployment rate, runaway spending and debt remain among the voters’ greatest concerns. But the Democrats‘ strategy right now is not to grab the deficit by the horns and wrestle it into submission. It is to play political games with the issue and with the American people, to help the Democrats win back control of the House and rebuild their dwindling forces in the Senate. — Washington Times, 24 May 2011

The Democrats who have added $5 trillion to the debt since re-taking control of Congress in 2006, have not passed a budget and have no intention of doing so and as every household and business knows, without a budget spending will be out of control.

While the Democrats draw up their battle plans to smear, lie, and distort the issues, and terrorize seniors in the hope that they will remain ignorant and not question the accuracy of their statements, it will fall upon the Tea Party to ramp up another education effort to spread the truth. I’ll let Mr. Ryan lead off here:

Originally posted at Liberty’s Lifeline.

Donald Trump is a loudmouth fool who started out running as a Democrat but is now threatening to run as an independent.  Trump is angry at the Republicans because they care enough about their country to lead, instead of being only concerned with pure political posturing like Trump and like the Democrats.

Please have a brain in your head.  Please understand that the DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO PASS A BUDGET FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS.  Please understand that we are spiralling completely out of control while fools and ideologues like Trump and like Democrats say that their plan is to sit back and do nothing but attack the people who try to lead and try to fix our closing-in-on-being-insurmountable-problems before it’s too late.

Donald Trump’s corporation has been bankrupt FOUR TIMES: 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009.  He is a crony capitalist without integrity or honor who has made a good life for himself by knowing how to play the system against itself and by sticking his nose up the right butthole.  He creates a corporation, runs that business into the ground, and then walks away scott free to create another one.  And then another.  And another.  And of course another.

Anyone who votes for Donald Trump regardless of what party he tries to exploit is almost as big of an A-hole as Trump is.

Democrats refused to support Barack Obama’s budget because even they understood that it was guaranteed to bankrupt America.  They also know that whatever they do will necessarily bankrupt America.  So their plan is to sit back like the fearmongering lying demagoguing slanderers that they are and hope that the American people accept enough of their lies to regain power over our lives.

Want Rabid Intolerance? Go To A Liberal Arts University: U of I Professor Tells College Republicans to ‘F’ Off

You can come out as anything you want at college: a sexual “explorer” who pulls long sexual trains for frat boys (or for sorority sisters, for that matter); a militant homosexual activist; a private-property-destroying anarchist; a jihadist who shouts down Jewish speakers.  And, of course, in the case of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, an unashamed terrorist whose only regret is not planting even more bombs.

Just don’t you dare come out as a Republican, a conservative, a pro-lifer or a Christian, or else these “tolerant” “intellectuals” will bare their vampire fangs and leap at your throat like animals rather than the elitists they so arrogantly presume themselves to be.

To the extent that there is anything whatsoever that is funny about professors like Ellen Lewin, it is that academics such as herself actually pride themselves for their “tolerance,” on the one hand, while simultaneously priding themselves for rabidly attacking anyone who even remotely disagrees with their views.

University of Iowa Professor Tells College Republicans to “F” Off
Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 0:01
By Craig Robinson

A University of Iowa professor felt the need to reply to a blast email by the College Republicans on Monday morning. Ellen Lewin, a professor of Anthropology and Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies in the Department of Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies, sent a vulgar response to a College Republican email about the group’s, “Conservative Coming Out Week.”

The College Republican email, which was sent to the entire University of Iowa Community, had been approved by a number of university officials before being sent out.

Lewin responded to email by writing, “#*@% [F-Word] YOU, REPUBLICANS” from her official university email account.

Natalie Ginty, a University of Iowa Student and Chairwoman of the Iowa Federation of College Republicans, demanded an apology from Lewin’s supervisors.  “We understand that as a faculty member she has the right to express her political opinion, but by leaving her credentials at the bottom of the email she was representing the University of Iowa, not herself alone,” Ginty wrote to James Enloe, the head of the Department of Anthropology.

“Vile responses like Ellen’s need to end. Demonizing the other party through name-calling only further entrenches feelings of disdain for the other side. I am sure you understand that nothing is ever accomplished by aimless screams of attack,” Ginty concluded.

In an email to the College Republicans, Professor Lewin wrote, “This is a time when political passions are inflamed, and when I received your unsolicited email, I had just finished reading some newspaper accounts of fresh outrages committed by Republicans in government.  I admit the language was inappropriate, and apologize for any affront to anyone’s delicate sensibilities.  I would really appreciate your not sending blanket emails to everyone on campus, especially in these difficult times.”

Lewin sent that email at 10:51 a.m.

Lewin’s response is as inappropriate than her choice of language in her first email. At the bottom of the original mass email, a University of Iowa disclaimer reads, “Distribution of this message was approved by the VP for Student Services. Neither your name nor e-mail address was released to the sender. The policy and guidelines for the UI Mass Mail service, including information on how to filter messages, are available at:
http://cs.its.uiowa.edu/email/massmail
.”  The College Republicans didn’t even know who all would be receiving the message.

At 11:06 a.m. on Tuesday, Professor Lewin sent another email saying:

I should note that several things in the original message were extremely offensive, nearly rising to the level of obscenity.  Despite the Republicans’ general disdain for LGBT rights you called your upcoming event “conservative coming out day,” appropriating the language of the LGBT right movement.   Your reference to the Wisconsin protests suggested that they were frivolous attempts to avoid work.  And the “Animal Rights BBQ” is extremely insensitive to those who consider animal rights an important cause.  Then, in the email that Ms. Ginty sent complaining about my language, she referred to me as Ellen, not Professor Lewin, which is the correct way for a student to address a faculty member, or indeed, for anyone to refer to an adult with whom they are not acquainted.  I do apologize for my intemperate language, but the message you all sent out was extremely disturbing and offensive.

It’s strange that Professor Lewin is upset with a student for calling her by her first name AFTER she told them to “$%@& [F Word] OFF.”  Quite honestly, Lewin’s continued attacks make it seem like more serious punishment of the professor is called for rather just than the public apology that the College Republicans are demanding.

Professor Tim Hagel, the faculty advisor for the University of Iowa College Republicans, also interjected on behalf of the group.

The issue isn’t whether you found something in the message sent by the College Republicans to have been offensive, but how you chose to express yourself.  Although some would disagree with the reasons in the message immediately below, there would have been a more appropriate way for you to have expressed yourself.  Your initial apology, though qualified, was at least a step in the right direction.  The “additional note” only served to retract the apology and was an apparent attempt to justify your initial response.

It’s not my place at this point to debate the merits of whether the CR message was offense, but let me remind you that they have First Amendment rights as much as you do and that their message was approved for mass distribution by the VP for Student Services, as was indicated at the bottom of the original message.

Let me also note that I found your complaint about Ms. Ginty’s use of your first name to be rather ironic.  As much as I agree with you that it would have been better for her to have shown the respect for your position by referring to you as “Professor,” respect is a two way street and you clearly did not show respect for the College Republicans in your initial response.

-TH

Tim Hagle

Associate Professor

UICR Faculty Advisor

Update :University of Iowa President Sally Mason has responded to the incident by sending out a blast email.  Mason’s response was “spurred” by TheIowaRepublican.com’s story about the incident.

Dear Members of the University Community:

The University of Iowa encourages freedom of expression, opposing viewpoints, and civil debate about those opposing viewpoints.  This is clearly articulated in our core values of Diversity and Respect.  Because diversity, broadly defined, advances its mission of teaching, research, and service, the University is dedicated to an inclusive community in which people of different cultural, national, individual, and academic backgrounds encounter one another in a spirit of cooperation, openness, and shared appreciation.

The University also strongly encourages student engagement in such discussions and supports students acting on their viewpoints.  Student organizations are sometimes formed along political lines and act on their political beliefs.  Even if we personally disagree with those viewpoints, we must be respectful of those viewpoints in every way.  Intolerant and disrespectful discord is not acceptable behavior.

Sally Mason
President

Below is the original email that includes Lewin’s response.

In 2010, Lewin’s salary from the University of Iowa was $94,800.00 plus benefits.  In her spare time, Professor Lewin was written books entitled, Inventing Lesbian Cultures in America, and Gay Fatherhood: Narratives of Family and Citizenship in America.

Professor Ellen Lewis made sure to add her credentials and make the University of Iowa a part of her “views.”

I’m reminded of a paragraph from an article I wrote on postmodernism and the  fascism that invariably accompanies it:

Today, in universities across the country, we are seeing honored faculty fired for no better reason than that they disagree with one or another tenet of “political correctness.” Lawrence Summers was essentially fired from his position as president of Harvard University for raising the possibility that many factors apart from discrimination or bias could explain why there were more men than women in high-end science and engineering positions. Guillermo Gonzalez, as assistant professor at Iowa State, was denied tenure and fired for having written articles arguing that a purposive cause is the best explanation for certain features of our cosmic habitat. David Eaton said, “As alumni at ISU, we are appalled that the current Iowa State administration would stoop to expelling a brilliant young scientist and gifted instructor from the classroom, not for teaching about intelligent design or even mentioning it in his classroom, but for simply committing the thought crime of advocating it [in a research paper] as science.” The documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed presents scientist after scientist who were fired merely for advocating the possibility of an intelligent cause to the universe. Ben Stein calls attention to the terrifying process of such a stifling of academic and scientific freedom. Fascists and Marxists had no qualms persecuting and stifling unwanted thought among their intellectuals; Western universities should have great qualms over such persecution, but increasingly do not

Will Professor Lewis be fired for harboring unacceptable views the way more so-called “conservative” faculty like Lawrence Summers and Guillermo Gonzalez?  If intellectual hypocrisy wasn’t the quintessential defining essence of modern universities, she certainly would be.

As it is, if you want to see true intolerance today, if you want to see true Marxism, if you want to see the most vile views defended and the most decent ones viciously attacked, just go to your nearest liberal arts university.

This is a state university.  The tax dollars of Reopublicans and other conservatives go to fund both this university and the salary and benefits of this professor whe turns around and denounces their ability to even have a voice.  How dare these damn liberals demand that we pay for their despicable attitudes?

Wisconsin Marxist Collectivist Bargaining With The Devil Game Over: Decent Americans 1, Liberal Unions 0

Republicans have been decrying the 14 Wisconsin Democrats who literally fled the state (to the thugtown of Chicago) rather than simply show up to vote.  We Republicans said that these Democrats needed to actually pursue the democratic process and actually do their jobs representing the people.

Democrats said no.  By refusing to be present and by refusing to be in the state representing their constitutents, we ARE representing the people.

I wonder if these abject moral idiots are still thinking that now.

The Democrats are outraged that, even though they left the state for 3 weeks, and even though they insisted that they would have absolutely no part whatsoever in the democratic process in Wisconsin, somehow the Republicans were wrong in voting.

Democrats are loudly whining that they weren’t given enough time to show up for the vote.  These losers were given THREE WEEKS to show up for the damn vote:

Senate advances collective bargaining changes; Democrats to return after Assembly vote
By Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel
Updated: March 9, 2011 8:10 p.m.

Madison — The Senate – without Democrats present – abruptly voted Wednesday to eliminate almost all collective bargaining for most public workers.

The bill, which has sparked unprecedented protests and drawn international attention, now heads to the Assembly, which is to take it up at 11 a.m. Thursday. The Assembly, which like the Senate is controlled by Republicans, passed an almost identical version of the bill Feb. 25.

The new version passed the Senate 18-1 Wednesday night, with Sen. Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) casting the no vote. There was no debate

Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) said Democrats who have been boycotting the Senate for three weeks would return to Wisconsin once the bill passes the Assembly, although he declined to be more specific.

From Feb. 17 until Wednesday, the Senate Democrats were able to block a vote on the bill because 20 senators were required to be present to vote for it. Republicans control the house 19-14.

Late Wednesday, a committee stripped fiscal elements from the bill that they said allowed them to pass it with a simple majority present. The most controversial parts of the bill remain intact.

That committee, formed just hours earlier, quickly approved the bill as the lone Democrat at the meeting screamed that Republicans were violating the state’s open meetings law.

The law requires most public bodies to give 24 hours notice before they meet. The conference committee met with about two hours notice.

“This is a violation of law! It’s not a rule!” Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) bellowed.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) ignored Barca and ordered the role to be taken. Republicans voted for the measure as Barca continued to plead with them to stop the vote.

Republicans have not yet given an explanation of why they believe the committee could legally meet.

Minutes later, the Senate took up the bill and passed it without debate.

“Shame on you!” protesters cried from the galleries.

Democrats decried the move and warned it could end the political careers of some Republican senators who are under the threat of recall.

“I think it’s akin to political hara-kiri,” said Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar). “I think it’s political suicide.”

Walker praised the move in a statement.

“The Senate Democrats have had three weeks to debate this bill and were offered repeated opportunities to come home, which they refused,” Walker said. “In order to move the state forward, I applaud the Legislature’s action today to stand up to the status quo and take a step in the right direction to balance the budget and reform government.”

Fitzgerald said Republicans were forced to act because of the boycott by Democrats.

“The people of Wisconsin elected us to do a job,” his statement said. “They elected us to stand up to the broken status quo, stop the constant expansion of government, balance the budget, create jobs and improve the economy. The longer the Democrats keep up this childish stunt, the longer the majority can’t act on our agenda.”

But in an interview Miller warned Republicans they would face recalls.

“The people I don’t think knew what they were getting when they voted last November, so there will be a do-over” Miller said.

Miller also said the fight over collective bargaining is soon to leave the domain of the Legislature but is likely to be taken up in the courts.

Republicans said they were able to push through the bill by taking out a few provisions, including a $165 million bond restructuring and the no-bid sale of 37 state power plants. But the bill still includes several monetary changes, including charging public workers more for health care and pensions, which will save the state $330 million through mid-2013.

Republicans did not explain how those provisions could remain in the bill with fewer than 20 senators voting. Fitzgerald said the move was deemed acceptable by three widely respected non-partisan agencies – the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Reference Bureau.

The budget-repair bill by Gov. Scott Walker would end most collective bargaining for public employees and has been at a stalemate for three weeks because Democrats have boycotted Senate sessions.

State Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said Wednesday night he attempted to drive back from Illinois to Madison to get to the Capitol before Republicans passed the measure.

“This is on the Republicans’ heads right now,” he said. “If they decide to kill the middle class, it’s on them.”

Larson said Republicans will pay a political price for curtailing collective bargaining for public-sector employees.

“Everyone who is party to this travesty is writing their political obituary,” Larson said.

Demonstrations have rocked the Capitol for weeks as public workers have protested the changes to collective bargaining, but they have quieted somewhat in recent days. But the crowds swelled Wednesday as word of the conference committee meeting spread, and thousands chanted inside and outside the Capitol well after the building officially closed.

They cried, “Shame!” “This is not democracy!” and “You lied to Wisconsin!”

Earlier in the day, Republicans fined Democrats for missing the Senate session and lawmakers learned they had more time to resolve the budget impasse.

Walker had been steadfast in saying he would not negotiate on his budget-repair bill, but in recent days made offers to Democrats to slightly scale back some of his proposal with a separate piece of legislation.

Miller said Walker’s approach of making changes in separate legislation was unacceptable because Democrats are not sure they can trust Walker.

Walker’s bill would close a $137 million gap in the fiscal year that ends June 30, sharply curtail collective bargaining for most public employees, make public workers pay more for their pensions and health care, allow the no-bid sale of state power plants and give Walker’s administration broad powers over the state’s health care programs for the poor.

Walker had wanted the Senate to approve the budget-repair bill as written, but then have lawmakers make a few changes Democrats want in the state budget they will pass months from now. That approach raises concerns for Miller because state law makes it illegal for legislators to promise a vote on one bill in exchange for a vote on another one – a practice known as logrolling.

“That comes dangerously close to logrolling,” Miller said of Walker’s plan.

Earlier Wednesday, Senate Republicans voted to fine Democrats $100 each for missing the day’s session.

The fines passed 18-0. All Democrats were absent, as was Sen. Frank Lasee (R-De Pere).

Lasee had an excused absence in the morning, and was present for the vote on the budget-repair bill later in the day.

Fines can be levied under a resolution adopted last week that applies to those who miss two consecutive sessions without an excused absence.

Walker’s administration said when his budget-repair bill was unveiled last month that it had to pass by Feb. 25 because of a bond deal included in the bill. But officials said Wednesday they may have until early April to secure the bond package.

The budget-repair bill also relies on the restructuring of $165 million in bonds to free up cash for the current fiscal year. Walker’s aides said when he unveiled the bill that it needed to pass by Feb. 25 to capture the bond deal, though they later said they had a few days after that.

On Wednesday, the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau issued a memo saying the actual deadline may be in early April because of a move the administration is making.

Pinning down an exact deadline has always been difficult. Under state law, the administration must transfer money within state funds by a certain date to pay off existing bonds in May. Officials need about two weeks before that date to get an opinion from bond counsel, take bids and prepare for issuing the bonds.

Originally, officials said the fund transfers needed to occur on March 16, so the bill needed to pass by two weeks before that. Now, the administration believes it can delay the fund transfers until April 15 by prepaying some short-term debt – giving lawmakers until early April to pass the bill.

In a Wednesday memo to the governor, Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said the move had never been tried before.

Also Wednesday, Fitzgerald said he was expecting huge crowds for hearings on the budget and was considering holding them in sports arenas. That could mean holding hearings at the Kohl Center in Madison and the Bradley Center in Milwaukee, he said.

Thousands of people – often tens of thousands of people – have protested at the Capitol for weeks because of Walker’s budget-repair bill.

Walker has proposed deep cuts to schools and local governments to balance a two-year, $3.5 billion shortfall – cuts that he said local officials could handle if collective bargaining is severely curtailed.

Timeline

4 p.m. - Senate meets abruptly to convene a conference committee on the budget-repair bill with about two hours’ notice.

6 p.m. – The committee meets and with no debate quickly advances a version of the measure.

6:10 p.m. - The Senate meets and without debate passes the new version of the measure, sending the bill to the Assembly.

Thursday, 11 a.m. - The Assembly is expected to pass the measure and send it to Gov. Scott Walker.

Bill Glauber in Milwaukee and Lee Bergquist in Madison contributed to this report.

With no due respect to Democrats – who deserve no respect – it’s not like this should have been a surprise.

For the record, the law does NOT require 24 hours advance notice; there is a provision in the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law that allows only two hours’ prior notification.  In fact, the non-partisan Wisconsin Senate Chief Clerk says the meeting was procedurally sound.  And even if there’s a lawsuit, and the court rules there was some letter-of-the-law violation of the open meetings law, fine; Republicans would be able to give sufficient notice and repeat the process with exactly the same results.  There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the end result would be any different.

Charles Krauthammer recommended this very tactic to Republicans two weeks ago.  Democrats should have seen it coming, and actually bothered to show up and do their jobs and vote like any real person who actually believed in democracy would do.

I wrote an article dated February 21 titled, “As Democrats Play Games With The Democratic Process, It Turns Out Republicans Can Play Games, Too.”  I ended that article saying, “If Democrats want to play their un-American games and start a war, then let Republicans finally play and fight to WIN.”  And it simply amazes me that Democrats – who played nothing but games the last few weeks – would actually be shocked and appalled that Republicans might play games of their own.

Democrats have for the last three weeks said, “We’re not going to vote!  We’re not going to vote!  We’re going to run away and hide like the cockroach cowards that we are so we don’t have to vote!  Nyah, nyah nyah nyah, nyah!  You can’t make us vote.”  And then they’re like, “How DARE you vote without us?!?!”

Democrats are enraged that Republicans imposed their will, you know, as if “elections have consequences.”

I once wrote an article I entitled, “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.”  Let me phrase it differently now: “Do Unto Liberals As Liberals Did Unto Conservatives.”  And if you liberals want to bitch about it, all we have to do is quote your very own Barack Hussein and sneer, “Elections have consequences.  We won.”

Let me just point out that when Democrats imposed their vile stimulus, and then imposed their even more vile ObamaCare, by shutting out Republicans every single step of the way and refusing to comprimise or cooperate with Republicans in any way, shape or form, they started a war that had consequences that are now coming back to burn these fascists alive.

NPR Once Again Demonstrates How Pathologically Biased And Hostile To Conservatives It Is

NPR.  I think it stands for Nitwitted Propagandist Roaches.  It sure seems like it, anyway.

According to surveys, NPR is one of the gold standards of mainstream media objectivity.  But if you could get inside these leftwing ideologues’ heads for just a few minutes, you would find that they couldn’t be more biased and unfair toward conservatives, Republicans and the Tea Party.

March 08, 2011
NPR exec: tea party is ‘scary,’ ‘racist’ 

[Youtube video link]

James O’Keefe, master of the video sting, targets NPR this time, in a pretty damaging interview with Ron Schiller, NPR’s senior vice president for development, and Betsy Liley, senior director of institutional giving.

O’Keefe’s compatriots, Shaughn Adeleye and Simon Templar, posed as members of a Muslim group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood that wants to give NPR $5 million in light of the recent Republican threats to defund public broadcasting.

In the course of a lunch at Café Milano, Schiller presents himself as a liberal who thinks the tea party is “scary” and that there are not enough Muslim voices on the American airwaves, nodding as his lunchmates say they are glad NPR allows Hamas’s and Hezbollah’s views to be heard.

He claims the Republican party has been “hijacked” by the tea party, and when one of his lunch partner’s suggests that they’re “radical, racist, Islamaphobic, Tea Party people,” Schiller says, they’re “not just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”

He also veers pretty wildly off the script that NPR CEO Vivian Schiller clung to during her address to the National Press Club Monday, saying “it is very clear that in the long run we would be better off without federal funding.” Vivian Schiller (no relation) was very careful to make the point Monday that while federal funding is only about 10 percent of NPR’s budget, it’s essential.

It was announced yesterday that Ron Schiller is leaving NPR to take a job at the Aspen Institute.

He came to NPR from the world of university fundraising and became NPR’s top fundraising official in late 2009, not long before discussions began for the $1.8 million gift from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations that, along with the Juan Williams firing, helped make NPR such a potent political target for Republicans.

I’ve reached out to NPR for comment and will update when I hear back.

UPDATE: NPR media reporter David Folkenflik tweets NPR’s comment: “We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for.”

UPDATE: The full NPR statement from Dana Davis Rehm, senior vice president of Marketing, Communications & External Relations:

“The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept. We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for. Mr. Schiller announced last week that he is leaving NPR for another job.”

Oh, that’s right.  The REAL bad guys in this story are the people who demonstrated just how completely corrupt and dishonest you rat bastard taxpayer-dollar shakedown artists at NPR are.

Keep in mind, the people that NPR is on film demonizing at present constitute most of the American people.  But according to liberal orthodoxy, conservatives, Republicans and Tea Party people are supposed to be forced to subsidize an organization that couldn’t be more unfair to them.

Are you seriously so demented and so depraved that you believe that these people could give conservatives a fair shake?

If you said yes, you just failed the moral IQ test; you are a truly stupid and immoral human being.  You cannot see the world as it is because you are too depraved.

Bottom line: given that NPR is supposedly “objective,” and yet we now know just who these hard-core leftwing zealots are, let’s just realize that the entire mainstream media is basically one leftwing propaganda machine.

Here’s Ron Schiller in all of his bigoted, hateful, biased, propagandist “glory” via a transcript:

This an undercover video is  by filmmaker, James O’Keefe of Acorn Video Expose fame, who hired two men to pose as members of an Islam organization linked closely to the Muslim Brotherhood.  In the video, the men were discussing their wish to make a $5 million donation to NPR over dinner with Schiller.

It was at that dinner that Schiller is caught on video making claims, his comments fully transcribed below from the video on the left sidebar,  that has landed him and NPR in the middle of yet another public funding scandal:

RON SCHILLER (President, NPR Foundation): I think what we all believe is that if we don’t have Muslim voices in our schools, on the air – I mean it’s the same thing we faced as a nation when we didn’t have female voices.

The current Republican party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian. I wouldn’t even call it Christian; it’s this weird evangelical kind of move.

The current Republican party is not really the Republican party, it’s been hijacked by this group; that is, not just Islamaphobic but really xenophobic. I mean, basically, they are, they believe in sort of white, middle American, gun toting  — I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.

Now, I’ll talk personally -  as opposed to wearing my NPR hat. It feels to me that there is a real anti-intellectual move on the part of a significant part of the Republican party. In my personal opinion, liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives.

Well, to me, this [Egypt] is representative of the thing that I, uh, I guess I am most disturbed by and disappointed by in this country; which is that the educated, so-called ‘elite’ in this country is too small a percentage of the population, so that you have this very large, uneducated part of the population, that, that carries these ideas.

It’s, it’s much more about this type of anti-intellectualism than it is about a political. A university, also by definition, is considered in this country to be liberal, ah, even though it’s not at all liberal. It’s liberal because it’s intellectual — pursuit of knowledge and that is traditionally something that Democrats have funded and Republicans have not funded.

So, particularly Republicans play off of the belief among the general population that most of our funding comes from the Government. Very little of our funding comes from the Government; but, they act as though all of it comes from the Government.

 It’s about 10% of the total station economy.  The total station economy is about $800 million a year; and about $90 million comes from the Federal Government.

Well, frankly, it is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without Federal funding. And the challenge right now is that if we lost it altogether, we would have a lot of stations go dark.

Speaking to why he felt that way: I think for independence, number one. Number two is that our job would be a lot easier if people weren’t confused — because we get Federal funding, a lot of Americans, a lot of philanthropists  actually think we get most of our money from the Federal government; even though NPR, as you know gets 1% and the station economy, as a whole, gets 10%.

NPR would definitely survive and most of the stations would survive.

Speaking of Zionist influence at NPR: I don’t actually find it at NPR; the zionist or pro-Israel even among funders. No. I mean it’s there in those who own newspapers, obviously; but no one owns NPR. So I, actually, I don’t find it … Right, because I think they are really looking for a fair point of view and many Jewish organizations are not. And frankly, many organizations, I’m sure there are Muslim organizations that are not looking for a fair point of view. They’re looking for a very particular point of view and that’s fine. We’re not one of them. I’m gathering that you’re not, actually.

And even around the Juan Williams issue, we had a very long discussion and they all agreed in the end — well of course you had to fire [Juan Williams]; but why they won’t say that?  [shaking his head] In all of the uproar, for example around Juan Williams, what NPR did, I’m very proud of and what NPR stood for is non-racist, non-bigoted, straightforward  telling of the news.

Our feeling is that if a person expresses his or her opinion, which anyone is entitled to in a free society, they are compromised as a journalist. They can no longer fairly report.  And the question that we asked internally was – Can Juan Williams, when he makes a statement like he made, can he report to the Muslim population and be believed? And the answer is no. He lost all credibility and that breaks your basic ethics as a journalist.  (To be continued.. TheProjectVeritas.com)

But hey, I’m sure National Propaganda Radio is every bit as fair in its coverage to the violent, unfair, ignorant, uneducated, anti-intellectual, xenophobic, seriously racist racist Republicans as they would be to the superior and enlightened Democrats.  In fact, it’s very difficult to discern any difference in Schiller’s views toward Republicans and Democrats, unless you look really, really hard.

I remember talking to a liberal professor a couple years back.  He literally compared allowing coverage of the conservative point-of-view to allowing a serious discussion about a “flat earth.”  On his view, it was idiotic to even allow conservatives to have a voice in any discussion.

And the most incredible thing of all was that after saying all of this, he made the astounding claim that his liberal point of view was “tolerant” and “open-minded.”

What this professor said was what most “journalists” think.  It just never occurs to them that conservatives might even possibly have a valid point, let alone think it’s necessary to cover the “flat earther” conservative position.  And these are our “gatekeepers” who get to decide what “all the news that’s fit to print” is.  And how to slant it.

All that said, obviously, conservatives should be forced to pay for propgandists who hate them and hate everything they stand for.

Wouldn’t it be nice if one day soon, liberals are forced to fund Rush Limbaugh with their tax dollars???

Leftwing Violence And Media Propaganda/Coverup Continues Unabated

How long did it take for liberals and their media lackeys to blame Republicans and conservatives for Jared Loughner and the “climate of hate” that resulted in the Tucson, Arizona shootings?  Probably about two minutes, but New York Slimes columnist Paul Krugman was the first “mainstream” “journalist” to viciously attack the right two hours after the event (evidence not required).

The left immediately cited Sarah Palin having used a map “targeting” Democrats.  It didn’t matter that it was DEMOCRATS who invented these “targeting maps.”  Nor did it matter that the Democrat PARTY – not just some politician who wasn’t even in office anymore like Sarah Palin – had used these maps themselves (both the Democratic Leadership Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are were discovered to have used such maps).

The left immediately attacked Sarah Palin because one of the vulnerable districts that Sarah Palin “targeted” for defeat in the midterm elections was Gabrielle Gifford’s district.  It didn’t matter that the powerful liberal site DailyKos had similarly targeted Gabrille Giffords because she wasn’t leftwing enough for them.  And even more, it didn’t matter that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas took his hate to a whole new level beyond anything Sarah Palin approached by saying of Gabrielle Giffords, “she’s dead to me.”

Nor did it matter that if anything at all, shooter Jared Loughner exhibted FAR more characteristics of a leftwinger than he did of a rightwinger (and see also here).

You see, for any of the above to matter, the left would have to have some shred of virtue.  And they simply don’t have any virtue at all.  They are liars without honesty, shame or integrity.  Hypocrisy and deceit are pathological.  Take these things away from a liberal, and he or she would vanish.  Because it’s all they are.

Even as the left denounced the right for the “climate of hate,” they were frothing at the mouth with their own special climate of hate.

Now, for the record I don’t really mind the left spewing their hate.  I think it helps reveal who and what they are.  What I DO mind – and what got me into blogging – is the massive hypocrisy in which these people constantly denounce us for hate when they are so full of it themselves.  These are people who have practiced hatred and violence for decades, and when we respond to their jackboots in our faces, they denounce us as practicing hate.  As if the victim who fights the attacker is every bit as guilty as the attacker for any violence.

So it was rather revealing that the only person who was in any way, shape or form connected with the Tucson Arizona shooting who actually threatened to kill somebody was a LIBERAL threatening a TEA PARTY spokesman (and see also here).  The self-described LIBERAL took a picture of the tea party member and said, “You’re dead.”

President Obama gave one of his “just words” speeches filled with flowery but empty rhetoric in which he condemned the harsh polarized political climate that he himself was instrumental in creating.  And, of course, Obama himself hypocritically loaded up the Tucson memorial service with his own image and his own political sloganeering in marked contrast to his message.

But the left is vicious and vile and venomous.  So it took them no time at all to show their demonic nature.

Republicans tried to play by the new rules.  They called a break (and a truce) for a week and halted their calender in an important time that the opposition party would ordinarily want to use to full advantage prior to a State of the Union speech.  And they toned down their language, for example, changing the word “kill” in “job killing” to “crush” or “destroy.” It was a useless gesture, I know, but the Republicans were doing what they could to practice civility according to the long laundry list of words that political-correctness-embracing Democrats had decided was off limits.

But, of course, Democrats paid no attention to the rules they insisted that Republicans follow.  Controlling liberal hate is like controlling a rabid dog in full-frothing mode; it just doesn’t happen.  So it should be no surprise that Democrats would be unable to control themselves in their hateful dialogue even while Republicans tried to jump through the rhetorical hoops Democrats demanded.

Tennessee Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen invoked the most evil event in human history to attack Republicans on the House floor:

“They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels,” Cohen said. “You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That’s the same kind of thing.” And Congressman Cohen didn’t stop there.

“The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it–believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover,” Cohen said.

Now, keep in mind, Sarah Palin got demonized by the mainstream media for having maps that did the exact same thing that Democrat maps had been doing for years.  Did the media come unglued and denounce Cohen for his despicable hate?  Nope.  They put it in a “broader context,” which means that to the extent that they didn’t simply ignore it altogether, they explained it away.

Fellow Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee had her own version of attacking Republicans for a Holocaust to be if they dare to vote according to their principles:

“Frankly, I would just say to you, this is about saving lives. Jobs are very important; we created jobs,” Jackson Lee said. “But even the title of their legislation, H.R. 2, ‘job-killing’ — this is killing Americans if we take this away, if we repeal this bill.”

Okay.  So Republicans are “killing Americans.”  But other than that they’re decent people.  Really.

There’s your new “civility” for you.  It’s Democrats demonizing Republicans for what Democrats have actually done more than Republicans.  And heaping hate on top of rabid hate even as they hypocritically denounce Republicans for the climate of hate that Republicans are of course responsible for.

And the media will play that game all day.  Because, contrary to Steve Cohen’s remark, the new “Jospeh Goebbels” in this country are journalists.

So we’ve got stuff like this: a leftist radical who acted on his radical leftism tried to murder a politician who wasn’t far leftist enough.  He wrote, “How are we the radical(s) (left) to confront the NEW RIGHT, if we avoid confrontation all together?”

This radical leftist slashed the throat of a college dean out of the mistaken belief that he was the governor of Tennessee.  It happened last September.  And nobody reported it simply because, well, they couldn’t figure out a way to turn this radical leftist into a Republican.

But they sure were on top of the story that Sarah Palin had a map that you needed to know about, didn’t they???

And if Democrats had a stack of maps themselves, well, you just didn’t need to know that, the self-appointed media gate-keepers figured.

Nor did you need to know about that petty little leftist would-be assassin.

Nor do you really need to know anything that contradicts the mainstream – liberal, of course – media message.

Why I Blame Democrats For Gun Laws That Allow Crazies To Kill

This is in response to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the nineteen shooting victims, and the six murdered citizens, in Tuscon, Arizona on Saturday at the hands of someone who is clearly mentally ill.

It sounds rather crazy to have such a title to many, I’m sure.  After all, isn’t it Democrats who are constantly trying to criminalize gun ownership?  And isn’t it Republicans who are constantly trying to keep guns legal?

Yes.  Which is exactly why I blame Democrats every single iota as much as the most liberal Democrat blames Republicans for criminals or crazies with guns.

First of all, we have a constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, Democrats for years and years have argued that the 2nd Amendment essentially contains a typo, that “militia” should have appeared twice, but somehow the phrase “the people” got stuck in.

But “the people” really means “militia.”

So when you see “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” it really doesn’t apply to citizens.  It only really applies to militias.  Militias have the right to assemble and redress the government.  You “people” just stay shut in your homes and leave the government alone.

And go through your Constitution and make the necessary corrections.  Replace every occurrence of the phrase “the people” with “militia.”  And see how many freedoms you would lose and just what an absurdly laughable interpretation the Democrats have for the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment clearly and obviously provides militias AND the people (i.e., the citizens of the United States, you and me) with the right to keep and bear arms.  And then it all but tells the Democrats to keep their paws off our guns (“… shall not be infringed”).

But the Democrats DO infringe.  And infringe, and infringe some more.

So we run into a problem: every time Republicans – who actually care about their Constitution – do anything to restrict gun rights or gun ownership, it ends up being a net-loss for guns and for the 2nd Amendment.  And every significant act involving a gun becomes the next cause to take away guns, as the following Newsweek article exudes:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

If Republicans try to make it tougher for criminals or crazies to get their hands on guns, Democrats will use that measure to shut the door all the tighter on every single law-abiding citizen to exercise their constitutional guarantees.  As I will show later in this article.

So because of Democrat refusal to recognize the clear and obvious meaning of the 2nd Amendment, we have an impasse.  We have an impasse which prevents common-sense laws from being passed.

This is what should happen: Democrats should now and for all time recognize that every single law-abiding American in every single state and in every single town has the right to keep and bear arms.  And Republicans should in response begin to help make it tougher to get guns, so that criminals and the mentally ill do not fall through the gaping holes that the intransigence has imposed.

Unless and until that day happens, Republicans will have no choice but to fight every gun law, because they will continue to correctly see that Democrats and liberal judicial activists will continue to use every law passed to prevent “the people” from possessing guns.

Here’s the bottom line: liberals often repeat the principle stated by William Blackstone, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”  Benjamin Franklin took it even further, and stated “that it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”

And here here.  Even though it creates a system in which the innocent too often are denied justice as the guilty go free.

But lets ALSO acknowledge that the same Constitution also clearly affirms that it is better that ten, or a hundred criminals and psychos get their hands on guns than that just one innocent Person should be deprived.

If you liberals like the first principle, quit being a hypocrite and like the second one, too.

For me, I do not want to be forced to wait helplessly for the police to maybe never show up as vicious criminals terrorize – or do worse – to my family.  Rather, if you try to enter my home, scumbags, I’ve got something for you.

It is every bit as evil for any society to deny a person (the singular form of “the people”, by the way) to be able to defend himself, or herself, or his or her family, from violence, as it would be to convict innocent people to make sure the guilty don’t go free.

Nor let me fail to mention that the founding fathers clearly intended an armed citizenry to be a powerful obstacle against government tyranny.  That the founding fathers would want a tyrannous American government overthrown as much as they would want a tyrannous British government overthrown.

Any good gun law that truly has a chance of preventing criminals or crazies like Jared Loughner from obtaining guns necessarily would depend on a strict registration and licensing of every single gun.  And Republicans will RIGHTLY refuse any such registration and licensing until Democrats codify it into the law of the land that such a registry can NEVER EVER be used to take away our guns.

What we need to see is this: a powerful understanding of the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms such that, if any elected official, officer of the court, sworn law enforcement officer, or government employee undermines that law, they will immediately be recognized to have violated their constitutional oath and thereby disqualify themselves for their duties as politicians, judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, or bureaucrats.  And let the anti-gun policies which include heavy taxation and burdensome regulation be expunged.

And when that occurs, then let every gun be registered.  Let there be a listing of every individual who owns a gun(s), with every serial number and even with every ballistic sample from every gun, be taken.

If someone is convicted of a felony, or if someone’s mental condition deteriorates beyond a legal threshhold, then immediately the list is checked: ‘does this individual have a gun?’  And if so that gun is removed.

That’s the kind of system we need.  And it is the system we cannot have as long as the future question of the constitutional guarantee of gun ownership is in any way, shape or form an open question.

We’ve seen the sorts of laws Democrats have proposed being used against “the people” before in many other parts of the world.  We have seen it in tyrannous, totalitarian regimes throughout history.  First they demanded the registration of weapons; then they came and confiscated those weapons.  And no one could stand up against them, because only they had the guns.

The other thing it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out is that if we pass laws taking away the right to keep guns, only the law-abiding would follow the law.  Criminals would not follow the law;  I mean, dang, just look up the definition of “criminal.”

Therefore, until our law is clearly and completely understood to guarantee the right of gun ownership by every single law-abiding and mentally sane citizen, you will never see the kind of gun control laws that our society obviously needs.

Which is why I rightly blame Democrats for the lack of gun control laws that would prevent crazies like Jared Loughner from getting their hands on guns.

Democrats, the “living, breathing document, open to interpretation” theory of the Constitution needs to go down the drain once and for all in order for meaningful gun regulations to ever succeed.

Because this is America.