Incredibly, many Democrats actually boycotted the House floor yesterday as Republicans read the U.S. Constitution aloud. Not all of them – Nancy Pelosi was one who joined the Republicans in reading a section of the Constitution – but enough to make it clear that Democrats have a problem with the foundational document of the United States of America.
You would have thought that Republicans were reading child pornography rather than the document upon which our entire political system is based, and which every elected official – and which every soldier, airman, sailor and Marine – takes a sacred oath to defend.
Unlike Democrats, when I raised my hand and swore that –
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” –
I actually meant it.
Charles Krauthammer, brilliant as usual, had this to say on Fox News Special Report on January 5th:
KRAUTHAMMER: “It is truly astonishing. One member of Congress called it a long, dull document. The New York Times editorial reading of the Constitution in the House is presumptuous. Liberals got in trouble in the 60s and 70s for being on the wrong side of the flag and the anti-war demonstrations and now three decades later, they want to be on the wrong side of the Constitution.
The Constitution, after all – when these members were sworn in today, that they did not swear to defend the country or the army or the people; it was to defend the Constitution. That is the essence of America, and it is what makes us unique and why we are a country not of blood or race but ideas. For liberals to think that there is actually an advantage in dismissing reading the Constitution and the requirement of having a constitutional reason to introduce a bill is real bad politics.”
And, of course, it’s not just “bad politics.” Krauthammer underscores that better than anyone. It is contemptible citizenship. It is the act of unAmerican people.
Too many Democrats despicably wanted nothing to do with this document that made America the greatest and freest nation in the history of the human race. They have a very different vision for this landmass known as “North America” than the great men who wrote the United States Constitution had.
One Democrat actually called the reading of the U.S. Constitution “propaganda,” adding that a reading of the Constitution amounted to “total nonsense.” He added that Republicans were reading it “like a sacred text.” When, of course, so many Democrats treat it more like toilet paper. Liberal Ezra Klein added historical ignorance to his moral ignorance by saying that the Constitution is confusing, having been written “a hundred years ago,” and that it is no longer binding.
It is beyond official at this point. We can separate the population of the United States of America into two groups: the American people and the unAmerican people. And the Democrat Party has become the party of the unAmericans.
UnAmericans don’t give a damn about America. They want to change it, pervert it, warp it, distort it. They want to make it into something that it never was and never should have been. And they call their effort “hope and change.”
Mind you, that’s “hope and change” for Karl Marx; never for George Washington.
I think this is a good time to reprint an article I wrote last year:
Just Remember: Democrats Don’t Give A DAMN About The Constitution Or Any Limits On Their Power
By Michael EdenDo Democrats respect the Constitution, or recognize any constitutional limits on their power? You decide.
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi:
(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Youtube audio of Nancy Pelosi dismissing constitutionality:
Yeah, people who actually care about the Constitution, and care about the fact that our lawmakers – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – actually consider it.
Rep. Pete Stark, responding to a question on health care:
Questioner: “If this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government’s ability to tell us how to run our private lives?”
Rep. Stark: “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life. now the basis for that would be how does that affect other people.”
Questioner: “The constitution specially enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and leaves all other authority to the states. The constitution is very limited as to what it can do…. if they can do this, what can’t they do?”
Rep. Stark: “The federal government, yes, can do almost anything in this country.”
Watch the Youtube video of this question and answer:
Liberal Supreme Court justices imposed abortion on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy – which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution – based on nothing more than “penumbras and emanations” discerned from gazing into the Constitution like a crystal ball rather than like a historical document. Now they are saying there IS no right to privacy of any kind, whatsoever in order to impose government health care and all the violations of rights and liberties that go hand-in-hand with that imposition.
If the federal government can do almost anything in this country, how then do you stop the next dictatorship? How do you stop tyranny? How do you stop totalitarian big government?
And let’s consider a corresponding Democrat’s statement on the same subject of government health care:
“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”
And, of course, Dingell is right: it takes time and effort to abandon the Constitution – which places limits on federal power – and then impose controls on the people that utterly abandon any scintilla of any meaningful form of constitutional government.
Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri Secretary of State and candidate for the United States Senate:
Carnahan: “We’re going to also have a libertarian and a Constitution Party candidate running. And I will tell you no one’s going to know who they are, but it’s not going to matter, because Glenn Beck says you’re supposed to be for the Constitution, and there is some percentage of people who will go vote for them. And in our internal polling about six or seven percent goes like that to the Libertarian and Constitution Party. So I’m quite sure that whoever wins is going to do it with less than fifty percent of the vote.” […]
Donor: “You just don’t sound like those Constitution Party votes are going to come out of your account.”
Carnahan: “What do you think?” (Audience laughter)
Donor: “I think you’re right.” (Audience laughter)
Here’s the Youtube audio of that exchange:
Stop and think about that: it is a matter of mocking derision that no one who actually cares about the integrity of the Constitution is going to vote for the Democrats. And in fact Robin Carnahan – who is serving as a Democrat in the office of Secretary of State – cynically intends to exploit the fact that she can divide those who care about the Constitution and win by attrition.
And they mock the fact that no one who votes Democrat gives a leaping damn about the Constitution.
Take Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky on “The Stephanie Miller Show” on 9/30/2010:
“Actually, I think really what it was was an effort to get the Tea Partiers to think that they really have some sort of revolutionary plan, because at the beginning they quote a lot from the Constitution, the idea that free people can govern themselves, that the government powers are derived from the consent of the governed.
All that stuff that I think that, that that’s an effort to try to appeal to those people, the Tea Party.
They embrace the Tenth Amendment – ‘tenthers,’ you know?”
The audio of the interview is available here.
That Tenth Amendment is a real load of crap, right?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Let’s just go ahead and abolish it so we can have the kind of totalitarian big government that Democrats yearn for. Because Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and all these other leftist dictators were just such groovy people, and we need their ilk here in red, white and blue America.
Yeah, that’s right. Ridicule me, Rep. Schakowsky. Call me a “tenther” like I’m a “birther” or a “truther” or some sort of nutjob because – unlike Democrats – I actually honor our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
Jan Schakowsky calls Tea Party people “extreme” because they actually take their Constitution seriously. But this is a woman who was perfectly willing to abandon principles to turn ObamaCare into a Trojan horse for a socialist single payer system (and see also here). This is a woman who said:
“A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).
Marxism and communism is not extreme. Nope. It’s not extreme to use ObamaCare as a vehicle to put the private sector out of business so you can sneak in a government-planned economy. What’s “extreme” is believing in the Constitution that Democrats such as Jan Schakowsky once deceitfully swore an oath to uphold.
Take a moment and contemplate the massive gulf in respect for the Constitution and willingness to place oneself under in in two remarks by Chief Justice John Roberts and now President Barack Obama:
“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”
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.
Here’s the Youtube audio of Obama saying that:
Now, Obama says he doesn’t think it’s contradictory to say that the Constitution was a remarkable political document, but to simultaneously argue that it was fundamentally flawed and had an enormous blind spot. But he couldn’t be more wrong: because he is arguing that the Constitution is a document that is fundamentally flawed, and which can and should be changed. And rather than actually try to change it, he merely ignores it, ignores the spirit of it, and proceeds to impose his own “superior” and “more enlightened” will upon it.
“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...”
And here’s the Youtube of that:
And that’s what Obama wants: he wants to be that radical who finally breaks free from those “essential constraints” that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution. And how does he want to do that? By “reinterpreting” the Constitution in a radically different way that enables liberals to virtually bypass the Constitution altogether and impose their superior, more enlightened, more modern will upon the nation and the people.
Obama acknowledges that the Constitution doesn’t permit the “redistribution of wealth.” But that trivial, meaningless little detail doesn’t stop him from doing it. Constitution schmonstitution. Who really gives a damn about it?
Dinesh D’Souza has a piece on how Obama thinks. And it turns out that Obama thinks exactly like an African anti-colonialist Marxist. And Obama himself implicitly acknowledges that, receiving his “dreams from his father.”
Liberal-progressive Supreme Court icon Thurgood Marshall expressed the quintessential liberal judicial activist view toward the Constitution in his statement:
“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).
But to put it bluntly, that’s exactly what Hitler did. Hitler thought it was “right” to kill every single Jew on the planet. And any law and anything whatsoever that got in his way be damned. He thought history would catch up with him in the aftermath of his glorious Reich and judge him wise.
Contrast what John Roberts believed with the liberal judicial activist view: one is under the Constitution, and rules in accordance with it’s strict, historical interpretation. The other rules however the hell they want, based on what they “think is right,” regardless of what the law says.
And what is frightening is that Barack Obama appointed a new Supreme Court Justice – Elena Kagan – whose most profound mentor was none other than Thurgood Marshall.
It’s easy to be “constitutional” when you have a “living, breathing document” view that necessarily forces the Constitution to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean at any given moment.
I simply want to point out to you that the liberal progressives who now form the backbone of the Democrat Party despise the founding fathers, despise the Constitution, despise individual human freedom, and frankly despise anything and anyone that gets in the way between them and absolute power.
Please remember that fact when you vote this November.
And, thank God, most Americans DID remember that fact. And Constitution-hating unAmerican Democrats experienced the worst defeat of any political party in over 70 years.
The problem is that Democrats are like the leaven that Jesus talked about when describing the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders of His day. A little leaven of Democrat vileness leavens the whole lump of dough.
Let me ask a question: why did the incoming Republicans make it their first act to read the Constitution on the floor of the House, when it has never before been done? The answer is because the Democrats in dictatorial control of the government spent the last two years crapping all over that Constitution. And, yes, it is time we brought that great document back and started treating it like it was something sacred. Because our futures depend on it.
John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Clearly, Democrats are neither moral nor religious, and therefore the Constitution of the United States is now “inadequate” for them.
These people and everything they stand for must be rejected and repudiated. It is either the Constitution or the Democrats, because the two have become fundamentally incompatible with one another.
Tags: a hundred years old, African, anti-colonialist, Are you serious?, Barack Obama, binding, blind spot, boycott, breathing, confusing, Constitution, Constitution Party, Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot, Democrats, dictatorship, didn't break free, Dinesh D'Souza, Elena Kagan, essential constraints, Ezra Klein, federal government can do almost anything in this country, fundamental flaw, health care, Hitler, House floor, Jan Schakowsky, John Dingell, John Roberts, living, mandate, Marxist, my obligation is to the Constitution, Nancy Pelosi, penumbras and emanations, Pete Stark, private life, propaganda, read, reading, redistribution of wealth, Robin Carnahan, sacred text, Stephanie Miller, Tea Party, Tenth Amendment, tenthers, that's the oath, Thurgood Marshall, to come out of your account, to control the people, total nonsense, tyranny, U.S. Constitution, what do you think?, You do what you think is right and let the law catch up
Start Thinking Right 
January 7, 2011 at 7:51 am
It is an ongoing battle we are engaed in, between those who revere the Constitution and the un-American Democratic Party. The line in the sand has been drawn, and boy, are peoples hearts being revealed daily which side they have chosen.
The despicable words and behavior by those who opposed the reading of the Constitution was staggering.
I think the Constitution of the USA SHOULD be to the American citizen what the Biblical Scriptures are to the Christian.
I have hope that with our Lord’s help we will overcome and restrain these un-American thugs down by the chains of the Constitution.
It has been and will be a formidable uphill battle but we are here for such a time as this.
God bless you mightily in 2011, Michael.
January 7, 2011 at 11:26 am
Thank you, HL. And may God richly bless you this year.
That comment from the Democrat that Republicans are reading the Constitution as though it were sacred literature (when they ignore it as though it were lousy gibberish) is particularly interesting given that the founding fathers – who had prayed as they labored – rightly believed that they had created an inspired and sacred document.
In the introduction of the great book, The 5,000 Year Leap, there are several quotes from founding fathers who recognized that what they produced was divinely-guided and inspired. It seems to me that the 223 years since ought to ratify that belief as being true: it was clearly the greatest political document ever created.
January 9, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Are you saying that all 242 Republican representatives took part in the reading and none of the 193 Democrats did? No, you are not saying that, but you’re hoping your readers infer it. Yes, one Democrat protested the reading, while many Democrats read when called to. Propaganda or not, the Republican leadership decided to have the Constitution read as a thank you to Tea Party members who helped the Republicans take control of the House. Oh, and how about the lady that was arrested for yelling during the reading of the sacred document.Why didn’t you mention her? Was it because she’s a Republican. Not a member of Congress, but a Republican nonetheless. Your remarks are the type of rhetoric that led to a crazed person shooting a democratic congresswoman. When we all–including you–tone things down a bit, we can actually discuss what matters and really move forward. Shame on you for perpetuating hate. The constitution is sacred and should be treated appropriately. And it should have been read in its entirety. We are a growing and learning nation, and we should not ignore the failures of our past. We grow and move forward by learning from our mistakes, not hiding them. Your argument that all Democrats are un-American is baseless. If you truly care about this country and want to have honest fact-based discussions about which directions our country should move in, take a big step and post this without cutting out parts you don’t like.
January 9, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Anonymous.
It’s a good thing you ARE so anonymous, given your display of such incredible ignorance:
Contemplate my SECOND SENTENCE:
Incredibly, many Democrats actually boycotted the House floor yesterday as Republicans read the U.S. Constitution aloud. Not all of them – Nancy Pelosi was one who joined the Republicans in reading a section of the Constitution – but enough to make it clear that Democrats have a problem with the foundational document of the United States of America.
And after your ignorant false and demagogic attack on me, you proceed to state something –
– which is simply patently and absurdly false. Many Democrats actually boycotted the event. They refused to show up on the House floor. And many of the Democrats who protested something which should NEVER have been protested went ahead and read.
Then you say,
as if you were too damn stupid to realize that you’re doing the very thing you “shame” me for doing when you accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting the truth and lying. When it’s YOU who are doing those things.
You accuse me of “hoping my readers infer” false things. You mean the way YOU hope your readers of this comment infer that I EVER ANYWHERE say “that all Democrats are un-American” as you falsely say???
But your not done with your perpetuation of hate, are you, you vile hater? What do you then compare me to? Oh, here it is:
Oh, yeah, that was kind and gracious.
Your hypocrisy has the consistency of being a mile deep to go with being a mile wide, isn’t it???
But let me continue pointing out what a twisted pile of hypocrisy your tirade is. You say, “Oh, and how about the lady that was arrested for yelling during the reading of the sacred document.Why didn’t you mention her? Was it because she’s a Republican. Not a member of Congress, but a Republican nonetheless.” I didn’t mention it because my article was about elected official’s reaction to reading the Constitution, not the rantings of a private individual kook. But I’ll bite, and point your own tactic back upon you. Why did YOU fail to mention this:
Why didn’t you mention that it was a REPUBLICAN in a REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED House who had her thrown out on her butt where she belonged??? Clearly, you are a contemptible pile of slime by your very argument that you use against me, aren’t you? Because just who’s “cutting out parts you don’t like,” dude???
And speaking of omitting details, how about this detail:
Why didn’t you point out that liberals said things every bit as ugly as the ugliest conservative, since you’re such an advocate of full disclosure?
That’s the thing about you people: you continuously demonize your opponents even as you do the very thing you demonize us about.
But I’m not done with that particular example yet. Because just how do you know that woman who yelled, “except Obama, except Obama” was a Republican? You are free to correct me, but I took a look around and could not find any evidence whatsoever that the woman who made that utterance is a registered Republican. All the articles say is that she is “an apparent member of the birther movement.”
Why do you accuse her of being a Republican? You DO know there are all sorts of independent parties, don’t you? And you should also know that her being a “Republican” and doing something extreme and/or crazy could also be a ruse.
Case in point:
We saw false plants – even known Democrat activists and political aides – who deceitfully masqueraded as tea party members displaying racist signs to malign the tea party movement.
Why do you accuse this woman of being a Republican? Could it be because you simply assumed it because you don’t like whatever the heck she said, so ergo sum she must be a Republican??? Because you’re a hater and demagogue whatever you hate whether it’s fair to do so or not???
If you find the article in which this woman is officially identified as a Republican, I want you to give me both the link and the keywords you used to find it. Because I’m generally pretty good at searches, and I didn’t find any such connection.
And if there ISN’T a link, well, that just makes you look like even slimier than you already appear.
And, finally, let me return to your hateful comment that “Your remarks are the type of rhetoric that led to a crazed person shooting a democratic congresswoman” one more time. What evidence do you have to prove that it was right wing rhetoric that led to the crazed person to shoot Gabrielle Giffords? I actually looked over a number of his crazed postings, and I saw nothing that indicated that he was listening to right wing talk radio, or shot her because of her health care vote, or any such thing. Rather, he shot her because he believed the government was practicing thought control and bizarre crap like that. Except, again, your irrational hatred and demonization of “the other.”
So, again, you just manufacture lies even as you accuse me of telling lies. When I’m the one guy of the two of us who actually reported the actual facts.
January 9, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Well, bravo for posting my comments. I applaud you. Unfortunately, you’re still spewing hate. Where were the two Republicans who didn’t even show up for their swearing in — are they un-American? I’m not going to call them that. Ask yourself, if they were Democrats, would you? Seriously, ask yourself that question. You’re slamming Democrats for not being on the floor during the reading. As they got further through the reading, more and more seats were empty on both sides. It’s sad that there were so many empty ones to start with. And both sides should have been full throughout the reading. We could spar a along time on this–and that’s the problem. A better debate would be on how both sides could improve upon Obamacare, and how both sides could balance the budget, and how both sides could create jobs. And there is no hate in my comments. The Democrats who didn’t want to read the Constitution or even have it read don’t have a problem with the Constitution; they had a problem with the Republicans insisting it be read. Whether or not it was Republican propaganda, they still should have participated. And as far as having a problem with the foundational document of the United States of American, how do you think Speaker Boehner and other Republican leaders view the 16th Amendment — all of it? Would have been nice to have had all of the language about taxes read. And I never said it was right wing rhetoric that led to the shooting – you inferred that, although I never implied it. I clearly mentioned rhetoric on both sides. Both sides have been slinging it. Question: when Senators and Representatives skip a vote, is it considered un-American? Your biggest problem with me is that you think I’m a Democrat — “you people” – really?. Try again. Tone it down. You’ll get my name and email address once you do. The Republican leadership said it was a symbolic gesture to remind the 112th of their purpose and charge. Their promise to work on repealing Obamacare is also symbolic (their words) to fulfill a promise made during the campaigns. There is nothing wrong with any of that. Well, it’s a bit of a waste of time to try to repeal Obamacare–the President will veto anything put forward that repeals it, but I get why the Speaker must take that action, and as long as they do their thing quickly and move on to things Mr. Obama will work with them on like balancing the budget, reducing unemployment, upgrading the defense of our great country, becoming the kick-ass nation everyone wants to be friends with, it’s all good. I like that the House chose to read the Constitution — I swore to defend it myself when I enlisted and again every time I reinlisted until my retirement from the Marine Corps after 20 honorable years. I still work everyday to defend her. And I defend and support your right to free speech. I’m just asking that you consider how others perceive your words before you put them to print or say them. Democrats love this country as much as Republicans do.
January 10, 2011 at 11:32 am
This is why I read your blog, Michael: not only do you write compelling articles with plenty of sources to back up your views, but your responses in the comments section are practically publishable articles themselves.
I appreciate your dedication to your blog, to our country, and to Truth!
January 10, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Thank you so much for that, RS. A few gracious comments like that really help keep me rolling along.
I like the way you capitalize “Truth.”
Here’s a question: why did Jesus – the divine Son of God in every way and in all things – come into the world? Most Christians would say, “To die for our sins.” And of course Jesus DID die for our sins. But that’s not why Jesus said He came. Here is what Jesus said:
JOH 18:37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
And, yes, I pray every day during my walks. And I pray to hear Jesus’ voice, and to be more and more “of the truth.”
From the beginning, in the Garden, we see that the struggle is every bit as much “the lies vs. the Truth” as it is “good vs. evil.” Satan entered the garden masquerading as a serpent – already deceiving – and then twisted and distorted the truth. And we see through the history told by Scripture this battle being fought.
Stand up for the Truth. And be courageous. Jesus took a side. And I want to stand on Jesus’ side. If someone affirms the truth in a comment, I want to “be there” to agree with that person; if someone wants to pass off a lie, I want to “be there” to get in that person’s face and stand up for the Truth.
My entire idea behind blogging was to preserve a record of what happened to America. I provide a lot of links, but more, I try to quote those links, in order to preserve THOSE stories and the points they make, too.
Thanks for noticing! And thanks for being a fellow warrior for the Truth.
January 10, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Well, let’s see. Number one, I notice that after coming to my blog and lying, you couldn’t find any evidence whatsoever to show that the woman who yelled the “birther” comment was a Republican – as I demanded you do. Which is why this is probably your last chance to say your piece on my blog. I won’t tolerate people making up crap and passing it off as fact. I won’t tolerate challenging someone to document their claim and then pretending it never happened while refusing to even acknowledge he has been caught telling lies.
Oh, no. You’re not a Democrat. It is entirely a coincidence that you come here outraged at any slant to Democrats and liberals, demanding I make mention of all the Democrat talking points, and passing off lies that favor the left and attack the right (as I proved). And to say more about that –
Number two, you raise the issue of whether I would make hay if Democrats missed their swearing-in ceremony. I’ve never criticized ANYBODY of EITHER party for missing their swearing in ceremonies. But I googled YOUR making hay of it and here are liberals who attack those Republicans:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×4685995
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/07/gop-reps-sorry-for-missing-our-swearing-in-ceremony-and-then-voting-on-the-floor/
https://www.examiner.com/populist-in-national/oops-two-house-republicans-miss-swearing-ceremony-violate-constitution
http://jerseyshorereality.com/gossip/GOP-congressman-from-Pa-AWOL-from-swearingin-4500282.html
I found that there are HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of liberal sites doing exactly that very thing. Including “newspapers” like the New York Slimes.
So, can you document how you went to many of those sites and said, “Knock it off, it’s wrong!” No??? You hypocrite. You don’t have any problem at all with liberals doing the thing you demonize me for doing. Instead, you proceed to do what they’re doing while denying you’re doing it. It’s as though your saying, “And I won’t make mention of the fact that my opponent is a convicted felon!” You brought that “swearing-in” thing to make Republicans look bad and then immediately proceed to deny your clear motive for mentioning it.
But the left is out there in swarms doing the very thing that you compare me with doing.
When there is SO much crap and hateful accusations flying from the left at the right, it just astonishes me that a guy like you would show up, never say a single critical thing about the Democrats, defend them on every point, pass off what I showed were demonstrable lies about Republicans, and then think you have the moral high ground to attack me for being a partisan.
You get in my face and say I’m “spewing hate.” And then have the naked chutzpah to say, “Tone it down.” YOU tone it down!!! How can people like you – there, I said it again – attack and attack and attack your opponents, and then say, “How DARE the other side attack! They’re so hateful!!!” How does your head not explode containing all the massive contradictions???
And now I’m seeing just how pathologically dishonest you are. You say to me:
But I didn’t infer this: you said it:
“My remarks are the type of rhetoric that led to a crazed person shooting a Democrat.” Is my “rhetoric” leftwing, then??? Just what “type” of rhetoric do I proffer if it isn’t “right wing”? You liar!!! Nor did you EVER say in that first extremely hateful first post that DEMOCRATS are actively spewing hate at all. But you specifically single me (the right winger) out at least twice. Again, you liar.
This is why I’m blocking you, anonymous. It’s not because you won’t give your name or email – although it’s a shame you refuse to stand behind what you say. It’s not because you’re a liberal. It’s because you just have demonstrated that you constantly say things that aren’t true, forcing me to constantly go back and set the record straight. And I don’t have time to deal with correcting the lies of liars.
You say one thing (I guess it’s nice that there’s at least something) that I can agree with. Every single word of the Constitution should have been read. Had they decided not to include any of the later amendments beyond the era of the original founding fathers, I would have been fine with that. But to read some but not all was wrong.
We should understand every word of our Constitution, understand the context in which it was said, understand why it was said and what it was intended to convey.
As for any of your remarks about the reading of the Constitution, if you can show me Republicans bitching about the reading of the Constitution the way I can go on and on about Democrats bitching about the reading of the Constitution, you’d have a point. But since you can’t, you don’t.
The Republicans did a good thing to have the Constitution read. And the Democrats did a terrible and stupid thing by whining about it. Period.
In closing, I’m going to quote the Democrat Sheriff who has repeatedly demonized conservatives as being responsible for the Tuscon, AZ shooting even though he doesn’t have a single iota of proof. Among other things, he’s said, “We see one party [the Republicans] trying to block another party [the Democrats] from trying to make this a better party.”
Here’s one that’s even better from a liberal Obama supporter at Newsweek: “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.”
So you want conservatives to shut up while liberals galore tee off on them why, exactly????
If you were really a Marine, you should readily understand that there is a war going on for the soul of this nation. And it’s interesting that you demand that one side unilaterally disarm so that the other side – your side – can win by default.
I wrote a post after the 2008 election that stated my position: “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.” The bottom line is that if your enemy firebombs your cities, you firebomb his cities. If Democrats want to end the toxic political climate, all they have to do is go after their toxic element – the way you aren’t doing.
I honor all veterans for their service, and knowing nothing about you, I’ll honor you for yours. That said, I experienced from my own years of service that not all veterans were virtuous people.
You might have been a great Marine. But after two giant whopping documented lies, I’m blocking you.
January 14, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Having read as much of these comments as I could without barfing. I can only conclude that all the public schooled americans get what
they deserve, college boys included (esp. the college types).
now go read some Lysander Spooner for another point of veiw;
http://jim.com/treason.htm
January 14, 2011 at 8:55 pm
That link is rather comical, IMHO.
As long as the United States of America exists, it has binding power. And all “Americans” (who wouldn’t be “American” anymore the moment they did it) would have to do to change that is nullify the whole thing with an amendment.
It could be as simple as this:
“Every previous amendment prior to this one, and the Constitution which those amendments “amended,” are henceforth to be regarded as crap.”
Until then it has binding force on anyone who chooses to call themselves “American” or live here (because you’re free to get your ass the hell out of here and go to North Korea).
At the individual level you can tell yourself the Constitution has no binding force upon you. Which means that NO law of any kind has any force upon you. And you can act like it, too. Until decent people gun you down as an animal unfit to live in human society.
Tragically, there are people called “Democrats” who despise the Constitution every bit as much as your fool Lysander Spooner. Only they aren’t a fraction as honest as he was. Where he despised it openly, they despise it in secret. They pay lip service and make it sound like they give a flying damn about it. But then they weasel in with their “living breathing document” crap that makes it meaningless because it means whatever the hell they want it to mean at any given instant.
I had a discussion once with a liberal who held the “living breathing” theory, and I turned him into a raving idiot. He’d tell me his ideas, and then I’d “interpret” them to mean what I wanted. He literally didn’t understand what I was doing, and just kept getting louder and louder. Because, you see, this hypocrite fool actually wanted me to understand his “literal intent.”
Penumbras and emanations belong in outer space. They most certainly do not belong in our Constitution.