Your Marxist Moron of the Day is

Rep Jerrold Nadler of New York. Bob Owens presents the case for Nadler, and offers a great analysis of the folly of those, like Nadler, who embrace the Nanny State

Jerrold Nadler is an “average” elected member of Congress. He represents New York’s 8th congressional district, and has been in office for 20 years. He’s seen little of the world outside of New York City and Washington, D.C.. He did little of note with his life before becoming a politician, and has done little while in office, other than picking up a few titular roles by the nature of his long incumbency. He is reliably leftist in his views, using the Constitution as a cudgel when it serves him, and rejecting it when it doesn’t.

He’s utterly an utterly average, representative politician, which is why this statement is so concerning:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said only the federal government should have “high-capacity” gun magazines and that the “state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”

At a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday,  Nadler gathered with other House Democrats to push for stricter gun control in the wake of last week’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., which left 26 dead, including 20 children.

The lawmaker told CNSNews.com that he not only supports prohibiting the future sale of 10-round gun magazines, but he would like to confiscate high-capacity clips already legally possessed by American citizens.

Historically speaking, most nation-states have had monopolies of violence over their subjects. Nadler’s qualifier “legitimate” simply means that politicians view the violence they distribute as being beyond reproach, while viewing the option of resisting government force as not just illegitimate and wrong, but evil.

We could easily spend the rest of the day (and much of the next) merely listing the governments in recorded history that have used that “monopoly of legitimate violence” to oppress their subjects and commit the occasional genocide against their people. We could point out that this precise mindset is one shared among the educated men of Parliament and the British Monarchy in the 1770s towards upstart Colonials in the New World.

Men like Nadler, and I use the word men loosely here, are a disgrace. But, really, they are no more a disgrace than the buffoons who keep voting them into office. These are voters who ignore history, and reality. These are voters who are ignorant and selfish. They only care about what Nadler, and politicians like him, can do for them. They are simply too stupid to realize that a government that can GIVE you things can also take everything away!

How do thugs like Jerry Nadler (D-irtbag) get elected?

Have we really sunk so far? From Madison, and Franklin, and Mason, and Jefferson and Washington to bottom feeders like THIS bag of dung?

Out of all the Democrats exploiting this tragedy, Nadler is leading the pack.

(CNY) — Today, following the shooting massacre of 20 children in a Connecticut school, President Obama said that “meaningful action” needed to be taken to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future.

But what “meaningful action” can Obama actually take, given Republican control of the House and Congress’ deeply felt fear of the politically mighty National Rifle Association? And politics aside, what new laws would actually solve or make a dent in the country’s crazed-gunman problem?

Rep. Jerry Nadler said thinks that the president has only one option.

“There’s only one meaningful action he can take, which is to take on the N.R.A., label them as the enablers of mass murderers they are, really push for strong gun-control legislation and call out those congressional leaders who don’t support it,” Nadler told me this afternoon.

“It is time to call out the N.R.A. as enablers of mass murder and start embarrassing people and saying, ‘Who do you stand with? The parents and children of this country or the potential mass murderers?’”

The fact is if there HAD been a couple of NRA members there they would have done their best to stop the killer, but Nadler does not give  a flip about facts. I suppose slandering people who value liberty and obey the law is a small price to pay for furthering his Statist agenda. Instead of looking gleefully at this as an opportunity to eradicate self-defense rights, why is Nadler not pushing for armed security in our schools? Could it be he cares far more about control than he does about protecting kids?

 

Lunatic Leftist Congressmen Call For Unlimited Federal Debt

Democrat Congressmen Call For Unlimited Federal Debt; Say Limit Is ‘Danger’ To Country – CNS

A trio of House Democrats on Wednesday introduced a bill to eliminate the debt ceiling so that the Treasury Department would be able to borrow money without limit.

Rep. Jim Moran (D.-Va.), one of the co-sponsors of the proposal, said that imposing a legal limit on the national debt is a “danger” to the country.

“The debt limit is an unnecessary and counterproductive legislative hurdle that has proved to be both an ineffective means of controlling deficits and a danger to this country’s standing in the financial markets,” Moran said.

The debt limit “poses a serious, recurring threat to the full faith and credit of the United States of America,” Moran said. He called it a “legislative relic” that has been “weaponized” by Republicans for political reasons.

At a news conference introducing the bill, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), also a co-sponsor of the bill, said: “We’re here, ladies and gentlemen to abolish the debt ceiling.”

“This is a pretty simple issue, ladies and gentlemen,” Johson said. “There is no reason to have a debt ceiling at all. That’s why there is one other Western democracy with such a policy. You see, when Congress directs federal spending, it assumes responsibility for allowing the Treasury to what it needs to do to pay for it, period.”

Johnson said that last month’s political battle over increasing the debt limit “undermined the American people’s trust in its political leadership.” (Recent opinion polls give Congress an even lower favorability rating than President Obama.)

The Democrats’ bill has no chance of passing the Republican-controlled House.

The debt limit, first established by Congress in 1917, is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the debt limit provides Congress with the strings to control the federal purse.

It also imposes fiscal accountability, compelling Congress and the president to take visible action (most recently, a very public battle) to allow further federal borrowing when the federal government spends more than it collects.

Along with Rep. Moran and Rep. Johnson, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) is also co-sponsoring the bill to abolish the debt limit.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

National Journal: The Most Liberal Members Of Congress

The Most Liberal Members Of Congress – National Journal

Nine senators tied for most liberal in National Journal’s 2010 Vote Ratings issue. Here’s a look at the 10 most-liberal senators:

For the 10 most-liberal representatives head to the end of the gallery.

Tied for first—Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio

Although he could face a tough reelection battle in 2012, Brown shows no signs of trimming his sails. He was tied as the most-liberal senator in 2009, making it two years straight he’s been tied for most liberal.

Tied for first—Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.

Both Maryland senators tied most-liberal senator in the 2010 vote ratings. Cardin also tied for most-liberal senator in 2009.

Tied for first—Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Leahy was the 29th most-liberal senator in 2009 with a composite score of 73.8.

Tied for first—Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Levin tied for 11th most liberal in the 2009 vote ratings with a composite score of 84.3.

Tied for first—Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

Mikulski ranked eighth most liberal in 2009 with a composite score of 85.2, which was a more-liberal score then the 83.3 that tied her for most liberal in 2010.

Tied for first—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Reid made a big jump to tie as the most-liberal senator in the 2010 ratings. He was 22nd most liberal in 2009 and the 25th most liberal in 2008.

Tied for first—Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Sanders is the only independent senator with a most-liberal vote rating in 2010.

Tied for first—Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.

Stabenow ranked the 21st most-liberal senator in 2009 with a composite score of 78.3.

Tied for first—Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.

Whitehouse also tied for the title of most-liberal senator in 2009.

Tied for 10th—(left to right) Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Jack Reed, D-R.I.

Senators from seven states had identical liberal scores. Gillibrand and Schumer are one set of the pairs.

TOP TEN LIBERAL REPRESENTATIVES

Tied for first—Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Judy Chu, D-Calif., John Lewis, D-Ga., Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., John Olver, D-Mass., Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.

In 2010, four of the 10 most-liberal members of the House were women (pictured above). Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., almost made the list as the 11th most-liberal member in 2010, a big jump from the 51st most liberal in 2009.

Tied for eighth—(left to right) Reps. Edward Markey, D-Mass., George Miller, D-Calif., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

With composite scores of 95.3, Markey, Miller, and McGovern round out the 10 most-liberal members of the House. All three members had a composite score in the 80s in the 2009 vote ratings.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Your Marxist Moron of the day

Democrat Jerrold Nadler does not want to stop at prosecuting CIA agents. OH NO! 

From The Hill: 

Attorney General Eric Holder should expand a special prosecutor’s investigation into detainee abuse during the Bush administration to include high-ranking officials like Vice President Dick Cheney, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday.
 
 Nadler defended Holder’s decision last week to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the abuse and potential torture conducted by CIA officials during the Bush administration.“My criticism of the attorney general is that he should not limit the investigation to people in the field who may have committed torture, but to people who may have ordered it, such as the vice president, for example,” Nadler said during an interview on Fox News.

 

How stupid ARE these people? Seriously, are they truly willing to weaken our country against terror attacks? Are they truly willing to give the terrorists such a gift as this? Do they think this will make us safer? Do they think that punishing OUR intelligence officers will lead to any good for us? Or is the sad truth that Nadler and his ilk are willing to sacrifice American lives to score political points?