Don’t ever believe a Liberal when they say they admire Thomas Jefferson

Some Liberals try to claim Thomas Jefferson as “their” Founding father, which is laughable. Some Democrats try to claim Jefferson as “their” Founding father because the Democratic Republican that Jefferson, along with Madison, and Monroe, and John Quincy Adams among others belonged to would eventually split after the 1824 election into the National Republicans, which did not last long, eventually becoming the Whig Party and the Democratic Party. Of course the Left forgets that the Democratic Party of the 19th Century was the more “Conservative” party. Read the Democratic Party platform for 1840 for example

1. Resolved, That the federal government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the constitution, and the grants of power shown therein, ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government, and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.

5. Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the government, to enforce and practice the most rigid economy, in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised, than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the government.

6. Resolved, That congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people.

You can go read it all, but can you imagine today’s Democratic Party embracing low taxes, or limited federal government? And they claim to adore Jefferson?

What got me thinking about all of this was this picture at 90 Miles From Tyranny

TJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think about that quote from Jefferson ( To be entirely fair, only the first sentence has been attributed to Jefferson. It comes from his drafts of the Virginia State Constitution) In all their efforts to push gun control the Left mocks that quote, they mock anyone who uses that quote, and anyone who references that quote in any way. They mock Jefferson, and they mock his ideals. The same ideals that led him to write the Declaration of Independence, and many of the same ideals held by the rest of the Founders. Democrats cannot have it both ways. They cannot heap praise on Jefferson while at the same time ridiculing Jefferson’s ideals as “extreme”. They cannot admire a man whose ideals they loathe. Remember this the next time you hear some Leftist talking about Jefferson as “their” Founding Father.

How have our leaders grown so stupid in such a short time?

Consider this quote from Thomas Jefferson, via Zion’s Trumpet As you weigh these words of wisdom ask yourself how many of today’s Congressmen would actually say these words and MEAN them!

jefferson-quote-labor

Not many, Hell many would label these the words of an extremist so, my question is how has this happened? What blows me away is that we have grown so very foolish in just 240 years or so. They say those that forget history are bound to repeat it. I am not so sure we have forgotten, we are so far removed from the Founders it as if we never learned it to begin with.

 

 

No Leftists, a right to PURSUE happiness does not include a right NOT to be offended

 

I learned years ago, before I ever started writing op-eds, and long before I started blogging that Liberalism is an ideology of convenience. A Liberal can take a stand on any issue regardless of facts. How convenient that is. Liberalism is also an ideology for the selfish. Not only do liberals think themselves entitled to everyone else’s money, but they think they should be able to express their opinions without any disagreement. See, disagreeing with a Liberal might force them to think about their position on issues, and that would be highly inconvenient. It would also make them unhappy, of course, Liberalism is also an ideology for the pessimistic, but I will save that for another time. Back to the unhappiness that being challenged ideologically brings to a Liberal. This is where Liberals fail to grasp what Jefferson was talking about when he wrote  “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. 

 

Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. with exc...

 

Jefferson writes about the “pursuit” of happiness. No one has a right to be happy, just as they do not have a right not to be offended, or a right to other people’s money. What we do have a right to do is pursue happiness, to live our lives as we see fit, to pursue, and hopefully live our dreams. Jefferson understood, as did the rest of the founders, that the unalienable right we are created with come from God, or at least they are rights that are part of the natural condition of mankind. These rights do not come from government, as Liberals believe. This, of course, makes Liberals unhappy because Liberals love them some government, the bigger the better. Now would be a good time to add another steadfast rule about Liberalism. It is an ideology of government dependence. Liberals look at government as their parents, it is there to protect them, decide for them, run their lives etc.

 

All ,of this makes me laugh when a Liberal tries to call Jefferson THEIR founding father. Jefferson if he lived today, would be loathed by the Left. He would be ridiculed as a Tea Party extremist, and the IRS would likely have thrown him in prison already. Jefferson exemplified everything the Left hates, yet they think feel, because Liberalism is an ideology of emotionalism, that Jefferson would be a Liberal. Boy do they misunderstand Jefferson. And, again, it is all because they fail to grasp what Jefferson meant when he penned the Declaration of Independence. Sorry Liberals, but pursuing happiness is not the same as being happy, and, as Jefferson understood, the pursuit of happiness is greatly hampered by big, intrusive government, but, I suppose y’all will never get that straight either. If Liberals were really honest with themselves, they would admit that THEIR founding father, was not Jefferson, or Madison, of Franklin, or Mason, or Washington, instead it was this lunatic. 

 

A portrait of Karl Marx.

 

But, sadly, many Liberals are not even aware of how closely their ideals and his are connected. If they spent more time thinking, rather than emoting, they might just grasp why I refer to them as Marxists in training

 

H/T to The Other McCain, who is also trying to set Libs straight on what he calls the “Politics of Feeling”. Go read what he says, good stuff, here is a small sample

 

What did Jefferson mean by “happiness,” anyway? Considering that this phrase occurs where “property” would be found in the classic Lockean formulation of rights, Jefferson means “happiness” not as some mere sentimental feeling, but rather in the sense of “good fortune,” which to an 18th-century mind, would mean what we today mean when we say “success” or “prosperity” — the contented enjoyment of the accumulated fruits of one’s labor. Of course, the mind of an 18th-century colonial plantation owner is so remote from our own culture that we might as well try to understand the worldview of the Pharoahs.

Still, my point is exactly this: Our sentimental reverence for these phrases — “We hold these truths to be self-evident” and so forth — hinders our ability to think about what the Declaration was really all about, and unless we have the maturity to transcend our childish emotionalism, we aren’t really thinking, but merely feeling.

This is how we end up in situations where the discussion of public policy is warped by the claim that our arguments are wrong because we might make people feel bad about themselves.

You are a “hater” if you dispute the benefits of affirmative action — not because facts and logic contradict your argument, but because some people have convinced themselves that this policy is a reflection of their value as human beings. Thus, no matter how wrong-headed the policy or how harmful its results, your opposition is indicted as unfair because you’re making people feel bad — you hater!

Beyond that, however, is the point that Thomas Sowell hammers home inThe Vision of the Anointed, namely that liberalism is about making liberals feel good about themselves or, as the book’s subtitle explains,Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

 

 

 

Bob Belvedere on the vital role of state sovereignty

Read what Bob has to say, then I have some comments

It lies in state and county and local officials taking their oaths to The Constitution seriously.

It lies in people like Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County Oregon.

From CNN, Ed Payne and Ric Ward reporting [tip of the fedora to Wombat-Socho's Live At Five]:

An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday. Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller joins several other public officials across the nation who have decided to square off with the White House even before it outlines what its plans are for expanded measures.

Mueller sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden this week saying he won’t enforce any federal regulation “offending the constitutional rights of my citizens.” He won’t permit federal officers to come to his county to enforce such laws either, he said.

Mueller’s defiant stand exploded into a groundswell of support. His letter — posted on the department’s Facebook page — earned more than 59,000 likes and shares — and was growing by the minute.

Bravo, sir.

It lies in thinking like this:

In Texas, a lawmaker said this week that he will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to enforce a federal gun ban.

“At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause,” Republican Rep. Steve Toth told WOAI 1200-AM. “It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama.”

Indeed, it is time for a showdown between the forces that want to aggregate to the national government more powers than those that are enumerated in The Constitution and those of us who believe that it should be followed to the letter.

I could not agree more, it is all our duty to honor the Constitution. The federal government has, over the history of this nation grown far past the intent of the Founders. The Constitution constrained not the people, but the federal government. It enumerated certain rights, natural rights as Franklin called them that neither come from government, or can be restricted by government. That IS the most critical founding principle of this nation. And that principle has been under attack since the very birth of the United States. Alexander Hamilton fought against it, Madison and Jefferson battled for it.

The idea that States have a right to ignore, or even nullify certain federal laws originated after President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, which, in part criminalized speech critical of the government. It was, again, Madison and Jefferson who fought against these laws, writing the Virginia Resolution, which Madison wrote, and the Kentucky Resolution, which Jefferson wrote. Anyone who questions the patriotism of those who still think the States are and ought to be sovereign should read these two pieces of our history

From The Kentucky Resolution

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled “An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States,” (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

5. Resolved. That in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that “the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808” that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.

6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by said act intituled “An Act concerning aliens” is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided that “no person shalt be deprived of liberty without due progress of law”; and that another having provided that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense;” the same act, undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without heating witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to the provision also of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void, and of no force: that transferring the power of judging any person, who is under the protection of the laws from the courts, to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior”; and that the said act is void for that reason also. And it is further to be noted, that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the Executive, and a negative on all Legislative powers.

7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.

8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States: to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal; that the friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but the citizen will soon follow, or rather, has already followed, for already has a sedition act marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, necessarily drive these States into revolution and blood and will furnish new calumnies against republican government, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to, and accepted over the friendly stranger to whom the mild spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicion of the President, than the solid right of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens and for the punishment of certain crimes herein before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, weather general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.

9th. Resolved, That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conference, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of Assembly.

From the Virginia Resolutions

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it’s existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.

That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the “Alien and Sedition Acts” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, “the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this state in the Congress of the United States.

These two wise men are, to me the best possible sources from which to draw on in this debate. The man who penned our Declaration of Independence, and the man who is known as the Father of our Constitution. Two men who were far different from the reactionary politicos we have too many of today. Two men who held the Constitution dear, two men who understood that a federal government, left unchecked, would soon rage out of control, and would subjugate both the States, and the people.

 

If you really want to understand the mind of Chris Matthews…..

…then drive to Crazy Town, take a left turn, past Insaneviile, and keep going until you plunge off Wacko Cliff into the bottomless Sea of Racial Obsession Syndrome. Then you will be where Chris Matthews diseased brain is 

Oh my legs!

What a ludicrous standard! Matthews, how is it possible to speak to the ‘whole’ country? With ‘whole’ for a quantifier, it only takes one to require another pass. Pass, ‘whole’.

Newsbusters:

Minutes after Paul Ryan finished his RNC speech on Wednesday, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews slammed the Republican vice presidential candidate for supposedly ignoring blacks during his “very constricted, very negative, very nasty speech,” and suggested that he was directing the address to racists: “It’s clear that Paul Ryan was talking to people who think about rights as something…produced by Thomas Jefferson, ignoring the people for whom the rights only came in the 1960s.”

Wow! This guy is redefining unhinged on a daily basis. I expect that soon we will see Matthews, in a straighjacket doing his show from a dark cellar and chanting that Chicago is a RAAAAACIST  word!

Matthews then demonstrates his mind-numbing ability to take an idiotic statement, amplify it, and subsequently make it exponentially more idiotic coming from his mouth, when he said this:

“Yea, well let me ask you about that gentleman.  What about now, is this constant barrage of assaults, saying the guy is basically playing an old game of demagoguery politics, where you take the money from the worker bees and give it to the poor people to buy votes.  That’s basically what they’re charging him with. Old big-style, big-city machine of 50 years ago.”

He added, “They keep saying Chicago by the way, have you noticed?  They keep saying Chicago.  That’s another thing that sends that message – this guy’s helping the poor people in the bad neighborhoods, screwing us in the ‘burbs.”

Hielemann helpfully interpreted Matthews statement, presumably for those too challenged to understand basic words (or as we in the business refer to them – Hardball viewers), by making this jaw-dropping statement:

“There’s a lot of black people in Chicago.”

Maybe MSNBS can replace Matthews, and any guests with Eric Cartman of South Park

Good Gief! And I might remind Matthews that it is HIS network that refused to carry many speeches by Black Republicans like Mia Love.

In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.

Throughout this convention, Matthews has accused the Republicans of playing dog-whistle racist politics while on scene in Tampa. It isn’t clear, however, if Matthews will hurl accusations of racism at Davis, Love or Cruz for speeches his network failed to broadcast.

All of this begs the question. Was Chris Matthews crazy before his legs had their first Obamagasm? Or did all those Obamagasms make him nuttier than a truckload of fruitcakes?

When you lift the mask off of public employee union thugs……………

 

………….you see the face of Marxism. Donald Douglas links a great piece from Larry Sand, of the LA Times who writes about why California’s Prop 32 is scaring the union thugs

Michael Hiltzik infers in his column Sunday that Proposition 32 is a big lie — because it prohibits both corporations and labor unions such as the California Teachers Assn. from extracting involuntary political contributions from the paychecks of workers. Hiltzik argues that its prohibition of corporate deductions is of minor impact, but that union political fund-raising will be crippled.

He is amazingly untroubled by the fact that taking such payroll deductions for political purposes without consent is patently immoral. Why should a worker have some of his forced union dues spent on candidates or causes that he doesn’t agree with? As Thomas Jefferson said, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”

Oddly, Hiltzik seems concerned only that the CTA and other public employee unions maintain the ability to build massive political war chests so they can pour tens of millions of dollars into the same types of independent spending efforts that so offend him.

Does it trouble Hiltzik that the CTA’s inexhaustible tap on more than a quarter of a million teacher paychecks has deluded parents into the false belief that their kids are getting a good education? Does it bother him that California’s deteriorating public school system has cheated two generations out of a decent education?

Go read it all, it lays bare one of the biggest problems facing California, and that problem is corruption

Public employee union bosses aren’t spending millions of dollars because they’re worried that the elected officials negotiating their benefits will become accountable to rich people. They’re worried that politicians might become fiscally accountable to the taxpayers.

The CTA bosses aren’t worried that education reform decisions will be made on behalf of corporations. They’re worried about reforms made on behalf of the parents and children of our state.

Bingo! And in the end that is what Marxism really amounts to. Thugs pretending to be fighting for  “power to the people” when all they are really fighting for is to enrich and empower themselves.

For some more and how closely Communists and union thugs, AND our president are aligned check this out from Zombie

 

Walter Williams on how to rid ourselves of Obamacare

Ed touched on Nullification yesterday and today, Walter Williams subbing for Rush touched on it as well

On Rush Limbaugh’s Thursday program, George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams outlined the case that states can nullify Obamacare, citing Thomas Jefferson’s 1789 Kentucky Resolution, which was a claim that the U. S. Constitution is a compact among the several states, and any power not delegated to the U.S. government is void.

“I think the American citizens ought to press their state governors and legislatures just to nullify the law — just to plain nullify it and say, ‘The citizens of such-and-such-a state don’t have to obey Obamacare because it’s unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says,’” Williams said.

Williams cited Marbury v. Madison, which said “all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” to further the case for nullification from the states.

Nullification is a doctrine introduced in the infancy of the United States and was what some have suggested led to the Civil War. As far as the legal precedent of nullification and how it led to the Civil War, Williams said he doubted the repercussions would as serious as they were in 1861.

“I think two things are different this time,” he said. “First, most Americans are against Obamacare. And secondly, I don’t believe — and you call me up and tell me if I’m wrong about this — I don’t believe that you could find a United States soldier who would follow a presidential order to descend on a state to round up or shoot fellow Americans because they refuse to follow a congressional order to buy health insurance.”

Williams is right on here! As he usually is.

If you want to know what is “wrong” with America…..

Consider this post from Andrew Klavan

“If government’s purpose isn’t to improve the health and longevity of its citizens, I don’t know what its purpose is,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg after telling New Yorkers what they can and can’t have to drink.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…” Thomas Jefferson, risking his life to make generations free from Napoleonic buffoons like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

What a stark contrast. Collectivism vs Invidualism, The Nanny State vs Liberty. A fool, Bloomberg, who puts ALL faith in government vs a wise man, Jefferson, who puts faith in Natural Rights.

What a stunner, the Left is re-writing history again

To listen to Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton tell it, you would think that the American Revolution was led by Marxists. Sheesh!

Too bad Mark Dayton isn’t running for national office.  Otherwise, I’d love to see Chris Wallace ask Dayton the “flake” question after Dayton’s explanation of the American Revolution to Minnesotans last week, an explanation that went largely unnoticed.  Minnesota’s governor has shut down state government in an effort to force the Republican-led legislature to hike taxes on the wealthy in a state that’s already ranked 43rd in the nation for tax climate, and attempted to justify this stand by hearkening back to our forefathers:

It is significant that this shutdown will begin on the 4th of July weekend.  On that date, we celebrate our independence.  It also reminds us that there are causes and principles worth struggling for – worth even suffering temporary hardships to achieve.

Our American Revolution was very much about fair and just taxes, where the middle-class was over-taxed while the very rich went tax-free.  In the absence of fair taxes, the basic services people relied upon for their health and well-being were denied them.

Er … riiiiiiiight.  The American Revolution, led by wealthy landowners and businessmen like John Hancock, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the moneyed class revolted against the Crown for forced redistribution of wealth via government.  Damn the History Channel for not covering this aspect of the Revolution!

So, is the governor REALLY that stupid? Or is he just assuming that Minnesota voters are that stupid? Either way, he wins our Marxist Moron of the Day Award

How can we live with the far Left? How indeed?

Bob Belvedere, a normally fun guy is, in his own words despondent over then future of America

I don’t know what Jeff Goldstein would say about what Mr. Steyn has written, but I do know that he understands how serious the situation is. And he’s determined to fight [tip of the fedora to Paco]:

We have pissed away the greatest experiment ever conceived in self-government. And watching helplessly as the left moves us ever closer to the rule of man — where government is all-powerful and can determine our rights for us, granting them or removing them at a whim based on a clearly farcical “reading” of, eg., the Commerce Clause — should remind us just how precious liberty is.

We shan’t go down without a fight. Once this country is unrecognizable as this country, the time will come once again to declare our independence.

We are a people who were born in freedom. Let the rest of the world suffer in servitude to the state. That ain’t us. And it won’t be — at least, not so long as we still have a voice and a will and the desire to be free. And those who wish to do us harm had better stop underestimating our resolve.

Wolverines.

As for myself, I have lately become more despondent, seriously questioning if we can hold The Union together. There’s just too many differences between us. Short of exiling of all Leftists, I don’t see how the Right and the Left can continue to live together much longer. The two side have totally different views of Life and Reality. If, by Divine Providence, we were to get the Progressives out of government at all levels and reconstitute said governments under the Founding Principles, you know the Left would immediately begin scheming to get back into power and, since they live by the philosophy of ‘by any means necessary’, since they have no moral sense, they would do whatever it took, twisting the law and usurping it, to regain power — because that is what they care about the most.

Leftism is incompatible with American Values. It despises custom, morality, and Right Reason. It rejects the importance of tradition and, in fact, scorns and spits on it. Leftists seek not to learn from the wisdom of those who have come before them. They disdain the hard-won knowledge that politics is the art of the possible. They seek to remake the world in their image, to be as gods.

How can you deal with such people?

You can’t because they believe they have found The Answer — that secret knowledge that the man of the Right believes can only be known to God. The Left believes mankind can be perfected, whereas those on the Right know that Human Beings are, well, human, in the purest sense of the that word — they err and will always err, they are flawed and will always fail.

Thus, the Right seeks to craft governments and institutions that put checks on the damage erring men can do. The Left, on the other hand, believing that people can be perfected, sees no reason for such restraints. Their faith in the idea that the Eschaton can be Immanentized, leads them to brook no opposition because, well, how can you oppose the Illuminated Wisdom they have discovered unless you’re an idiot or a fool? It is a torturous logic they follow and it leads, inevitably, given the frustrations they will experience imposing it on their flawed fellow Human Beings, to them torturing their fellow Human Beings. And it has in every single place it has been tried.

So, there is no possible way normal reasonable people can deal with such people — nor should they because they will be outgunned every time because, unlike themselves, the Left will not feel any pressure to conform to the rules of Right Reason and civilization. The Right plays by a set of rules first forged by the hand of God on Mount Sinai; the Left makes up it rules as it goes along, believing the ends [Illumination, Heaven On Earth] justify the means [anything goes].

It is inevitable that the two sides will clash and that, eventually, the chances are very good that this clash will escalate to the battlefield. This is especially true in The United States, where the belief in constitutional government is the strongest.

The Left will not compromise in the ends they desire to force upon us — they are the most feverish and fervid and fanatical of believers, who are unbound to any sense of morality.

We on the Right must not compromise because we have an obligation to those who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor that we might be born free, and to the American children born and those to be born to hand them what was given to us.

‘We might have been a free and great people together’, wrote Thomas Jefferson, and he was right in speaking of the American Colonies and Britain, but the same does not apply to the Left and the Right in The United States — there was never a chance that we could coexist for too long with people who despise everything we believe and everything we, as Americans, are.

Great thoughts, I fear for this nation too, anyone who understands our founding principles does. Every year, we move farther and farther away from those principles, and every year we slide deeper into the morass of Marxism.

There are those who will scoff at Bob’s belief that the Left are the true fanatics seeking to force their religion, Marxism, down all of our throats. But, nothing could be more obvious. The Left practices no tolerance, nor does it embrace, in the least, any diversity. The Left welcomes only those who march and speak in lock step with the Left. Those who do not are targeted for utter destruction.

The does not seek compromise, or common ground. It seeks nothing but total control of our lives. The Collectivist Left believes to their very core that people are not fit, nor are they capable of self-determination. The Left loathes the Individual because an individual is a threat. A threat to the very ideal of Collectivism. Dennis Prager has said, quite correctly, that the larger the State, the smaller the individual. That is the certain truth. The Left believes that “rights” are to be given, or taken by the State according to whatever benefits not the individual, but the State!

History has shown that the Left will do anything to bring about their vision for mankind. Violence, intimidation, rigging elections, lying, and any other means are justified because the Left seeks to place their Utopian vision of State enforced Collectivism on all of us.

So, can we “get along”? Coexist? Work together? I fail to see how. two sides so divided can never work together because a common goal is needed for cooperation. The Left and Right have no common goals. They are, in the end polar opposites, and one will eventually win. Pray with all your heart that it is the Individualists that win, it is the only hope for America.

Can you say strangulation by regulation boys and girls?

I knew you could. For those who always whine that we need big government to protect us all from, well, pretty much everything, and for those who say “if it just saves one life” this is for you to chew on

I got another chain email recently, this one highlighting the wordiness of today’s bureaucracy:

• The Lord’s Prayer: 70 words.

• 10 Commandments: 331 words.

• Declaration of Independence: 1,322 words.

• U.S. Constitution: 7,794 words.

• Government Regulations on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words.

Ha ha! Good point! Except the last example isn’t true, as Snopes revealed.

But it would be true had the email just substituted cheese for cabbage. The FDA devotes 34,823 words to the regulation of cheese.

Other agencies add more words, and we end up with contradictory rules-the ones that tell us to eat fewer dairy products, but also to eat more cheese.

Yet they keep adding more words.

More words, more regulations, and now, no one can keep up with all the regs, and it is just getting worse and that includes at the state level too. Since our state, and federal legislatures are so eager to pass laws, and legislate, why don’t they get busy and start repealing about 95% of this crap?

Meet Obama’s newest hire

After reading about the woman Obama has appointed, all I can say is YIKES!

Obama has announced the appointment of Azizah al-Hibri to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Al-Hibri (full name, Azizah Yahia Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri) is a Muslim professor and the granddaughter of a Sheikh, who claims that the Koran inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founders and that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.

Appointing a Muslim scholar to a commission on international religious freedom is only justifiable if that scholar recognized that much of the injustice in the world originates from Islamic law. But Al-Hibri has made her career whitewashing Islamic law and even presenting it as superior to American law. While she has been called a reformer, her call in 2001 for a return to the fundamentals echoes Wahhabi rhetoric. Rather than examining the incompatibilities of Islamic law and the modern world, and urging the appropriate adjustments, as genuine reformers have done, Al-Hibri instead builds myths that uphold the Islamist agenda.

According to Al-Hibri, “Islamic fiqh is deeper and better than Western codes of law”. She favorably compares Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accept blood money bribes to excuse a murder, to the “impersonal and powerful” American justice system. Al-Hibri is often billed as a Muslim feminist, but she is equally hypocritical on women’s rights. Rather than conceding that Islamic law discriminates against women, she whitewashes its discriminatory treatment of women, arguing that guardianship is meant to protect “inexperienced women”.

Sadly, Obama bringing in yet another radical stuns me not at all.

Palinphobia outbreaks all over USA

I was listening to Michael Medved yesterday on the drive home. He, along with George Will, and Charles Krauthammer, and other select “establishment Republicans” are, and have been telling us that Sarah Palin could never become our nominee, and that if she did, she would lose badly to Barack Obama. And, I admit to having my own doubts about her ability to win next November. I think her biggest obstacle would be overcoming the damage done her by the media, which has painted her as an idiot, unable to lead etc.

One thing, though, keeps me from counting her out, and that is the fact that Democrats are SO damned afraid of her. If they thought she was no threat, they would be doing their best to get her nominated next November wouldn’t they? Of course they would, so, before you count her out, ask yourself the question that William Teach looks into today. Why are they so afraid of Palin?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: for someone who is supposed to be a lightweight, stupid, and has no chance of being president, Palin sure scares the panty shields off of the liberal media and the GOP intelligentsia, and The Politico is there to make sure they tell us once again that Palin is not serious: Sarah Palin’s bus tour leaves GOP cold

Let me pause here to remind y’all that a lot of the GOP “elites” were sure Reagan could never win in 1980 either. Sometimes, I wonder if the GOP leadership really does not trust us, the GOP voters to elect who we want, maybe their noses are just a bit too elevated to let too “common” a candidate get elected. Or perhaps they fear for their power? Anyway, back to William Teach’s look into what I am calling Palinphobia

As it played out on TV this week, Sarah Palin’s “One Nation” road trip of U.S. historical sites was a masterpiece of political mischief-making – a wild dash up the East Coast that delighted her fans and cornered the market on 2012 coverage for days on end.

That’s not how the bus tour looked to Republicans on the ground, many of whom are more convinced than ever that the former Alaska governor is simply not serious about running for president.

While Palin has reveled in giving an extended one-fingered salute to the national press, refusing to give out details about her travel schedule and forcing reporters to literally chase her vehicle up I-95 in order to cover her, she reached out to precious few activists and party leaders in the states she visited. And the locals have noticed, leaving them scratching their heads and looking for a rationale for a candidacy.

Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Rob Gleason, whose state hosted Palin on visits to Gettysburg and the Liberty Bell, voiced a common exasperation about Palin’s tour: “I don’t think theater wins elections.”

O RLY? How’d Obama Theater work out?

“Running for president is a very serious thing and you need to deal with it as such,” Gleason said. “I’m looking for party builders.”

In other words, he’s looking for, like so many of the GOP insiders and wishy washy Republicans, someone just like him, who plays the same old tired political game. One would think that the rise of the TEA Party and the historic mid-term blowout, which included so many TEA Party supported candidates, would have given the GOP establishment a clue. Apparently not.

BINGO! This is about keeping the same old, same old “moderate” in other words non-principled Republicans in power. Those Republicans who put principles BEFORE politics are only allowed to rise so far by the would-be elites of the GOP. In the end, the self-appointed GOP elites are about politics before principles. They are, in short men and women that are nothing like our Founders. Their desire to keep their power and place in the pecking order is far stronger than their comittment to America’s founding principles. 

Consider this bit from the Politico link.

Former New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen, who noted that “the normal laws of political gravity don’t seem to apply to Sarah Palin,” said the catch-me-if-you-can act has to end sooner or later, all the same.

“At some point the establishment has to be paid its due,” he said. “She gets sort of an initial pass, but at some point the goodwill gets used up.”

In other words Palin is not “playing ball”, and therefore can not be allowed to win. You want to know what I think about the “establishment” of the GOP? It is a sad commentary, but if Thomas Jefferson, or James Madison,  or Benjamin Franklin, or George Mason were to come back to life, and seek to win the nomination, they would likely receive the same treatment from the establishment types. They were great and all, but they would surely be deemed too, unconventional.

I am certainly thankful we did not have the gutless wonder GOP elites around in 1776, if they had been, we would still be a colony.

Indiana as a police state?

Robert R. Livingston

Image via Wikipedia

I, for the life of me cannot figure this ruling out, and neither can Duane Lester who thinks Thomas Jefferson might be ready to drop the gloves on this one

I don’t even know how to comprehend how an American can come to this conclusion, let alone three Americans sitting on a court:

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

I believe that when the Rapture happens and the dead rise from the grave, Thomas Jefferson is going to kick the crap out of that guy.

How can any judge trained in American law find this logical? It’s ok for a cop to violate your rights and you shouldn’t do anything to stop it. But later, after you’ve suffered through the abuse of power, you can file a grievance.

Basically, this ruling also denies residents of the Hoosier State their basic right of self-defense. The majority opinion state that the risk of injury or increased  violence. Duane finds a similar issue as to self-defense.

Can a cop fondle a woman? Would it be better to let a cop unlawfully handle a female’s body than allow her to resist? After all, “allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

This is an incredibly dangerous and misguided ruling. The Founders are no doubt rolling in their graves over this. Remember the 4th Amendment?

Why can’t Liberals get this through their heads?

Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. with exc...

Image via Wikipedia

The greater the number of regulations, and the higher the taxes, the worse the economy will be. It is a simple truth that truly wise men, like Thomas Jefferson got, yet, the educated elites amongst today’s Liberals simply cannot, or more likely will not accept it. Milton Wolf has a piece that clearly shows how the ever growing Nanny Statism, and over taxing in New York is driving New Yorkers out!

Hey New Yorkers, how’s your nanny-state mayor working out for you?

Mayor Bloomberg has set his cross hairs on trans fat foods, sugary sodas, plastic shopping bags, outdoor smoking … jobs, low taxes … but I’m sure he knows what’s best for you.

New Yorkers under 30 plan to flee city, says new poll; cite high taxes, few jobs as reasons

A new Marist College poll shows that 36% of New Yorkers under the age of 30 are planning to leave New York within the next five years – and more than a quarter of all adults are planning to bolt the Empire State.

The New York City suburbs, with their high property values and taxes, are leading the exodus, the poll found.

Of those preparing to leave, 62% cite economic reasons like cost of living, taxes – and a lack of jobs.

What fools like Bloomberg fail to learn is that people, by their very nature, yearn for liberty, and not for a government to take the place of their parents, or to rob them of most of their earnings. The Liberal Utopia is a place that exists not in any reality, but only in the deluded minds of the Collectivists like Bloomberg. People like Bloomberg wish to use government to control people, through taxes and regulations, and that is a recipe that will never work out. It never has, and it never can because it goes against the natural order that God created. Chief in that natural order is that people are indeed endowed, not by government, but by their Creator with certain natural rights. Any form of government that runs contradictory of this simple truth will fail miserably.

Face it Bloomberg, you can no more change God’s will or design than you can stem the tides or still the rivers He created. Yes Mayor Bloomberg, it turns out that God IS a whole lot smarter than you are. Part of the wisdom of Jefferson, Franklin, Mason, Washington, and Madison was that they could accept the simple truths, Leftist madmen can never accept those truths. Men like you, Mayor, will never possess wisdom, because, unlike our Founders, you seek to elevate yourself, and government above both mankind and the God that Created mankind.

Nullification? Sounds like a darn good idea to me

Before you read this post from Adrienne, remember that nullification was a principle that two guys named Jefferson and Madison argued for. I know many today view any talk of nullification as wacky, but I ask you to consider this. If it was good enough for the Father of the Constitution and the author of the Declaration of Independence, shouldn’t it be good enough for us? Idaho thinks so

After leading the nation last year in passing a law to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, Idaho’s Republican-dominated Legislature now plans to use an obscure 18th century doctrine to declare President Barack Obama’s signature bill null and void. Lawmakers in six other states — Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming — are also mulling “nullification” bills, which contend states, not the U.S. Supreme Court, are the ultimate arbiter of when Congress and the president run amok.

It’s a concept that’s won favor among many tea party adherents who believe Washington, D.C., is out of control.

Again, I can hear those “David Brooks Republicans” heaving and fretting over the extremist nature of such an act. But, again, I suggest we ask ourselves, who is smarter Brooks, or Thomas Jefferson

Back in 1799, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his “Kentucky Resolution,” a response to federal laws passed amid an undeclared naval war against France, that “nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts… is the rightful remedy.

Still not convinced? OK, let us weigh the wisdom of Madison

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, “the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now remember, what two of our Founders wrote and thought when you hear some pointed headed pseudo elite bashing the ideal of nullification as extreme or dangerous. And surely Idaho and other states which take up this principle will be castigated and marginalized by those who neither understand or appreciate our founders, their wisdom, our the true meaning of liberty!

Yep, that pretty much sums it up for me

Don Surber lets the Leftist hypocrites who are whining about “civility” have it, with, both barrels!

For a decade, from the election of Bush 43 forward, the Left has lied and cheated as it tried to return to power. Al Gore made a mockery out of the American electoral system by being a spoilsport over Florida, which Bush indeed won by 537 votes. Dan Rather forged a document to try to derail Bush’s re-election. Twice Democrats stole U.S. senators from the Republicans. After voting to support the war to get by the 2002 election, many Democrats quickly soured on the war. The profane protests were cheered by liberals who misattributed “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” to Thomas Jefferson; the words belong to the late historian Howard Zinn.

Once in power, liberals were the opposite of gracious.

For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”

Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.

Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.

Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

Bite me.

I love this piece, be sure to read it all!