This Is What Is Wrong With Washington DC

Linking to Hot Air headlines because I won’t link to Politico.

“This is the first time that I can remember being confronted by members of the Congress, my colleagues, who say, ‘I don’t care if I get reelected or not, I want to cut the budget by $100 billion or whatever,’” said a bewildered Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who was first elected to Congress in 1964. “I’ve never seen that kind of a member before. … It’s a dangerous point of view from my perspective.”

And those freshmen that are scaring the tarnation out of the radical Leftist John Conyers? They’re doing precisely what the Founders envisioned.

When Your News Loses To RED EYE

… you’re in trouble. And that’s where CNN’s primetime news sits. Red Eye, the irreverent opinion/comedy show that airs on FOX News at 3am Eastern, has higher ratings than CNN’s primetime serious news program.

Live Action Shreds Democrat Lies Again

“If you cut Planned Parenthood off from Medicaid funding, you take away well woman care from poor women.” That’s the Democrat/Planned Parenthood lie. And Live Action does what it does best: A barely undercover operation proving the Democrat/Planned Parenthood lie to be just that.

Ed Morrissey has the story. Do read the whole thing, but here is a snippet:

Be sure to read Live Action’s fact-check of Planned Parenthood’s claims in Indiana. PP claims 9300 Medicaid patients in Indiana, which is less than 1% of all Medicaid patients in the state. They have 28 locations in Indiana, which would be 3.5% of all qualified Medicaid providers in the state if Planned Parenthood still qualified. Those 28 clinics performed 5,580 abortions last year, which comes to 200 per clinic, or darned near one a weekday in each clinic — and over half of all abortions performed in Indiana in 2010. It doesn’t appear that non-abortion work is so significant that it can’t get absorbed by non-abortionists in the vicinity, as even Planned Parenthood clinics themselves point out to callers.

There are more non-abortion well-woman care clinics in Indiana than there are Planned Parenthood abortion mills in Indiana. There is no need for a woman to go to Planned Parenthood for well-woman care, because there are plenty other places a woman can go. Places that accept Medicaid.

There goes another Leftist lie down the drain.

More Evidence American Education Has Failed

Liberals love to claim all that is needed to fix our education system is More Taxpayer Money. That’s their mantra. It doesn’t matter that funding for K-12 has skyrocketed while outcomes have been flat-to-negative. Just pump more money into the broken system; don’t actually fix or replace the broken system. I have two examples where “money” isn’t the answer. Requiring students to learn and failing them if they don’t is.

About ten years ago, I saw a billboard in Mansfield, OH advertising “SOFA’S” and I pointed it out to my daughter. She laughed at it as I did. Last night, while scrolling through the TV programming guide, I found this nugget:

History Channel
Modern Marvels
PG, TV-PG Secret Underground Education.
(2010) A look under the feet of American’s, from
secret military installations and experimental
farms to tunnel networks and neutron lasers.

A perusal of the A&E career opportunity listings shows a college education requirement plus years of experience. Perhaps the person responsible for the above History Channel program guide was merely an intern (if A&E uses interns), but that would mean a college student wrote it. The person still would have had to have been a high school graduate (or equivalent) to hold the job.

(For those with public educations and cannot figure out what I’m hitting, there is a difference between a plural and a possessive.)

The phony “gap bridger”

His blog is called, remarkably, “Bridging the Gap.” Why? Because, apparently, he wants both sides to “come together” to solve our nation’s problems. We’re talking about our old pal Perry. However, much like the LGOMB, he doesn’t really mean it. They are just words.

Take a look at Perry today in a thread over at Common Sense Political Thought:

Now I am no history buff, but I do know this: Many of the Founders were slave owners, women were not permitted to vote, and the Founders conceived of an electoral college to protect the powerful from the will of the people should the people get too much out of line with their voting. (Link.)

This premise was then challenged by me, among others. Perry refused to back back up his claim about the Electoral College.

I then wrote this about the Founding Fathers and slavery:

It is quite obvious you’re not a history buff, Herr Fossil, for you, like way too many faux “progressives,” seek to impose 21st century values upon what were indeed very forward-thinking people. Though many owned slaves (an accepted practice back then, BTW), many spoke out against it and began efforts to cease the practice.

GOP presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann recently got heat from the MSM (surprise, that) for a remark she made about the Founders working to end slavery. The fact is, she is correct. Even Abraham Lincoln backs this up, as well as the words of many of the Founders themselves.

But this doesn’t matter to Perry. He responds:

Making a law which made a black man 3/5 of a white man is hardly “working hard to end slavery”, in my view. That slavery persisted for another 70 plus years, with the vestiges of slavery evident to this very day, can hardly be construed as working hard enough to end slavery for once and for all. Moreover, it appears to me that racism remains alive today – ask most any black person about that. Better is not good enough!!!

When I asked Perry just why the 3/5 Compromise was constructed, here is what we get in reply:

The very existence of a 3/5 compromise apparently is fine with you, Hube, regardless of when it was instituted. I note that Repubs like yourself are more than happy to strive to restore that 3/5 fraction again, by your actions against ACORN and your current efforts to suppress the vote. Racism is not dead yet in the Republican Party.

That sure is some “gap bridging” there, is it not??

For those who may not know much about the 3/5 Compromise (and are modest enough not to make fools of themselves, like Perry did), take a look. And if Perry is reading, you especially need to look here:

The following false statements are just three examples of inaccurate interpretations that persist regarding the three/fifths compromise :

• the 3/5s compromise of 1788 . . . enshrined slavery in the United States Constitution
• African Americans in this country were considered only 3/5s human at one point in history.
• We tried “compromise” and declared blacks to be 3/5s human.

The gap that Perry really needs to bridge is the one that exists in his head.

Mitt Romney, The R&D Candidate

This 2012 election cycle will be the most highly-charged election cycle in my memory (and I remember the Carter/Reagan cycle). There is more at stake in 2012 than there has been since World War II. The battle lines have been drawn and positions on the issues stand in stark contrast. The difference between the Conservative agenda and the Liberal agenda is unbridgeable.

Enter Mitt Romney. (HT LaborUnionReport for the video)

So, Mitt was for it before bein agin it. Or was he agin it before bein for it? Or is he agin bein for it or for bein agin it?

If you’re Pro-Life, you cannot vote for Mitt because he’s pro-abortion.
If you’re pro-abortion, you cannot vote for Mitt because he’s Pro-Life.

If you oppose mandates, you cannot vote for Mitt because he likes mandates.
If you like mandates, you cannot vote for Mitt because he opposes mandates.

And the beat goes on.

Mitt Romney is straddling the fence, trying to play both sides. In this charged atmosphere, that fence is electrified, and the amperage keeps increasing. The growing differences between Conservatives and Liberals means the electric fence is growing taller. Mitt Romney is doing his best to straddle a 6-foot-tall, fully electric fence. And we know what happens when you try to do that.

Sure would be nice if Romney tried a little integrity.

Senator Johnson Hits Hypocritical Democrats Hard

In an earlier article, I wrote about Congressman Kelly hitting hypocritical Democrats hard. Now it’s the Senate’s turn. Ron Johnson (R – WI) hammers the hypocritical Democrats, using a TEA Party tactic — focusing in on the Rule of Law.

HT ColdWarrior

Congress has not passed a Budget in roughly 800 days. The Democrat-controlled Congress didn’t even try to pass a budget in 2010 — despite the Constitutional requirement to do so — because they knew doing so would cost them a lot of seats in Congress. Harry Reid declared the Senate will not bother with a budget this year. And, in fact, the Senate Budget Committee hasn’t even bothered to start a mark-up for a budget — despite the Constitutional requirement to do so.

What is Senator Ron Johnson (R – WI) going to do about it? He’s going to use Senate Rules (that thing the Constitution says the Senate writes for itself) to put the pressure on. If the Senate does not do its duty regarding the Budget process, and do so in the open, “unanimous consent” will be far less common, as Senator Johnson intends to object and withhold consent. Will this force the Senate to do a budget? No, not at all. But it could effectively shut down Senate business. “I ask unanimous consent that the [bill/amendment] be considered as read.” “I object.” Then the bill or amendment would have to be read in its entirety, each bill, each amendment, each reading. How long does it take to read aloud a 1,000-page bill? How long does it take to read aloud each of 100 amendments to the bill? How much business can be accomplished if every word of every bill and every amendment has to be read aloud before any debate begins?

To Senator Ron Johnson’s (R – WI) planned course of action in staring down the unconstitutional activities of Harry Reid (D – NV) and the rest of the hypocritical Senate Democrats (who are busily lambasting Republican budget plans), I say “Yes! Yes! A thousand times, yes!”

Politico Performs A Hit Job On Michele Bachmann

And Law Professor William A Jacobson promptly shreds it … with facts. Definitely go read the article. It’s brief and to the point. Here’s Professor Jacobson’s closing statement:

This article signifies so much of what has gone wrong at Politico. The headline is catchy and will result in traffic, and the page one money line is inflammatory against a rising Republican candidate. But the story is thinly thought out, and the facts which contradict the headline are not revealed until later pages.

I won’t be linking Politico here, and I try not to link Politico at any time. For those who are unaware of the reasons, find out about Politico v College Politico over at Patterico. It is also important to note that Politico has among its stable of authors members of the notorious and dishonest JournoList, who were more than willing to intentionally falsely accuse “someone, it doesn’t matter who” of being racist to protect Obama/Wright/Ayers during the 2008 election cycle.

In short, the Politico hit job on Bachmann was a work of moral depravity.

Let My Criminals Go

Moses told Pharoah “Let my people go!” Obama told the legal system “Let my criminals go!” And he’s still doing it.

Practically as soon as Obama became President, he began his process of freeing his favored criminals. The New Black Panther Party, and certain members of it, were guilty of voter intimidation and other things resulting from their criminal actions in Philadelphia during the 2008 election. The Obama administration dropped the charges after judgment was rendered.

Operation Fast and Furious/Gunrunner. Illegal purchases and transport of firearms from US to Mexico under the watchful and approving eye of the Obama Administration. The gun dealers dutifully notified the authorities, who told them to let it happen. As a result, hundreds if not thousands of guns were illegally bought and walked into Mexico. Two American law enforcement officials were murdered as a direct result. This was going to be a backdoor way to create more Anti-Second Amendment laws and regulations. Until the news of the Obama Administration’s involvement went viral. Fast and Furious/Gunrunner was stopped immediately after it became public knowledge, but not before the damage was already done. How many people were murdered? How many lives destroyed? How much thug rule was created and advanced because the Obama Administration refused to do its Constitutionally-required job?

Now another story breaks wide open, causing the Obama Administration to put a halt to another of its secret Unconstitutional efforts to free criminals from the jaws of Justice. Judicial Watch has the story.

DHS Stealth Amnesty Cover Up Exposed

Last Updated: Mon, 06/27/2011 – 2:34pm

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security lied to Congress and the media to cover up a secret amnesty program that dismissed the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

The scandalous story of how the government agency charged with keeping America safe systematically cancels pending deportations was first reported by Texas’s largest newspaper last year. The remarkable program stunned the legal profession and baffled immigration attorneys who say the government bounced their clients’ deportation even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed.

After the story broke other media outlets began to dig around and Senate leaders launched an investigation into the stealth amnesty program that led to a 40% increase in the dismissal of deportations last year. Homeland Security officials denied it existed and scrambled to conceal details, according to new information revealed by the newspaper that originally cracked the story.

So, Obama’s DHS ordered its people to dismiss deportation proceedings against illegal aliens, including criminal illegal aliens (All illegal aliens are criminal. That’s the definition of “illegal alien”.) that is illegal aliens that have committed crimes since arriving in the US illegally or illegally staying beyond their time limit. And some of those crimes those illegal aliens committed while being in the US illegally include sex crimes.

Why is the Obama Administration so cavalier when it comes to rape victims? Why is the Obama Administration so cavalier when it comes to murder victims? Why is the Obama Administration so cavalier when it comes to voter intimidation? Why does the Obama Administration so willingly violate Federal Law and the US Constitution?

And why do any Americans support him or his administration?

Blagojevich Guilty

HT Hot Air headlines

UPDATE: HUBE NOTES AT COLOSSUS OF RHODEY THAT AP DIDN’T FEEL BLAGO’S POLITICAL AFFILIATION WORTHY OF NOTE.
This happens with regularity. Democrats don’t get noted as such but Republicans are pointed out very early on in the articles.

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (Democrat) was found guilty on 17 counts and not guilty on one count, with two no-decisions. From my previous reading, Blago was facing a cumulative 300+ years in prison. There is no doubt all the sentences will be concurrent and there will be no consecutive sentencing. I disagree with that philosophy.

I believe each conviction should carry its own penalty and not be dissolved into the penalty for a different conviction. If a person is convicted of two separate crimes with 10-year sentencing, the person should have a 20-year sentence. At the very least, each successive conviction should add years to the sentence, if time is involved in the first place. But I also don’t believe prison time should be the major punishment for most crimes.

This is where I segue from Blago to general official reaction to criminal activity.

If a person steals a stereo with a replacement value of $500, doing another $2,000 damage in the process, that is a total cost to the victim of $2,500. The penalty for that should be $10,000 from the criminal’s pocket to the victim’s pocket (four times the value of the theft and damages) plus all costs accrued in the investigation and prosecution of the criminal. In addition, all the residual effects of being a felon should remain. That would include no longer being able to vote and no longer being able to buy, sell, or possess firearms. I would include no longer being eligible to hold any political office of any sort and no longer being eligible for any government pension. Add “community service” if you must, but prison time should not be involved, except for holding a person in jail until the trial is over, if necessary.

What happens if the size of the fine would completely wipe out the criminal and his wife and children? The criminal should’ve thought of that before committing the crime. It’s nobody’s fault but his (and his wife’s for staying with him, if she knew about it). Take it all from the criminal and let him shoulder the responsibility for his actions. The wife and kids can start over without him.

This sort of justice system would quickly empty out most of the prisons and likely reduce the overall crime rate, especially if applied to the very first crime and every subsequent crime. The prisons could then be used to house violent criminals, with every murderer waiting (for a short duration) on Death Row.

I don’t believe in Life Sentences. If someone committed a heinous enough crime to be sentenced to Life, that person committed a heinous enough crime to have that life artificially shortened. There are some people who believe people like that should suffer a very long time and Death would kill the suffering. To those people, I say Hell is real. And Hell is far more torturous than anything any human has ever dreamed possible, so the vast majority of murderers will already be facing a very long time of suffering.

For those who claim the Death Penalty does not work as a deterrent, answer me this: How many people have been sentenced to death, served out their sentence, and murdered again? Aside from that, I have seen statistical evidence showing a drop in violent crime immediately following an execution, to rise back to its previous levels a few weeks later. While correlation does not prove causation, correlation and causation are often tied together, and the correlation between executions and drops in violent crime does exist.

For those who claim Life is just as good as Death because the criminal will never get out again, I have a response. There is never any crime committed behind prison walls? Never a violent crime committed behind prison walls? Of course there is violent crime, including rape and murder, behind prison walls. And Life will allow more of those crimes to be committed than will Death. Violent criminals have been known to escape prison from time to time. They’re less likely to do so if they’re dead. Leftist governors have been known to commute Life to “time served.” Those violent criminals have been known to return to their life of violent crime. That’s less likely to happen if the criminal is dead.

For those who say it’s more expensive to have someone on Death Row than serving Life, and use that as an excuse to not have Death Row, your thinking is very much askew. Deal with the ridiculous Leftist-pushed costs involved instead of letting the Leftists make the right thing become so expensive that you’re willing to do the wrong thing.

Criminal Justice should not be about rehabilitation. It should be about justice. Punish the criminal, make it hurt, make the criminal think twice before committing another crime. Make the victim as whole as possible. And do it in such a way as to cost society as little as possible. Putting a thief behind bars more often than not costs society more in terms of tax dollars used than the underlying crime itself did.

By the way, I got my idea for sentencing thieves and murderers straight from the world’s best-selling book.

Postmodernism Sucks

… informed reasoning right out of the Leftists’ minds. Ravi Zacharias hits the nail on the head in this video.

I have repeatedly railed against the Leftists for their absolute refusal to examine context and for their continuous historical revisionism, their refusal to examine histo-facts. I had not even considered the anti-intellectual postmodern movement and its ramifications, but that’s really where the problem lies.

Watch the whole video. Ravi tells a hilarious tale at the end, but it nails the postmodern Leftists (redundancy) squarely between the eyes. Thanks to aotc for the video.

Sidenote: Unfortunately, all of aotc’s comments will start out in moderation due to her moniker fighting my moderation filter. But anyone who types out my name will also run into the moderation filter, so there’s that.

Where I Give John Ziegler More Attention

than he deserves.

Congressman Kelly Hits Hypocritical Democrats Hard

The previous Republican wave election, 1994, saw a large number of Conservative freshmen hit the stage. In 1995, after the wave election was seated, the House of Representatives went into session and commenced with their standard Committee hearings. And Democrats thought it was business as usual. A particular incident is burned into my memory. During one particular Committee hearing, a Democrat was busy giving his speech, where he was using boilerplate scare tactics and lies about the “meanie” Republicans. A Freshman Republican got out of his seat, walked over to the lying Democrat, pointed down at a section of the stack of papers in front of the Democrat. And the Democrat immediately shut up.

It was a banner day. It was definitely a shot across the bow. These Freshman Republicans were not going to lie down and take it. They were not going to “go along to get along” as the Democrats ran their typical lie-and-smear-and-fear-monger campaign. These Freshman Republicans were going to call the Democrats on their “life as usual” lies. And that lasted for a while, until the Statist Republicans once again took over — especially after Statist George W Bush got elected.

Enter 2010. Another wave election. This time even larger than the historic 1994 elections. This time a grass-roots wave election instead of the Top-Down wave of 1994. And the Committees of 2011. And we have a new banner day as obvious TEA Party Republican Representative Mike Kelly from Pennsylvania utterly crushes the Democrats.

HT Jazz Shaw

I’m trying to understand the criticism of Mr. Ryan’s budget from the side that didn’t even have the courage to pass a budget. To sit there now and rail about Mr. Ryan’s budget, about how it’s so ineffective and how it doesn’t work is, to me, the greatest, most hypocritical statement I’ve heard since coming here. And I’ve got to tell you something… I’m not speaking as a Republican here, I’m speaking as an American. You want to know why the public opinion of Congress is so low? It’s because we don’t listen.

If you want to start the reelection campaign and the strategy for 2012 now, that’s fine. But how about we just fix what’s broken? Instead of standing here pointing fingers at each other, let’s quit spending money we don’t have, let’s not keep borrowing money and using our kids and our grandkids as note signers.

Let’s stop railing against the really wealthy, because I’ve got to tell you something. As a guy who has had to pay his own way his whole life I am greatly offended by the idea that somehow somebody in Washington knows how to spend my money better than I do. That somebody in Washington knows how to regulate me to the point where I can’t even borrow money any more. You want to talk about people who are afraid? The small banks. They’re scared to death to do anything. Why? Because their government has such onerous regulations on them anymore that they don’t know about the rules and the regulations that have been put through or haven’t even been written.

Congress has not passed a budget in approaching 800 days. That’s over two years. In 2010, Congress — which was massively controlled by Democrats in both Houses — refused to even attempt a budget because the Democrats knew any budget they would come up with would cause more Democrats to lose their seats. The nation was broiling over the runaway spending and not about to sit still and take a tax increase, so the Democrats chose instead to violate the Constitution and not even attempt a budget. In 2011, the House of Representatives, run by Republicans, did their Constitutional duty and passed a budget. Harry Reid decided “his” Democrat-controlled Senate wouldn’t even bother. Despite the Constitutional requirements.

During the 2010 election cycle, Democrats foolishly tried to demagogue the budget issue while hypocritically refusing to even try to pass a budget, painting Republicans in what Democrats thought was a bad light. The problem? The American citizens wanted the fiscal restraint the Republicans were running on. In 2011, Democrats are still foolishly using that demagoguery, refusing to put forth a budget and trying to paint Republicans in what Democrats think is a bad light. Of course, they have the full aid and support of the mainstream media (who are no longer even trying to hide their Leftist agenda). But Conservative talk radio and the Conservative blogosphere is destroying the Leftist memes. And the American people are still demanding Government live within its means and actually cut spending — drastically.

Representative Mike Kelly (R – PA) (TEA Party) is not letting the Democrats get away with their usual lies and scare tactics. And he’s not the only one. Representative Allen West (R – FL) (TEA Party) is another, as is Representative Michele Bachmann (R – MN) (TEA Party) and many others. And the Conservative social media and Conservative talk radio are hammering away at the hypocritical, lying Democrats and mainstream media (but I repeat myself).

The Leftist Full-Frontal Assault On The US Constitution

The US has had resounding success and unprecedented wealth generation, freedom, and liberty. And the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are the reasons why. No other nation, past or present, even comes close.

The US Constitution cannot be fully understood except through the prism of the US Declaration of Independence, for it is the Declaration of Independence which is the Foundation upon which the Superstructure which is the Constitution is built.

Excerpted from the US Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

US Constitution, Article VI, paragraphs 2, 3:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Tenth Amendment:

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.

It is very clear, from reading both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, that the US government is meant to be severely limited in scope and power and that the various States and the People are to retain the lion’s share of power and authority. Congressman Colonel Davy Crockett understood that.

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the Government was in arrears to him. This Government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the war of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor, and if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of; but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The Government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

The Father of our Constitution, James Madison understood that.

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

But Leftists either don’t understand that or flat-out reject it. As I previously wrote:

None of the states can violate the people’s rights or privileges. And I have already shown where federals laws must be made. I have also shown the very strong limitations on the federal government. This places strong restraints on the state governments.

Overall, a great many laws, a great many governmental agencies and powers for those agencies have been built outside the constitution. Yet the modern-day liberals swear by those agencies and laws which are clearly outside the purview of the government.

The United States that is today would shock and alarm the very Founders and Framers of the United States and the generations which followed. The Federal usurpation of power, in direct violation of the Constitution and the Declaration, is overwhelming. Possibly beginning with Theodore Roosevelt and definitely since Woodrow Wilson (arguably the most destructive President in US history prior to Barack Obama), the powers that be have been systematically shredding the Constitution. Franklin Roosevelt accelerated Wilson’s shredding of the Constitution.

Much of the shredding was done cloak-and-dagger style while some was very clear to the people. But shredding, it was. Oh, the Liberals and so-called Progressives (who are in actuality socialists) supposedly had good intentions. “It’s for the good of the people, surely the Constitution won’t mind our systemic violations of it.” And they proceeded to draw upon themselves the tyrannical Central Power that the Founders and Framers expressly forbade, destroying the Liberty and the productivity of the people. But those self-same Liberals and so-called Progressives (who are in actuality socialists), while using all manner of methods to shred the Constitution, including Judicial Usurpation of authority, have the audacity to redefine “activism” into its exact opposite in order to accuse Judges and Justices who look to the words of the Constitution of being “activist Judges” merely because they looked to the Constitution to determine the Constitutionality of Laws.

The Welfare system is a direct violation of the Constitution. The Social Security system is a direct violation of the Constitution. The Health Care system is a direct violation of the Constitution. And they are bankrupting our nation. The myriad bureaucratic departments, with their unaccountable regulations (which are Laws) are a direct violation of the Constitution.

Then Barack Obama got elected. And, boy howdy, has he shredded much of the remnants of the Constitution. Can’t get a Law through Congress? Have a bureaucracy write the Law. Can’t get the bureaucracy to write the Law? Write it yourself via Executive Order (DREAM Act). As I have said on multiple occasions, it is because of Barack Obama that We the People have awoken and have begun to strive to return to a Constitutional government.

Well, today the Liberals and Progressives (who are in actuality socialists) are not even trying to hide the fact they are shredding the Constitution. They have gone on a full-frontal assault on the Constitution. They are not even trying to hide the radical Leftist agenda of the Mainstream Media as they, through the Mainstream Media, assault the Constitution — the very foundation of this great nation.

Richard Stengel of Time Magazine/CNN goes about the direct attack on the Constitution. (By the way, Stengel is Managing Editor of Time.)

If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so.

Umm, Richard, Tenth Amendment.

Limited government indeed…

Umm, Richard, Tenth Amendment. Heck, all the Amendments. Pay special attention to the first Ten. Also note the Father of the Constitution and his words I quoted above.

We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.

No, Richard, for Sheol’s sake, don’t let the greatest, most Liberating governing document in the history of mankind get in your way of creating your tyranny.

Aaron Worthing‘s total fisking of Richard Stengel’s excrement disguised as learned discourse should be required reading. But Stengel is not the only one calling for the decimation of the US Constitution. Fareed Zakaria, of CNN (remember Time/CNN from above), is calling for it as well.

CNN contributor Fareed Zakaria argues that the Constitution is outdated and its principles should be “debated and fixed” to conform with the modern era.
…
Far too many Americans know virtually nothing about classical liberalism, the ideal of limited government, and the unbridled liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Zakaria points to the current social, political, economic breakdown in America. He attributes it to an outmoded system of government.

In fact, the system no longer works because America is no longer a constitutionally limited republic and has allowed a secretive cabal of globalists, bankers, and one-worlders to chip our liberty away.

America is in decline precisely because we have allowed the government to replace classical liberalism with a corrupt modern liberalism. It is now widely believed that rights are parceled out, guaranteed and taken away by the state. Our problems arise from the fact we are now vassals of the state and are no longer sovereign citizens.

Where previously, the Leftists hid their destruction of the Constitution and their further desires to destroy it, now the Leftists are out in the open about it. And they must be stopped quickly, else the US goes down to oblivion, taking the rest of the Free World with it.

More Evidence Federal EPA Has To Go

The EPA is fining oil refiners millions of dollars because oil refiners are not blending their fuels with a non-existent product.

HT Foxfier’s shared RSS feed.