This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Liberals suck

  • Nadler and the Constitution

    Cortillaen sent us an email about Jerry “The Waddler” Nadler and some quotes about him in the Washington Post today. Nadler is feeling a bit insecure about Republicans reading the Constitution. He reminds me of a critic of Christianity who is a little bit afraid of being judged for his sins;

    “They are reading it like a sacred text,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the outgoing chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties, who has studied and memorized the Constitution with talmudic intensity.

    Nadler called the “ritualistic reading” on the floor “total nonsense” and “propaganda” intended to claim the document for Republicans. “You read the Torah, you read the Bible, you build a worship service around it,” said Nadler, who argued that the Founders were not “demigods” and that the document’s need for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was “highly imperfect.”

    “You are not supposed to worship your constitution. You are supposed to govern your government by it,” he said.

    If the Democrats had only used the Constitution to “govern your government by it”, they wouldn’t be in this mess. They’ve twisted every little phrase so out of shape that it’s hardly recognizable in the halls of Congress, and lately in the White House.

    These are the people who tried make rape interstate commerce. They find a right to privacy so women can murder their unborn children. They find a right to healthcare and determine that they can make people buy healthcare. And “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” means the government can take away guns whenever they want.

    The Constitution was written to constrain government, the Bill of Rights were added to protect individual citizens from the excesses of government and the tyranny of the majority. It is revered by the People like a religion. It resides in a fortified chamber under the National Archives because the Constitution is the basis for our very existence.

    It was written in a time when a nation’s authority resided in the body of a living king whose lineage was supposedly ordained by God. We had no king, no lineage and we were founded on the principle that all men derived their liberties from our Creator. The Constitution was written to protect those liberties.

    The Constitution wasn’t perfect and hundreds of thousands have shed their blood to correct those shortcomings. That’s why we remember them in our daily lives – hundreds of thousands of saints who martyred themselves for a document. And continue to fall to maintain our reverence for it.

    It’s Nadler’s problem if he feels he needs to disparage it and the people who still believe in it because of his own sins against the Constitution.

  • Iowahawk does Ezra Klein

    ROS sent us this video of Washington Post’s Ezra Klein who claims the Constitution is irrelevant because it was written “more than a hundred years ago”;

    Well, I’ve been thinking what I could write about this little bit of ignorance, then I discover from Ace of Spades that Iowahawk beat me to it.

  • If that is being disrespectful.

    One of the stories that is going around is this one. It seems that the group that contracted the picture decided that it should be removed. Many people at a loss as why, can you guess why?

    But it is clear that this is just a obvious case of censorship.

    Several art bloggers denounced the museum’s act as censorship, comparing it to the recent removal of David Wojnarowicz’s “A Fire in My Belly” video from the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C.

    Daniel Lahoda, founder of LA Freewalls Project downtown and one of the few people to photograph the work as it was being removed, said that the street art community is “really upset by this — everyone is talking about it.”

    “If you’re planning on mounting the largest graffiti show in a major institution, you’ve got to give the artists the freedom to do the movement justice — so there’s a big failure in what just happened,” he says. “The last thing we want is an art institution, someone supposed to support creativity, to destroy it.”

    Except that the museum paid for it and guess what, the people paying your commission have a big say into what they want painted. So do not act shocked that they painted over a painting that they paid for on their property. But it gets better because “L.A. Museum’s Destruction of Anti-War Art Disrespects Veterans”

    Much of the anti-war movement is led by veterans, who’ve seen firsthand that these wars aren’t making us safer and aren’t worth the cost. If Deitch talked to more veterans rather than making blanket assumptions about their viewpoints, he might be surprised to find that many, many veterans stridently oppose the wars being fought by the U.S. at present. For example, the video Rethink Afghanistan published on Veterans Day featured veterans denouncing the war in Afghanistan as an unjust war.

    Except considering the past “veterans” that have been coming from the anti-war camp and considering how stories in how returning vets, are used as prompts, one has to wonder what their idea of respect is.

    Here’s an interesting thought experiment: imagine if Blu had painted a mural celebrating, rather than dissenting from, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What if the mural had depicted the war in Afghanistan as a conflict that served American interests, where our team, including our allies in Kabul, were the Good Guys and our adversaries the Bad Guys. In other words, if Blu had lied through his art, rather than using it to tell the truth, would Deitch have painted over it? Maybe, but I doubt it.

    Except that they still do no get it, it does not matter what the subject is. If the person that is paying you to paint says that they do not like it, they have a right to reject it. Regardless of what the theme or subject matter is.

    But do not try to use our name when you are upset about it when the owners paint over you picture that they paid for on their own building.

  • Somali Islamist promises to bring terror to US

    A Somalian Islamist warlord has threatened to bring terrorism to the United States and threatened the president to convert to Islam according to the Washington Post;

    A leader of Somalia’s Islamist insurgency threatened to attack America during a speech broadcast Monday.

    “We tell the American President Barack Obama to embrace Islam before we come to his country,” said Fuad Mohamed “Shongole” Qalaf.

    Al-Shabab has not yet launched an attack outside Africa but Western intelligence has long been worried because the group targeted young Somali-Americans for recruitment.

    It’s probably just a bunch of wishful thinking from a leader who doesn’t even control his own country, but it’s instructive in that all of that blather about how electing Obama would soothe the world’s savage breasts. How everyone would love us again if only we’d elect Obama. Yeah, that’ll never happen until we become a failed state like the rest of them. Nothing we can do in our own national interest will ever placate the folks who are still living in the 20th century, or in this case, the 12th century. How has the policies of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Somalia or any other country, for that matter, changed since 2009?

    We can’t elect a President based on what the rest of the world tells us. We can’t elect a President based on what half of this country tells us.

  • Biden: tax deal with GOP was “morally troubling”

    I hate when the Obama Administration muzzles Joe Biden. They should give him his own television channel where he can just chatter away for 24 hours everyday about whatever he chooses. Now THAT would be some entertaining TV. The Washington Times reports today that he called the tax deal that Obama brokered with the GOP “morally troubling”;

    Mr. Biden said the president still thinks extending the George W. Bush-era rates for the country’s highest wage-earners, along with everyone else, is “morally troubling.” He said the president broke his 2008 campaign promise on the issue to help only the middle class.

    “We couldn’t get it done,” he said in a pre-taped interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “We had to make a decision.”

    Mr. Biden said the president will try over the next two years to have the rates revert to Clinton-era levels.

    What could possibly be “morally troubling” about people keeping their own money? I would think people could more likely find spending our money on turtle tunnels and snail research more troubling. Of course, Biden and Obama don’t find “morally troubling” the fact that they had planned on the expiration of Bush tax rates as an end run around their campaign promise to not raise taxes on the middle class.

    What I find morally troubling is the fact that Obama/Biden have to keep liberals on the plantation by promising to raise tax rates down the road.

  • Let’s hear your ideas, Barbara Lee

    In today’s Huffington Post, Barbara lee gloats over the fact that she voted against the defense authorization bill for the use of force against the Taliban and al Qaeda in 2001;

    …the time has come to reorient United States foreign policy to meet the threat of terrorism in a more effective and sustainable manner.

    She might as well have ended her little self-back-patting piece there because the rest is totally useless. I expected to read how she would change our policy to meet the terrorist threat, but she doesn’t. It’s the usual social justice bullshit about saving our money from the war and using it to buy every kid a pony and put Skittles in every candy dish across the country. Nothing about defeating the terrorist threat.

    It’s so easy to mouth the empty platitudes of social justice, not so easy to create a peaceful atmosphere in which social justice works.

  • MacDonald’s sued over Happy Meal toys

    The Center for Science in the Public Interest has filed a lawsuit against the MacDonald’s Corp for their “decision to markets its meals directly to young children”. Um, since when do kids have jobs and money with which they can make decisions about their purchases? Apparently some mother from Sacramento has joined the Center in the lawsuit. Is she looking for someone who can tell her kids ‘no’ so she doesn’t have to be a big ol’ meany?

    The lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court in San Francisco on Wednesday morning.

    They claim McDonald’s decision to markets its meals directly to young children violates several consumer protection laws because it exploits a child’s vulnerability.

    A child’s vulnerability? Really? What children are running around with a wallet full of cash? My kids got one fast food meal a month (usually because that’s how often I could afford to feed them one) sometimes they chose a Happy Meal, but most of the time they wanted pizza at Pizza Hut. Are they going to sue Pizza Hut because they put cheese in the crust – cuz that’s what excited my kids.

    I don’t understand this at all. I’ve never thought that all of my parenting failures could be solved in the courts.

    But not Monet Parham;

    According to Parham, the main reason her six-year-old daughter, Maya, asks to go to McDonald’s is to get toys based on Barbie, i-Carly, Shrek, or Strawberry Shortcake. The food seems almost beside the point to the kids, says Parham, because the toy monopolizes the attention of Maya and her two-year-old sister Lauryn.

    Um, tell them ‘no’, ya twit.

    “I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald’s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience,” Parham said. “But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”

    Oh, so all of the responsible people who only take their kids to MacDonald’s as a treat have to suffer because you want to be your kids’ buddy instead of a parent? If you don’t want MacDonald’s in your “kids’ heads”, turn off the TV, too, ya want-wit.

    I know this has nothing to do with the military, it just cheesed me off.

  • VanHollen blames Republicans for impending tax hikes

    I don’t like Chris VanHollen. He was my congressman when my paycheck was held hostage in the Maryland gulag of Montgomery County and I hated every minute. VanHollen looks like a shifty used car dealer and talks like one, too. Today he misinforms the public in the Washington Post about the fight against the Democrats’ impending tax hikes just two weeks away from taking effect;

    Senate Republicans have made it clear they are willing to raise taxes this January on middle-class Americans unless they get tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires – despite the fact that a tax hike on the middle class could slow an already anemic economic recovery.

    Yeah, we’re two weeks away from the tax hikes without a resolution because Democrats have kicked the can down the road this whole year. The truth is that until the November elections, they’d just planned on letting the Bush tax rates expire so they could raise our taxes without actually owning the tax hike.

    They had an opportunity to extend the rates before the election, but Nancy Pelosi thought she could hold our votes hostage.

    Van Hollen’s whole hissy today in the Post is about estate taxes, or death taxes. He’s upset that Republicans want to exempt estates up to $5 million from this completely irresponsible tax. It’s the height of class warfare. All of a decedent’s estate has already been taxed while he was earning it, and then it gets taxed again upon the decedent’s demise – and the tax is due to the government in 9 months, no matter what form that estate takes, property, business or cash. So the survivors have to sell off the estate to meet the taxes.

    If the estate is a business, the business has to be sold. If it’s a farm, the farm must be sold. How is that good for the economy? Van Hollen disagrees;

    But this last-minute $23 billion giveaway made payable to the wealthiest estates in the country – which digs us deeper into debt without adding a single job – is simply a bad deal for the American people.

    It might not add jobs, but it’ll save some.