Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’
FOX News’ Sean Hannity has purchased the original “The Forgotten Man” painting from artist Jon McNaughton, and will give it to Trump to hang in the White House. I hope it will hang in the Oval Office as a constant reminder of what the elites have done to the ordinary Americans who built this country and keep it running.
“Forgotten man” is a phrase first used by William Graham Sumner in his article The Forgotten Man (published posthumously in 1918) to refer to the person compelled to pay for reformist programs. Since Franklin Roosevelt appropriated the phrase in a 1932 speech, it has more often been used to refer to those at the bottom of the economic government.
In 2013 Amity Shlaes wrote a bestseller about the Great Depression with the phrase in the title, which is probably how most people became aware of it.
Enjoy a few of Justice Clarence Thomas’s thoughts during some rare public remarks.
One would not expect USA Today, with its liberal bent, to portray Justice Thomas in an entirely sympathetic light in its look back at his quarter century on the Supreme Court, and it does not. Being an originalist is not a good thing in the paper’s view, as it expects justices to adopt the progressive view over the years, and therefore to change their understanding of the Constitution to suit.
Justice Thomas actually understands the Constitution and sees his job as to look to its original and true meaning when considering cases before the court. The liberal justices, especially Obama’s appointees, believe their job is to ignore original meaning in order to adjust laws to fit what they see as current opinions and mores. In other words, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor think, like Queen Hillary, that SCOTUS is there to “represent all the people”. No, that is the job of Congress, you idiots, though it has largely failed in that duty. Justice Ginsberg’s fondness for referring to foreign laws shows that she also fails to understand her job.
This is why Clarence Thomas’s dissents are so important — they represent what the Constitution actually means, and they blow huge holes in the twisted reasoning and total lack of logic made by the progressive justices. If you seek a good education in the Constitution and in liberal irrationality, you would do well to read those dissents.
I will give USA Today credit for pointing out that the .new National Museum of African American History and Culture highlights Anita Hill’s allegations but ignores Thomas’ 25 years on the bench, a situation I’ll address in another post.
Yesterday was Constitution Day, an event which received scant attention in the media. Part of the problem is that His Oneness routinely ignores our Constitution. I learned nearly everything I needed to know about Barack Obama when he ran for President and called this amazing document a “charter of negative liberties” which constrained the government. His behavior for the last seven years has proven that he has a poor grasp of the instrument he disparages.
Contrast this with Nathan Bond, a ten-year-old who recites the Constitution from memory. Since he is home-schooled, I’m betting that he actually understands it as well. One might think that students at prestigious Georgetown University would grasp the concept of our founding document. One would be dead wrong. They are taught mostly by liberal and progressive professors and activists who find the U.S. Constitution just as inconvenient as His Oneness does, but what the hell are their parents doing? I realize it has been decades since actual U.S. history was taught in our woeful public education system, but did their parents teach them nothing? Apparently not.
As a result, the two documents which secure our freedoms are under dire threat, as much from Congress as the President these days. Free speech is routinely promoted for anti-American activists, and systematically denied to ordinary people with traditional values and cultural understanding. The first job of tyrants is to silence opposition. The second is to render citizens powerless, beginning with disarming them. A successful tyrant does not tolerate subjects who have the means to fight back.
Anti-gunners are fond of using Great Britain’s gun ban and Australia’s confiscation as great success stories. They weren’t, according to some detailed studies. By the way, the Australian program is always described as a buy-back program, but it was mandatory, not voluntary, so that is the first lie you hear. The kicker is that because enforcement of the law was relaxed, the number of firearms is now greater than before the confiscation. Even the most anti-gun groups know that few Americans would voluntarily surrender their firearms, which is why they seek to have the government do their dirty work for them. All the politicians who promote gun control under the guise of gun safety enjoy the protection of armed personnel; hence the hysteria when Donald trump suggested Hillary disarm her Secret Service detail. A woman who has not driven a car in three decades, or done much else besides enrich herself with other people’s money, is neither willing nor able to protect herself.
How much of our Constitution and Bill of Rights will remain if Hillary gets back into the White House? Very little, I assure you. Now the question is: do you understand these documents well enough to defend them? Aaron Larson has created a simplified version which is very easy to grasp and explain. A slightly more scholarly version is here.
Please educate yourself, then others, if you want to have a country which you can still recognize. Our Founding Fathers are greatly disparaged these days, but that group of men pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor when they affixed their signatures. They knew exactly the risk they took in doing so, but they regarded the potentially fatal costs of their actions as being justified by the promise of liberty and self-governance.
Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson gave Face the Nation host John Dickerson a brief education in the purpose and goals of our Constitution. The only thing I would have added is to remind Dickerson that His Oneness held up Australia and Britain as examples of gun control, and since both nations actually confiscated guns, yes, there is at least one person who wants to disarm the citizens. In fact, all progressives and most liberals want to disarm us, but dare not say so, because the millions of gun owners in this nation would not comply, and would resist, as the Constitution intended.
Justice Clarence Thomas has written a masterpiece of constitutional clarity which explains why “administrative law” — the practice of delegating to bureaucrats the making and enforcement of rules with the force of law -– is so profoundly unconstitutional.
Please, spend a few minutes of your time for a fast education on the Constitution which was designed to protect you and your rights — those His Oneness and company are working so hard to strip you of.