Hysterical Liberal Intolerance
The left’s outrageously dishonest attempt to blame others for the Democrat policy disaster known as “ISIS” is such a brazen, in-your-face attack on the facts that it simply cannot go unanswered. Here are the top ten signs that this lunatic cult of Islamic savages currently raping, torturing, and mass-murdering its way across Syria and Iraq was created directly by Democrat policies:
10) Even anti-Iraq war partisans like NBC’s Richard Engel have openly laughed at the White House’s embarrassingly inept and delusional handling of ISIS from the beginning (like incompetently arming them by accident).
8) Even Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) disputed Obama’s naive and costly dismissal of ISIS as a “JV team” early on, and called his total non-response to the crisis “too cautious,” as it has allowed the group’s heinous atrocities to sweep across Syria and Iraq with impunity.
7) Even Palestinian terror-apologist Jimmy Carter blasted Obama for enabling ISIS to take over, saying, “We waited too long. We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength, and weapons while it was still in Syria.”
6) Obama now openly lies about it even being his decision to leave Iraq…after campaigning for roughly a year straight on withdrawing the troops. He has also scrambled to blame the rise of ISIS on everything from George Bush (like the race card, it apparently never gets old), to his own subordinates…everything other than Obama carelessly hurrying us out of Iraq. Leftist professors and media outlets have even tried to blame “global warming.” And the State Department literally even tried to blame Muslim unemployment.
5) As with Obama’s disastrous appeasement of Russia, the “tragic” events Mitt Romney (and President Bush) predicted would happen did in fact end up happening exactly the way he said they would, despite Obama snidely mocking, ridiculing, and condescending to him the entire time on both Russia and Iraq.
4) Even Hillary Clinton is on the record directly attributing the rise of ISIS to Democrats refusing to aid the moderate rebels in Syria, which “left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”
3) Even Obama’s former CIA Director and Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, identified the reckless abandonment of Iraq as the reason ISIS then emerged. According to Panetta, this senseless Democrat betrayal of yet another vital U.S. ally “created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it’s out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed.”
2) All the experts warned Obama that precisely this kind of violence and chaos would ensue across Iraq if he hastily rushed the withdrawal of our troops to meet his arbitrary December 2011 deadline (putting his partisan election-year concerns before our allies, interests, and national defense). Some experts, like Retired Army Gen. John M. Keane, even warned that Obama’s plan would be an “absolute disaster” from the moment it was announced.
1) ISIS (formerly al Qaida in Iraq) was already defeated by President Bush’s “Surge” strategy (which Democrats trashed, undermined, and insisted would never work), before Obama rushed in and prematurely withdrew nearly all of our troops, needlessly abandoning the country to bloodthirsty Islamic radicals.
Obama himself even fully acknowledged before surrendering the region to infidel-slaughtering psychopaths that there were “risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing US presence there.” But he then still went on to ludicrously insist that “those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for…terrorist activity”–a charge that missed the entire point of taking the fight to the enemy and that has been proven thoroughly and utterly wrong at this point.
As with Obama’s embarrassing insistence that “The Surge” would never work, his rejection of the interrogation methods that located Osama bin Laden (which he then outrageously took credit for), and his bogus “red line in the sand”…virtually every single thing this Nobel Peace Prize winner has said or done about terrorism in the Middle East has turned out to be disastrously wrong. Not that any of this matters when most of the news media refuse to even mention his abrupt pullout from Iraq when discussing the resulting carnage (compare this with every attack under Bush being framed as happening ‘this many days since the”Mission Accomplished” speech’).
Obama protects the Muslim fundamentalists who stone women to death for being raped, start global riots over cartoons, and who danced in the streets on 9/11, by equating them to Christians during the Crusades, diverting our attention to the “real threat” of right-wing domestic threats (anyone to the right of Karl Marx), and by refusing to even say the words, “Islamic extremists.” He openly arms, funds, and releases Islamic terrorists at every turn, and pretends that this left-wing “grovel, appease, and surrender” foreign policy approach isn’t even worse than Bill Clinton’s eight-year non-response to al Qaida (which made 9/11 possible).
The Bottom Line: As National Review masterfully spells out in excruciating, step-by-step detail, the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that ISIS is the direct product of Democrat policies, and nothing else. The left’s absurd attempt to blame their relentlessly incompetent foreign policy failures on President Bush for daring to fight back against Islamic terror-sponsors years earlier is the equivalent of blaming FDR for the outcome of Vietnam. It is ridiculous on its face.
Nothing silences a liberal mid-fallacy like pointing out exactly which officially recognized fallacy (bogus logic/BS diversionary tactic) they are in the process of using…preferably by its original Latin name.
Here are the top 10 examples:
10) Ad Populum: This many people agree with me, therefore I must be right.
Thinking Adult: Actually, being elected doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow the Constitution, or that your time-disproven ideas are justified or necessary.
9) Non-Sequitur: Using logic that simply does not follow.
Liberal: Since criminals keep committing gun crimes, law-abiding citizens (the only people who follow gun laws) must be disarmed.
Thinking Adult: Disarming victims for their assailants in no way reduces crime. It just tramples the Constitution and enslaves people to the whims of nanny state tyrants.
8) Straw Man: Distorting someone’s argument into something ridiculously easy to knock down.
Liberal: If you offer compromise-after-compromise to avoid endless debt and to delay Obama’s disastrous, Constitution-shredding health care takeover (as Democrats reject every offer to invent a fraudulent crisis out of thin air), then you are a terrorist holding the entire country hostage just because you aren’t getting everything you want. This is literally what liberals argued (with the help of relentless propaganda from our obscenely biased DNC ‘news media’).
Thinking Adult: That’s a “straw man” fallacy. Preferring fiscal sanity, actual compromise, and the rule of law is called checks and balances, or representative government. Disagreement only seems like anarchy and terrorism to tyrannical despots.
7) Ad Nauseum: This argument is valid because I keep repeating it.
Liberal: Incessantly twisting everything Mitt Romney says to paint him as some kind of pathological liar (from Barack ‘You Can Keep Your Plan’ Obama—the guy who falsely promised not one dime of tax hikes on those making less than $250,000) eventually will make him a liar.
Thinking Adult: That’s an “ad nauseum” fallacy.
**See also the media’s relentless “repeat-it-until-it’s-accepted” smear campaigns against the Tea Parties, Fox News, the war in Iraq, Sarah Palin, the NRA, Ted Cruz, George Zimmerman, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and anyone else who gets in the way of Democrat power**
6) Ad misericordiam: This argument must be valid because there is suffering.
Liberal: We feel sorry for illegal immigrants (future Democrat voters), therefore we should reward them for breaking into our country by adding 15 million foreign criminals to our already bankrupt welfare system, so they can further overrun our school systems, crowd our prisons, bottom out our wages, and march down our streets with their flags, demanding that we speak their language.
Thinking Adult: That’s an “ad misericordiam” fallacy. You arbitrarily choosing to feel sorry for those who despise and exploit our country in no way obligates anyone to reward or legitimize their endless crimes and abuses.
5) Ad logicam: This one piece of evidence isn’t valid, therefore the entire argument it supported must also be invalid.
Liberal: CBS was duped into interviewing a fraudulent Benghazi witness, therefore any concern about Democrats abandoning four Americans to be savagely tortured to death in the streets by Islamic lunatics while lying about it and covering it up at every turn is no longer legitimate (Media Matters).
4) Ad antiquitatem: This is the way things are done/have been done for a long time, therefore continuing to do them this way must be valid.
Liberal: Obamacare is the “law of the land,” therefore it must be accepted.
Thinking Adult: That’s an “ad antiquatatem” fallacy. Just because a law has been passed doesn’t mean it is valid or should be followed, and in no way implies that it should not be overturned, repealed or defunded.
**Liberals also use the reverse of this fallacy to argue, for instance, that the Constitution is obsolete, as if separation of powers, checks and balances and basic rights and liberties somehow no longer apply.**
3) Ad verecundiam: This important person or expert agrees with me, therefore I must be right.
Liberal: Global warming is a legitimate crisis warranting massive government intervention into every aspect of our lives (what liberals just so happened to be seeking anyway) because there is a “scientific consensus” (which is liberal-speak for widespread disagreement).
Thinking Adult: That’s an “ad verecundiam” fallacy (as well as an “ad populum” fallacy: this many people agree with me, therefore I must be right). Just because someone who is important or smart agrees with you doesn’t mean you are right. Defend your own arguments with your own reasoning or don’t make them.
**The use of this fallacy is often accompanied by the ad hominem fallacy of smearing the motives of any scientist who reaches a different conclusion. Experts who question the left’s absurd scare-mongering war on science are relentlessly vilified as agenda-driven right-wing fanatics or as having been paid off by “Big Oil”…even though it is the alarmists themselves who have been repeatedly caught doctoring results, falsifying data and misinforming the public**
2) Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc: Two things happened at once, therefore one must have caused the other.
Liberal: Bill Clinton was in office while things were good, therefore the tech boom that created the prosperity is somehow his doing and it does not matter that his policies eventually caused 9/11 and destroyed the economy. Additionally, George Bush was in office when the Democrat policies he tried to stop destroyed the economy, therefore, Bush destroyed the economy.
It is the fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation.
Thinking Adult: That’s a “cum hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy. Just because two things happen at once doesn’t mean one caused the other. Show me how Bill Clinton’s policies had anything to do with the prosperity, how they didn’t cause 9/11 and destroy the economy, and how Bush is responsible for someone else’s policies, which he vehemently opposed.
**See also the interrogation policies Obama opposed that led us to bin Laden, and the success of “The Surge” in Iraq, which Obama also opposed, but took credit for**
1) Ad hominem: Responding to an argument with insults and smears against one’s motives.
Liberal: You disagreed with Obama’s disastrous policies, therefore you must be racist. And you objected to limitless, taxpayer-funded abortions and contraceptives, therefore you are waging a “war on women.”
(2 + 2 = You’re ugly)
Thinking Adult: That’s an “ad hominem” fallacy. Name-calling and smears are not valid logic. Refute the point or don’t.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” —Socrates
**The exhaustively over-used race card tactic also qualifies as another fallacy called the “red herring,” in which you respond to an argument by introducing something completely irrelevant to divert attention. Liberals like to cite accusations of communism in the 1950s as an example of this (even though virtually everything Sen. Joseph McCarthy claimed was eventually vindicated), but never being able to disagree with Democrats without being smeared as a racist is a far more accurate example**
There are many, many more examples of logical fallacies that liberals regularly use to silence debates they cannot legitimately win. They are easy to learn and devastating to use in an argument. And they really capture what emotional, adolescent hysterics liberals are.
10) The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants when they are born inside the United States.
The text of the 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Most people just disregard the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wording as meaningless legal jargon, but it is the most critical part. It was added by the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, specifically to prevent anyone from misinterpreting it to imply any kind of birthright citizenship for foreigners. He went out of his way to make this unmistakably clear from the beginning:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Senator Lyman Trumbull, Senator W. Williams, and Representative John Bingham of Ohio (and everyone else involved in the drafting and passage of the 14th Amendment) are also on the record emphatically clarifying this. This was even emphasized by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, in which it acknowledged that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to Native Americans, because they are subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
All the evidence shows that liberals simply invented this phony right out of thin air and forced it into effect without any basis whatsoever, in open defiance of what was intended.
9) State nullification and interposition measures won’t work and are not valid.
Numerous laws have been successfully nullified over the years by states simply ignoring and defying illegal federal attacks on their rights, ranging from the REAL ID Act of 2005 (which is still on the books, but no longer enforced after two dozen states refused to acknowledge it), to the Firearm Freedom Act (passed in nine states, introduced in dozens of others, which halts the enforcement of illegal federal gun laws), to the medical marijuana laws that now exist in twenty-three states despite the ongoing federal ban on the drug.
The Federal Government was never intended to be the sole determiner of the size and scope of its own power. And the right of states and citizens to resist unconstitutional laws (as opposed to politely begging lawless tyrants to change their minds) has always been intended as a natural check against federal encroachments.
Liberals erroneously insist that the Founders never actually endorsed the use of such measures. But Thomas Jefferson enthusiastically advocated nullification as the “rightful remedy” to lawless federal tyranny in the Kentucky Resolution of 1799. And the Architect of the Constitution himself, James Madison, called state interposition our solemn ‘duty’ when faced with such abuses in the Virginia Resolution of 1798.
Furthermore, nullification and state interposition were used early in our history to defeat various unconstitutional policies, ranging from the Alien and Sedition Acts, to Andrew Jackson’s protectionist tariffs (as well as the resulting ‘Force Bill’). The Founders considered it both our right and responsibility to rise up and “alter and abolish” government that becomes adversarial to our rights and interests, as they spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.
Even the New England states and politicians who condemned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions for disputing the authority of the Federal Government to enact their speech-trampling “sedition” laws later made references to those very resolutions to resist and nullify other federal abuses. These ranged from a crippling trade embargo against belligerent European powers in 1807, to a bill for military conscription after the War of 1812, to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
And such bold acts of defiance against relentless federal power grabs do still occur to this day, as we saw with the controversial but successful standoff at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada.
The Supreme Court has struck down various nullification attempts, most notably in 1958, stating, “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it.” But this ignores the obvious fact that refusing to comply with unconstitutional (i.e., invalid) laws is defending the Constitution, not violating it.
As Alexander Hamilton put it (Federalist 78):
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act therefore contrary to the constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
Liberals insist that state interposition and nullification are unconstitutional, as if the same Founders who tirelessly evaded government taxation and who violently seceded from Britain would have ever sided with (incorrect) legal technicality over our God-given right to self-rule (‘When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty’). But this ignores the reality that the Constitution and the Federal Government only exist as grants of power from The People.
We don’t need express permission from the Constitution to reject the legitimacy of unconstitutional federal laws. Unconstitutional laws are automatically invalid. All governmental legitimacy comes from The People. We don’t get our permission to do things from the Constitution. It is an expression of our will. The Federal Government gets its permission to do things from the Constitution (i.e., from us). And when it tramples the document that authorizes its very existence, it renders itself illegitimate.
8) The 1st Amendment creates a separation of church and state.
“Separation of church and state” is an invented myth. It appears nowhere in the Constitution. It is an outright fabrication used by the left to misrepresent a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists (explaining to them that the Federal Government had no business establishing any kind of national religion) as proof that the Founders actually wrote the 1st Amendment to eradicate all things Christian from all things public—a blatant falsehood that has been used to shove a tyrannical Atheist agenda down America’s throat.
New York and Virginia originally refused to ratify the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights was added specifically to convince them that this new federal government we were creating would never trample their rights. Seen in its proper historical context like this, it becomes clear that the Bill of Rights was a protection of the States and The People vs. the Federal Government. What the 1st Amendment expressly protects is the “free religious exercise” of the states and citizens, by preventing the Federal Government from imposing a religion at the national level.
This in no way implies that any and all signs of our Judeo-Christian heritage (‘One nation, under God,’ ‘In God We Trust,’ etc.) must be erased from all federal buildings, our currency, or the Pledge. In fact, Benjamin Franklin himself proposed that our Great Seal be an image of Moses parting the Red Sea, with the inscription, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”
And it certainly doesn’t imply that state and local governments face any federal restrictions whatsoever on their decisions regarding religion (that would be the exact opposite of the 1st Amendment’s stated intent, in fact). If people find it inappropriate, for instance, for an Alabama judge to decorate his courthouse with a Ten Commandments display, then, according to the Constitution, that is a matter for the people of Alabamato decide, not some federal court.
The Federal Government even being involved in such a case constitutes anoutright reversal of what the Founding Fathers put in place. Some of the ratifying states, like Massachusetts, even had official state religions at the time of the Founding. Clearly, this is not what was intended.
The left’s deliberate misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause as a license to trample the religious speech of Christians (and only Christians) is based on nothing more than Atheists not wanting to have to witness or tolerate any acknowledgement of our Judeo-Christian roots. But this vindictive, tyrannical bigotry ignores the fact that such acknowledgements in no way constitute the creation of a national religion or a violation of anyone’s rights.
Liberals simply pretend that the Constitution says what they want it to say and relentlessly misinform the public to make it seem valid.
7) The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to pass any law it deems necessary.
This clause was an almost completely meaningless footnote intended only to clarify that Congress can pass laws that are required to carry out its authorized functions. For instance, if a building must be constructed in order for Congress to exercise one of its enumerated powers, the Necessary and Proper clause allows it to purchase the building materials and hire the workers necessary to complete the project.
It in no way changes what Congress is authorized to do. As Dr. Thomas E. Woods Jr. explains in Nullification, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, numerous representatives at the state ratifying conventions, and even Alexander Hamilton are all on the record confirming that this clause gives Congress no additional power whatsoever:
“In Virginia, George Nicholas said ‘it was no augmentation of power,’ and Madison said the clause ‘gives no supplementary powers.’ Archibald Maclaine said in North Carolina that ‘the clause gives no new power.’ In Pennsylvania, Chief Justice Thomas McKean explained that it ‘gives to Congress no further powers than those enumerated.’ James Iredell said the same thing in North Carolina…
…Even Alexander Hamilton [wrote in Federalist 33] ‘that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same’ if the ‘necessary and proper’ clause were ‘entirely obliterated.’
‘In sum,’ writes Harvard’s Raoul Berger, ‘the records make plain that the necessary and proper clause was merely designed to specifically authorize the employment of means to effectuate, to carry into execution, granted powers, not to augment them; and they strongly read against the doctrine of implied powers.’”
Woods goes on to further cite James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, widely-respected judge and constitutional scholar St. George Tucker, Senator John Taylor, Judge Spencer Roane, and many others all confirming that this was always the understood meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause. In short, liberals simply decided to exploit the obscure, irrelevant passage to “discover” endless new powers for the Federal Government, based on absolutely nothing.
See also the outraged and virulent reactions of the states (Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, for instance) the first time the Federal Government tried to transform this utterly insignificant clause (as well as the General Welfare clause) into a sweeping power grab, to defend the criminalization of free speech under the Alien and Sedition Acts.
6) The 1st Amendment protects any and every form of human expression, as long as you are not inciting panic or violence.
Again, New York and Virginia originally refused to ratify the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was added specifically to assure them that this new Federal Government being created would never trample their rights as sovereign states. It is a protection of the states and The People vs. the Federal Government.
The 1st Amendment was added to protect your right to dissent against the Federal Government. Liberals attack this right at every turn (see Card Check, the “Fairness” Doctrine, and numerous other speech-trampling abuses of power) while blatantly misrepresenting the 1st Amendment to protect pornographers, Islamic terrorists, flag-burners, and even child molesters…anything except what it was intended to do.
Virtually every single thing liberals claim about the 1st Amendment is the exact opposite of the truth.
5) The Constitution gives federal courts the authority to create, modify, and overturn laws as they see fit–a power known as “judicial review.”
Judicial review is a fraudulent, invented power that was never mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or intended by the Founders, who called the judiciary the “weakest” branch with the least capacity to “injure and annoy” our rights, as Alexander Hamilton put it. The notion of an un-elected, unaccountable handful of federal tyrants overturning democratically-enacted state laws on a whim and issuing arbitrary edicts from on high about every aspect of our lives is a complete and utter betrayal of everything the Founding Fathers put in place.
James Madison tried multiple times to give the Federal Government the authority to veto state laws during the Constitutional Convention and it created such an uproar that it nearly derailed the entire process and was eventually abandoned altogether. States and citizens were to be all-powerful in governing their own affairs. Federal courts were only ever given the authority to preside over individual “cases and controversies” within their incredibly narrow jurisdiction, not to invent rights, determine policy, or impose taxes, as they now routinely do at will.
In fact, the Founders intended federal judges to be so peripheral to the decision-making in this country that they even went so far as to give Congress full control over the kinds of cases federal courts can even hear…which judges now just freely disregard with zero consequences–even when they have been directly ordered by Congress not to interfere with certain laws, as with the Defense of Marriage Act.
As Thomas Jefferson put it (writing to William C Jarvis in 1820):
“To consider the Judges of the Superior Court as the ultimate arbiters of constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. They have with others, the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their corps – and their power is the most dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the Elective control.”
Under the Constitution, the correct way for the Supreme Court to handle a law like Obamacare, which utterly tramples the Constitution, would be to refuse to even hear the case on the basis that there is no constitutional way to rule on a case involving a law that is completely unconstitutional. Federal courts have the authority neither to overturn nor to legitimize federal or state policies.
Liberals simply fabricated this bogus, sweeping power for the federal courts out of nowhere and relentlessly used it to subvert the will of The People, destroy American culture, and impose liberty-killing attacks on their opponents.
4) The General Welfare and Commerce clauses authorize the Federal Government to do anything it feels like, as long as it can be construed to promote the general welfare or to involve anything one state does that could in any way affect any other state.
It is a matter of record that the Constitution was ratified as a strict, narrowly-defined enumeration of federal powers. Anything not specifically spelled out in it as a federal power is a federal power that does not exist, and that must be left to the state and local levels.
The Framers identified each Congressional power in Article I, Section 8 (why would they do this if the General Welfare and Commerce clauses granted Congress a blank check to do whatever it wants?), and even added the 10th Amendment to further clarify that this is all it is authorized to do.
When the Architect of the Constitution himself, James Madison, was confronted with this exact attempt to illegally expand federal powers in 1817, he responded by emphatically condemning it as a lawless attempt to shred our Founding document. He also explained that it would never have been ratified in the first place if anyone involved had mistaken it to mean something so broad.
He clarified that the powers of the federal government are “few and defined,” and that the rights of the states and The People were “numerous and indefinite.” He went on to explain that such baseless butchery of what was implemented by the Founders would render “the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would give the Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them.”
The General Welfare Clause was added to the Preamble merely to explain the purpose of this new Federal Government being created, and again to the Taxing and Spending Clause of Article I, Section 8, to enable Congress to raise funds for its authorized activities under the Constitution. This in no way changes what Congress was authorized to do.
As Dr. Thomas E. Woods Jr. noted in Nullification, the only Founding Father anyone can find who ever even suggested a different interpretation was Alexander Hamilton. But this would be the same Founder who repeatedly denied that the clause would ever be twisted to illegally expand federal power into things like agriculture, for instance (Federalist 17 and 34), only to turn around and reverse his position once the Constitution was safely ratified.
Woods adds that Hamilton is also the only Founder who wanted the president to serve for life, to hand-pick Senators and state governors for life terms as well, and who wanted to model our system after the wildly tyrannical and unjust British system that we had just fought a revolution to get away from. Hamilton also publicly admitted that he was completely out-of-touch with the principles and intentions of the rest of the Founders.
Additionally, the Commerce Clause was added to Article I, Section 8 to authorize Congress to normalize and free up trade with “foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The part that mentions “the several states” was about keeping the states from using tariffs and discrimination to disrupt commerce. It was a grant of authority to Congress to settle interstate disputes.
As the Architect of the Constitution himself, James Madison explained it:
“[It] grew out of the abuses of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for positive purposes of the General Government.”
See also the outraged and virulent reactions of the states (Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, for instance) the first time the Federal Government tried to transform this clause (as well as the Necessary and Proper Clause) into a sweeping power grab, to defend the criminalization of free speech under the Alien and Sedition Acts.
No one involved in any part of the drafting of the Constitution interpreted the Commerce Clause to imply sweeping federal authority over all activity in one state that could ever affect any activity in another state. This is an absurdly baseless and outrageous assault on the facts by liberals, as usual.
3) The 14th Amendment forced the restrictions placed on the Federal Government to be applied to the states, so everything the Founders put in place to protect state sovereignty and self-rule is now null and void, and the Federal Government now rules over all with total impunity.
The 14th Amendment is a complete bastardization of the Constitution (which created a severely limited Federal Government that was supposed to leave 95% of the power at the state and local levels), and it was illegally “ratified” at the tip of a bayonet, through open blackmail and coercion after the civil war. But even if you accept this lawless reversal of our Founding principles of self-rule and decentralized government power (i.e., liberty), all it does is require states to offer equal protection and due process to freed slaves, as with all other citizens.
Nothing about this implies that the rest of the constraints placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution to protect state sovereignty and individual rights are now to be forced on the states…thereby perversely obliterating states’ rights and self-rule, and leaving every state and citizen permanently with a federal gun to their heads. Even the Constitution-shredding tyrants who railroaded the 14th Amendment through never intended for it to apply all federal limitations to the states, as the record of their debates during its passage clearly shows.
In fact, the Blaine Amendment of 1875, which sought to apply the 1st Amendment restrictions imposed on the Federal Government to the states, proves this beyond dispute…as it was proposed after the 14th Amendment was ratified. Why would this amendment be needed if it were already a matter of law?
Another confirmation that state sovereignty remained overwhelmingly intact after the 14th Amendment is this statement from the Supreme Court in Lane County vs. Oregon (1869):
“Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States. But in many articles of the Constitution the necessary existence of the States, and, within their proper spheres, the independent authority of the States, is distinctly recognized. To them nearly the whole charge of interior regulation is committed or left; to them and to the people all powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved.”
Once again, what the left is arguing here is a blatant and deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution designed to destroy state sovereignty, concentrate power into the hands of the few in Washington, and strip us of our God-given right to self-rule.
2) The Supremacy Clause makes federal laws “the supreme law of the land,” so states and citizens are subordinate to the Federal Government and must comply with whatever it says.
-The 10th 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.”
Once again, New York and Virginia originally refused to ratify the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was added specifically to assure them that this new Federal Government being created would never trample their rights as sovereign states. The 10th Amendment was even added to further clarify that virtually all the power in this country was to remain at the state and local level, where the individual has maximum control over his own affairs and community.
The only authority the Federal Government was ever supposed to have was what the Founders expressly identified in the Constitution as a federal power (settling interstate disputes, dealing with foreign governments, border control, etc.). Everything else was to to be left to the states and citizens.
The Supremacy Clause merely establishes that the Federal Government is the final word on the very few things in which it is authorized to be involved. It in no way grants federal officials blanket authority over the states. The Founders would be appalled to hear anyone even suggest such an obscenely dishonest misinterpretation of what they intended.
Additionally, what the Supremacy Clause actually states is that the Constitution and “laws in pursuance thereof” are the law of the land. Laws that exceed the limits of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers are unconstitutional and are thus not “in pursuance thereof,” hence they are invalid.
What the Constitution created was a coalition between sovereign states, not an all-powerful body ruling over them from on high. The Framers were excruciatingly clear on this point in all their writings, discussions, and every public statement they made at the Constitutional Convention. Again, the Constitution would have never even been ratified if anyone involved would have mistaken it to imply the kind of limitless power liberals now insist on pretending it was given.
1) The 2nd Amendment only protects the right of the states to maintain militias, rather than the right of individuals to bear arms.
-Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution already provides for the existence of such militias. There would be no reason for the 2nd Amendment to exist if this were correct.
-When the Framers drafted the Bill of Rights, they went out of their way to specify “The People” when talking about the rights of the individual and “The States” when talking about the rights of state governments. For liberals to be correct on this, the 2nd Amendment (‘the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’) would have to be the only place in the entire document in which the meanings were reversed.
-The term “well-regulated” in 1789 meant correctly-calibrated and properly formed. There is abundant evidence of this and it is beyond dispute. When the first part of the 2nd Amendment justifies gun rights by explaining, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…,” it is clarifying that you cannot have the kind of disciplined and well-trained citizen militias necessary to repel foreign invasions, put down unrest, and resist government tyranny without an armed populace. This was made unmistakably clear by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of militias in Federalist 29, and by the original wording of the 2nd Amendment:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.”
But liberals deliberately misrepresent the 2nd Amendment’s wording to argue that the Founders (who used armed revolution to overthrow the government) only actually supported the right of states to operate their own government-controlled militias, despite them being on the record emphatically stating the opposite. These would be the same Founding Fathers who made it a requirement that every citizen own a firearm at one point.
Liberals also cite examples of armed rebellions that were put down by George Washington as proof that our Founders never intended for us to be able to take up arms against federal tyranny. But this flies in the face of everything we know about the Founding Fathers, who talked routinely about refreshing the “tree of liberty” with the “blood of patriots and tyrants,” and who enthusiastically embraced such rights in no uncertain terms in the Declaration of Independence.
Yet again, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment was drafted specifically to convince New York and Virginia that this new Federal Government we were creating would never be able to trample their Natural Right to self-rule as an armed, free people. The Founding Fathers had no illusions about the tyrannical inclinations of government, and they enshrined gun rights in the Constitution as a protection of the states and The People against the Federal Government for the clear and stated purpose of armed resistance to tyranny.
This is an undeniable fact that liberals simply choose to lie about non-stop…as with everything else they say about the Constitution.
Fact: The police “controversies” that BLM invents out of thin air and clings to at every turn are consistently laughed out of court and dismissed by even the most left-wing news sources. Every single thing they have argued about violent criminals who died while committing their crimes, from Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown, has turned out to be a fraud.
Fact: Studies consistently confirm that everything “Black Lives Matter” claims about crime and police shootings is false. The numbers show that the majority of poor people in this country are white, that blacks (who only make up about fourteen percent of the population) commit a wildly disproportionate amount of the crime, and that most police shootings in the U.S. are against white people.
Fact: Unlike Tea Partiers, the NRA, Trump supporters, and everyone else who gets hysterically denounced as a terrorist by the left for questioning their disastrous, time-disproven policies, “Black Lives Matter” really does throw violent tantrums, burn cities down, demand the “lynching” of white people, cheer the murder of police officers, and commit widespread hate crimes against those who dare to disagree with them or get in the way of their lunatic agenda (i.e., actual terrorism).
Newsflash: There is no conspiracy. “Black Lives Matter” is a terrorist group that erroneously scapegoats white people and the police to justify racism, anarchy and murder.
Interestingly, these are precisely the kinds of dangerous extremists Obama routinely invites to the White House, praises for their “outstanding work,” and deliberately legitimizes. As Investor’s Business Daily puts it, “by the standards of responsibility constantly being propagated by the left, who tried to pin Rep. Gabby Giffords’ shooting on Sarah Palin and the terrorist attack at a gay nightclub in Florida on Christian conservatives,” Democrats are at least partly to blame for this terrorist group’s non-stop acts of violence against dissent.
Side note: The only examples of actual racial discrimination that withstand even a moment of serious scrutiny are of minorities being handed other people’s jobs, educational opportunities, and home loans despite being less qualified, based on race alone (i.e., racist preferential treatment). Unlike the embarrassingly paranoid conspiracy theories on which liberals base their violent tantrums, this indisputable, actual discrimination is a matter of record. It is enforced by law under left’s Constitution-trampling Affirmative Action crusades, endless frivolous lawsuits, and “community organizing” (intimidation campaigns).
Again, what liberals mean by “equality” is the special treatment of minorities at everyone else’s expense (the exact opposite of what equality actually is). And what they call “discrimination” is holding everyone to the same standards and basing everything on merit and qualifications (actual equality).
The dishonest propagandists at Politifact have been caught in yet another brazen assault on the facts. As reported on Tuesday by Breitbart, Politifact recently rated another provably correct Republican statement as “mostly false” based solely on their own deliberate misinterpretation of his argument.
Chris Christie recently slammed Obama’s disastrously irresponsible surrender of the Syrian crisis to the whims of Russia. He stated: “I’ll tell you what reckless is. What’s reckless is is calling Assad a reformer. What’s reckless is allowing Russia to come into Crimea and Ukraine. What reckless is is inviting Russia into Syria to team with Iran.”
The openly biased “fact-checkers” at Politifact responded by intentionally misrepresenting his argument as being that Obama invited Russia to launch airstrikes in Syria, thus allowing them to rush in to “set the record straight” by erroneously smearing another Obama opponent as a liar for telling the truth. But this clearly defies the facts, as the record plainly shows.
Christie even went out of his way to emphasize that he was referring to Obama inviting Putin “to broker an agreement with Assad to give up his chemical weapons,” as he put it to CNN’s Jake Tapper. This White House attempt at damage control after Obama’s self-discrediting humiliation in the “thin red line” debacle was then used by Putin to outmaneuver, override, and marginalize our embarrassingly amateur president from that moment forward.
It was abundantly clear that this is what Christie was arguing from the beginning. Politifact simply chose to twist his words and portray him as a liar, rather than doing anything even vaguely resembling an actual fact-check.
PolitiFact knows what Christie meant last week. We know this because the left-wing frauds even quote Christie’s answer to Jake Tapper. But they bury it at the bottom of 20 paragraphs and dismiss it without comment.
Nonetheless, ever in the service of Barack Obama, even though they know the truth, PolitiFact declares Christie a liar.
Again, these partisan media “fact-checkers” have made a total laughing stock out of journalism at this point. They blindly accept liberal opinions, assumptions, and attitudes as hard fact while vindictively attacking anyone who questions them as a liar, with zero regard for facts, evidence, or truth.
Noticing that Obama mentored under a racist lunatic for twenty years, openly befriended convicted terrorists, or marched with the New Black Panther Party in 2007 is just the dirty trick of “guilt-by-association,” to be indignantly condemned as a sleazy partisan tactic. But now that any random supporter can be used to smear Donald Trump (which is still nothing like Obama enthusiastically participating in the literal equivalent of a Klan rally), the rules have suddenly changed.
Now, our post-journalism DNC “news media” are falling over each other to turn this total non-event into a scandalous controversy. Click here to see all of the media outlets participating in this inexcusably sleazy and dishonest smear campaign (along with their completely opposite treatment of Obama, when it was people he actually knew, mentored under, and befriended).
Ultra-liberal race hysteric Melissa Harris-Perry recently brought NYU professor Cristina Beltran on to MSNBC to inform us all that the “real” threat to America isn’t Islamic terrorists, illegal immigration, national bankruptcy, or the tyrannical shredding of our Constitution…but something far more dangerous and extreme—white people.
Beltran cited “anti-immigrant riots,” “anti-black riots,” “lynch mobs,” and other things that haven’t happened in over half a century to show us all how real and urgent the threat is. Apparently, it is “a really scary, awful, alarming moment in our politics” when Americans object to being endlessly slaughtered by a bloodthirsty cult of Islamic savages on a 1400-year killing spree against all non-believers.
Or when we object to being invaded by millions of foreign criminals (future Democrat voters), and insist on enforcing the most lenient immigration laws on the planet. Or when we reject racist preferential treatment for minorities at everyone else’s expense, also known as “Affirmative Action.”
Again, liberalism is open war on all things white, male, Christian, and American. And objecting to their non-stop, in-your-face attacks on everything this country stands for now apparently proves that white people are all just standing by waiting to pull out their Klan outfits and relive the good old days.
This is why there can be no serious national dialogue on race in this country. Liberals are involved.
The media are run by ultra-partisan extremists and DNC activists who take all their cues from Media Matters. Higher re-education is run by power-tripping Marxist radicals at war with reality. And Hollywood spends nearly one hundred percent of its time vilifying anything that gets in the way of Democrat power.
The “debate” is always between easily-led automatons who have been bombarded with liberal propaganda for virtually their entire lives, and thinking adults with actual life experience, who live in the real world and can handle intellectual confrontation (conservatives).
The partisan liberal ‘fact-checkers’ at Politifact were recently caught misinforming the public about a true statement of fact by Ted Cruz. As reported by The Blaze on Tuesday, it started with Cruz defending conservatives from a fraudulent media narrative of a supposed nationwide epidemic of angry white men gunning people down without provocation.
Cruz responded by pointing out that “the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats.” He cited a recent study that demonstrates this fact beyond question. Even the Washington Post admitted, “We do find that the majority of ex-felons in New Mexico, New York, and North Carolina register with the Democratic Party.”
But Politifact decided that, since the study only focused on New York, North Carolina, and New Mexico, it couldn’t possibly be legitimate. Suddenly, all fifty states must be sampled, and all at exhaustive levels, in order for any study to be valid. This is a textbook example of a partisan liberal media outlet moving the goal posts to falsely portray conservatives as liars and shield Democrats from actual debate.
Politifact also irrelevantly split hairs over whether or not the study measured both violent and non-violent criminals, or just criminals in general. Of course, Politifact produced nothing indicating that this meaningless, diversionary distinction would have any bearing on party affiliation whatsoever (and there is no evidence to suggest it would). It was merely added to create the appearance of inaccuracies where there were none.
Politifact also took issue with the study having measured ex-felons, rather than ex-felons and current inmates. Again, there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that this would ever make any difference in the party affiliation of the people in question, but the painstakingly objective truth-seekers at Politifact insist on citing it as evidence that Cruz’s statement is “mostly false.”
Finally, Politifact removed all doubt about its obscenely agenda-driven bias by insisting that most criminals are only Democrats because they are black, and by peddling the left-wing fallacy that blacks (Democrat voters) must make up more of the prison population because of racism in the criminal justice system.
But correlation is not causation. Just because blacks dominate violent crime statistics in no way indicates that they are arrested and prosecuted because they are black (contrary to the left’s non-stop fraudulent race-baiting). And it certainly doesn’t indicate that blacks somehow don’t count as legitimate Democrat voters.
Based on these frivolously invented non-issues, Politifact ruled that Cruz’s provably true statement was “mostly false.” This is not the first time Politifact has been caught blatantly lying to undermine Ted Cruz and other conservatives.
This is also the same media “fact-checker” that gave Trump’s provably correct claim that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated on 9/11 a “Pants on Fire” rating because he exaggerated or incorrectly remembered the number of participants. Needless to say, their treatment of Democrats is nothing like this.