Top 5 facts that prove America was founded as a Christian nation

Image result for cross

Liberals now regularly try to peddle the absurd lie that America was not founded as a Christian nation. This flies in the face of all known facts and evidence, and is a blatantly dishonest attempt to re-write America’s history to fit in better with the left’s bigoted, Constitutionally-illiterate hysteria against all things Christian.
Here are the top 5 irrefutable facts that completely destroy the left’s ignorant misinformation about our openly Christian Founders, history, and republic:

5) The out-of-context quotes liberals use to misrepresent our Founders as non-Christian include ones like this from John Adams:
“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it.”

What liberals don’t bother to include is the full quote from this letter to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817, which completely reverses the meaning:

“Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!’ But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.”

Another misleading quote liberals love to use is this statement from Thomas Jefferson in 1814:

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.”
What they leaving out this time is the fact that that Jefferson is referring to British law, not U.S. law:

“If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

Sleazy, corrupt, and dishonest…as usual.

4) The Founding Fathers (many of whom held seminary or Bible school degrees) are overwhelmingly on the record personally identifying themselves as Christians, acknowledging that we are a Judeo-Christian country, and governing directly based on Christian teachings and principles.

As the Heritage Foundation notes, Thomas Jefferson (the left’s supposed champion of strictly secular governance) even “issued calls for prayer and fasting as governor of Virginia” and “drafted bills stipulating when the governor could appoint ‘days of public fasting and humiliation, or thanksgiving,’ and to punish ‘Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers.’

Heritage adds that Jefferson also “closed his second inaugural address by encouraging all Americans to join him in seeking ‘the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old….’ And two days after completing his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended church services in the U.S. Capitol, where he heard John Leland, the great Baptist minister and opponent of religious establishments, preach.”

This is not someone who believed that all things Christian should be eradicated from all things public. As usual with liberal contentions, their utterly false depiction of Thomas Jefferson as some kind of militant secularist has zero actual basis in fact, and serves merely to further their Constitution-shredding agenda against ever having to witness or tolerate free religious exercise.

Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams did unmistakably believe in preventing the Federal Government from adopting a national religion at the expense of the religious rights of the states. Some of them were even outspoken critics of organized religion. Some of them even wanted to reduce government involvement with religion at the state level.

But to suggest that these men were not religious, not Christian, not governing based on Christianity, or not perfectly fine with government acknowledging our Judeo-Christian heritage is dishonest in the extreme.

3) Benjamin Franklin, who liberals incessantly use to prop up their erroneous “church and state” fabrication, once proposed that America’s National Seal be an image of Moses parting the Red Sea, with the inscription, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

2) The left’s “separation of church and state” myth can be found nowhere in the Constitution. It was fraudulently invented out of thin air. The only restriction whatsoever that exists regarding government and religion is the 1st Amendment protection of the States and of the individual against the establishment of a national religion.

Some of the ratifying states, like Massachusetts, even actually HAD official state religions at the time of the Founding.
1) The Declaration of Independence (our core founding document…written by Thomas Jefferson) expressly identifies Natural Rights (the notion that we get our rights not from man, but from a higher power) as the justification for our self-liberation from Britain.

Truth in lending

From Investor’s Business Daily:

Behind The Meltdown: Many Americans are unaware of the causes of the greatest economic calamity of our lifetime. A new congressional report details how government politicized housing, wrecking the economy.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California, ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has released a report that every American should read.

The analysis details how powerful Democrats in Congress insisted that government-subsidized housing be geared to serve the purposes of social justice at the expense of sound lending.

Here are some highlights of Issa’s blow-by-blow account:

• With an implicit subsidy to American homeowners in the form of reduced mortgage rates, Fannie Mae and its sister government sponsored enterprise, Freddie Mac, squeezed out their competition and cornered the secondary mortgage market. They took advantage of a $2.25 billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury.

• Congress, by statute, allowed them to operate with much lower capital requirements than private-sector competitors. They “used their congressionally-granted advantages to leverage themselves in excess of 70-to-1.”

• The two GSEs were the only publicly traded corporations exempt from SEC oversight. All their securities carried an implicit AAA rating regardless of the quality of the mortgages.

• The Department of Housing and Urban Development set quotas for GSE investment in affordable housing.

• Encouraged by an inaccurate 1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study charging racial discrimination in mortgage lending, the two GSEs were strongly pressured to “lower their underwriting standards, particularly on the size of down payments and the credit quality of borrowers.”

• In 1992, Congress directed HUD to establish multiple quotas requiring mortgage quotes for low-income families.

• In 1995, the Clinton administration issued a National Homeownership Strategy, loosening Fannie and Freddie’s lending standards and insisting that lenders “work collaboratively to reduce homebuyer downpayment requirements.”

• The administration complained that in 1989 only 7% of mortgages had less than a 10% downpayment. By 1994, it wanted that raised to 29%.

• Reduced underwriting standards spread into the entire U.S. mortgage market to those at all income levels.

• A complete decoupling of home prices from Americans’ income fed the growth of the housing bubble as borrowers made smaller down payments and took on higher debt.

• Wall Street firms specializing “in packaging and investing in the lowest-quality tranches of mortgage-backed securities, profited hugely from the increased volume that government affordable lending policies sparked.”

• Wall Street firms, homebuilders and the GSEs used money, power and influence to block attempts at reform. Between 1998 and 2008, Fannie and Freddie spent over $176 million on lobbyists.

• In 2006, Freddie paid the largest fine in Federal Election Commission history for improperly using corporate resources to hold 85 fundraisers for congressmen, raising a total of $1.7 million.

As the Issa report points out, “the real tragedy of the government’s affordable housing policy is the impact on average Americans, particularly those of modest means.

“Millions of these borrowers, who were supposed to have been helped by federal affordable housing policy, have now been forced into delinquency and foreclosure, destroying their asset base, their credit, and in some cases their families.”

Top ten liberal fallacies and how to destroy them

FotoFlexer_Photo

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 PopulumThis many people agree with me, therefore I must be right.

Liberal: Obama barely winning the election (with rampant Democrat cheating) means his disastrous, Constitution-shredding policies are legitimate.

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-SequiturUsing 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 ManDistorting 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 NauseumThis 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.

Falsely trashing someone as a habitual liar at every turn (while constantly getting caught in lies yourself) in no way establishes that they actually are one.

**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 misericordiamThis 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 logicamThis 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).

Thinking Adult: That’s an “ad logicam” fallacy. The evidence still overwhelmingly indicates that a sitting U.S. president treasonously refused to send in nearby troops to intervene.

4) Ad antiquitatemThis 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.

(Top 25 ‘laws of the land’ under attack by ObamaSeventy-Five Times Obama Broke the Law During His Presidency)

**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 verecundiamThis 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 hocTwo 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.

Top ten liberal lies about the Constitution

FotoFlexer_Photo

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.

Let’s review:

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 Checkthe “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.

‘Black Lives Matter’ is a terrorist group pushing a fraudulent narrative

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).

13567102_10154173655136183_2147949326335109180_n

Epic anonymous obliteration of liberalism

“We are fighting to end hate, to unite as one and love each other. We are fighting to be treated right without discrimination and for everyone to have equal opportunities.”

Bullshit. You have no quantifiable metrics for injustice, so you have no victory conditions (for a very simplified example, when blacks hold X% of all engineering jobs and are only Y% of all prisoners, racism is ended). That would be fine by itself, but you believe in fighting injustice with injustice (gays have historically been denied gay marriage? let’s get random CEOs fired for opinions they held six years ago). You don’t seek converts, you seek to punish and bully – straight white males who disagree with you must be purged and publicly humiliated. Even the jihadists will spare you if you convert; no apology or future correction will satisfy a SJW.

I could forgive that too if you weren’t all hypocrites and liars. Your treatment of women and minority dissenters is appalling; if they don’t want you acting on their behalf, that’s their choice, not “internalized patriarchy” or whatever. You rob them of moral agency. When called out for these behaviors (as you always insist on calling out others), you lie. You strawman your opponents (criticized a woman? misogynist!), you group them with the worst (you’re a gamer? you’re as bad as the anonymous rape threateners!) and when confronted with your own flaws, you restate them less threateningly (motte and bailey argument). You phrase all arguments as kafkatraps (disagreeing with your assertion that we are evil is taken as proof that we’re evil). You publish manipulated and misleading statistics, then lambast anyone who questions them.

You insist on vigilante justice against random acts of the week for your two-minutes hate. Why is it the NFL’s business to punish domestic violence? And, if it is their business, why isn’t Hope Solo receiving the same attention from your side?

Then you claim to be arguing for equality, but you’ve taken the idea of racism (hatred based on skin color is bad) and replaced it with a new concept where only one race can be guilty of racism. You excuse racial prejudice and hatred based on what I’ve already explained are arbitrary, unmeasured states of being. Your solution for the unequal treatment of whites and blacks is to hold whites to a higher standard. Your side lobbied the FBI to redefine rape so more women victims would be counted, but also so that “made to penetrate” does not count, leaving male victims in the cold. Because male privilege, apparently.

Historically ignorant SJWs think whites hold collective guilt for the awful things our ancestors have done. But they don’t care about the unspeakable atrocities by other races. The only difference between whites and others was that whites had the social and technological prowess to do evil efficiently; Africans, Asians, Indians, and everyone else practiced genocide and slavery, they were just less adept at doing it right. Given the means, they would have done the same. But nope, only whites are guilty; Arab oppression of blacks and caucasians never happened, not to us, nope.

I’ve been lucky enough to grow up in America, so this shit is new to me. But I’m descended from puritans, and I know my history; I know how they treated dissent. I also know how commies treated dissent; I grew up next door to a grizzled old Russian who barely avoided the gulag by smuggling himself out of the country. I know what you petty tyrants have turned into every time you gained enough power.

Worst of all, you turn the very principles of freedom against us. We tolerate you because we believe in free speech and civil discourse, not bullying and violence. But that means we have to watch you advocate against that very freedom. We don’t believe in ruining a stranger’s professional life over an opinion, but that means that we can’t punish your actions.

We believe that the rightness of our actions should speak for itself. You believe in bullying, even as you claim to love the oppressed.

Funny how the evil and all-powerful patriarchy has seen fit to act according to SJW whims for all of recent memory, punishing those they hate and protecting those they love. Funny how the evil oppressor males have to speak anonymously, while the SJWs fighting the power can use their real names and get mainstream media coverage for fun and profit. How when a million straight white male nerds get bullied, no one cares, but the minute one *** hangs himself, suddenly bullying matters – and the solution, of course, is more bullying, but by the “right” people.

That’s the arrogant core of it. You do the same evil, in the same pattern, as so many before you, because mob justice, punishing dissent, and repression of others is just fine and dandy so long as the “right” people are doing it to the “wrong” people.

Eat shit and die. All I ever asked was to be left alone.

-Author unknown

Stephen King: ‘Happy Holidays,’ even to ‘NRA types’ and Donald Trump supporters

 Preachy, in-your-face liberal complainer Stephen King decided to celebrate Christmas by vindictively politicizing his Twitter feed to smear anyone who supports gun rights or Donald Trump as someone undeserving of happy holidays.
Capture
Yes, even those heinous monsters who refuse to shred the Constitution and surrender our God-given right to self-rule (gun rights) to enact more of the same disastrous policies that failed in Paris, failed in San Bernardino, and fail so spectacularly every day in the Utopian gun-controlled war zone that is Chicago…even those evil bastards should still get a happy holiday season.
And even those who dare to think beyond the media’s hysterical partisan hyperventilating over anything and everything ever said or done by Donald Trump 24/7 on virtually every major outlet…even those women-hating Klansmen deserve pleasant holidays.
 
See how “enlightened” and “tolerant” these liberal champions of “civility” (condescending elitist snobs who never live in the real world or have to come up with policies that actually work) can be to us unsophisticated peasant rabble who just refuse to embrace open borders, national bankruptcy, infidel-slaughtering Islamic “refugees,” and maximum nanny state dependency?
YouTube Preview Image

Politifact tells another blatant lie to trash Republicans

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.

Breitbart added:

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.

A liberty-minded oath-keeper committed to free markets, limited government, and following the Constitution