Over at World Net Daily, Joseph Farah’s Mustache Sense is tingling.
It’s time for Americans to consider a very scary possibility – that the president of the United States and the Congress are actually embarked on an intentional plan to destroy most everything that throughout history made the country great and unique.
To stop them, we’ll need a Space-Time Paradox Generator, 200 feet of copper wire, a wise-cracking android, and a picture of Eve Arden!
Could it be that the sweeping, wholesale policy changes we have seen implemented and begun in the last six months are not just “mistakes” or the results of miscalculations?
Could it be that these wholesale policy changes are, in fact, the results of electing a candidate who promised to change our previous policies?
Could it be that the clear intent is to bring America down – and that those controlling America’s political future know exactly what they are doing?
I hope not. I’ve gotten used to the idea of Administrations bringing America down accidentally, while cleaning their shotgun, say, or driving on the sidewalk after one too many Pisco sours.
Could it be that those holding the levers of power in Washington are not just ill-equipped for their jobs and making bad choices, but that they are determined to destroy America’s economy and culture because they don’t like it, never liked it and wish to see our nation operate more like the rest of the world?
It seems like the staffs of WND, RenewAmerica, American Thinker, American Renaissance, The American Vision, American Power and other like-minded asylums woke up on November 5th and decided that instead of enduring a black man in the White House, they’d go rather live in a comic book universe where Lex Luthor is the President. After all, losing to Luthor, that doesn’t make you a loser, because he’s a supervillain. What’re you supposed to do against an evil genius who has usurped the power of the United States government? Just blog like the dickens, I guess. On the bright side, once you do defeat Super-Villain President, you have lots of good options for relocating the Gitmo detainees — the prison planet of Ysmault, the Anti-Matter Universe of Qward, or the Phantom Zone.
Personally, I’m there. I’ve been there.
You’re out there. You’re way out there.
There is not a doubt in my mind that people like Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the like just plain think differently than, say, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison – not to mention me.
No doubt. For instance, Obama, Frank, Pelosi and Reid probably think that the former presidents shouldn’t have the legal right to buy and sell the current president. Or rent him out to other countries to stud.
The contrast in worldviews couldn’t be any more striking.
So it’s you and the Enlightenment thinkers against the Obama Administration, eh? Okay, I’ll take your word for it that you’re on the Founders team, but I bet you got picked last.
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are being actively and openly dismantled as the guiding principles of American government.
It’s true. I walked by the Constitution the other day, and it was covered with scaffolding, and a bunch hardhats whistled and asked me to lift up my tank top.
The rule of law? We’re told today by Obama and company that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. It’s a “living document” that needs to be constantly reinterpreted in different times. That’s not the rule of law. That’s the rule of men – or, more precisely, the rule of high priests in black robes who are not accountable to either the will of the people or the rule of law.
“…and as always, our annual Satanic Mass will be the first Monday in October.”
Are your shackles being removed by Obama and company?
No, but my underwear seems to be missing…
Posted by scott on Friday, June 26th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
20 Responses to “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For Luthor”
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison
Considering how much Adams and Jefferson loathed each other because they agreed on so little, and how Washington tried to ignore both, this is pretty dang hilarious.
Considering how much Adams and Jefferson loathed each other because they agreed on so little, and how Washington tried to ignore both, this is pretty dang hilarious.
By the way, was there a fact in there? Even one? Just one stray fact to support the hand wringing? C’mon, just a teensy-weensy fact? Anything?
Staffers at those right-wing “opinion leaders,” all but one of which have “America” in their name, aren’t even preaching to the choir these days, they’re playing back a recording for the choir (who of course don’t notice, as long as the same tunes continue to echo in their heads) while they’re out hiking the you-know-where trail, or going down to Buenos Aires.
Also, please leave Eve Arden out of this, & leave her alone, & such as!
Also, please leave Eve Arden out of this, & leave her alone, & such as!
Trying to remember which MST3K ep the “and a picture of Eve Arden” line is from…
Facts? It’s miles beyond that. Wing-nuttia, personified by caterpillar-lips, is laying bare its very soul, exposing the deepest, darkest fantasies/conspiracy theories that are the basis of their world-view.
John Birch Society-style fear of commies, specifically, & various others, busily undermining our sacred traditions, flouridating the water & burrowing from w/in like termites to eat the Constitution, change the taste of food & tell us what we can drive, so America will be too high or morally weak to notice whenCastro’s South American mercenaries Caliph Bin Laden’s Sharia Shock Troops wade ashore, has been rudely awakened by the election of not just “the most liberal U. S. Senator ever” (I’m choking at that alone) but one of the colored persuasion.
And what better proof (in their really, really secret parts; it won’t be widely discussed, & in some of them it may even be unconscious) not only of this vast conspiracy but its fruition, than the election of president who’s not-entirely-of-British Isles descent?
Racism or racialism or whatever the fug they’re calling it this wk. being a big part of their identity, they want to but can’t out & out say Barack Obama is a ****** who hates America (just because it’s fashionable, of course, no reason for anyone to hate the United Snakes — esp. black people, who wouldn’t be here w/ air conditioning if their ancestors hadn’t been enslaved — but I digress) but have to express their fears in this dog-whistle “Ahem, can’t you see that …” style.
And please, Joseph Farah, could you point to one law, proposed law, executive order, proclamation, official declaration, or anything similar, that’s anywhere near actively & opening dismantling anything Constitutional? Just one, so we can all write letters somewhere?
Today’s Lesson in American Government:
The Declaration Of Independence has not one fucking thing to do w/ the current U. S. gov’t. Joe’d be better off referring to the Articles of Confederation, if he were actually trying to make a point.
The “guiding principle” of any government is that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Here we have the illusion of “consent of the governed,” & a could-be-improved-but-could-be-much-worse constitution that does get more than lip service.
Fears, not facts!!
John Birch Society-style fear of commies, specifically, & various others, busily undermining our sacred traditions, flouridating the water & burrowing from w/in like termites to eat the Constitution, change the taste of food & tell us what we can drive, so America will be too high or morally weak to notice when
And what better proof (in their really, really secret parts; it won’t be widely discussed, & in some of them it may even be unconscious) not only of this vast conspiracy but its fruition, than the election of president who’s not-entirely-of-British Isles descent?
Racism or racialism or whatever the fug they’re calling it this wk. being a big part of their identity, they want to but can’t out & out say Barack Obama is a ****** who hates America (just because it’s fashionable, of course, no reason for anyone to hate the United Snakes — esp. black people, who wouldn’t be here w/ air conditioning if their ancestors hadn’t been enslaved — but I digress) but have to express their fears in this dog-whistle “Ahem, can’t you see that …” style.
And please, Joseph Farah, could you point to one law, proposed law, executive order, proclamation, official declaration, or anything similar, that’s anywhere near actively & opening dismantling anything Constitutional? Just one, so we can all write letters somewhere?
Today’s Lesson in American Government:
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are … the guiding principles of American government.Wrong & wrong. Also.
The Declaration Of Independence has not one fucking thing to do w/ the current U. S. gov’t. Joe’d be better off referring to the Articles of Confederation, if he were actually trying to make a point.
The “guiding principle” of any government is that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Here we have the illusion of “consent of the governed,” & a could-be-improved-but-could-be-much-worse constitution that does get more than lip service.
Fears, not facts!!
Now this is a proud mustache
Could it be that those holding the levers of power in Washington are not just ill-equipped for their jobs and making bad choices, but that they are determined to destroy America’s economy and culture because they don’t like it, never liked it and wish to see our nation operate more like the rest of the world?Well if they are ill-equipped and make bad choices then won’t they fail at destroying America?
I voted for a candidate that would make 25% of the population think the world was gonna end. Frankly, Obama, you haven’t done enough. Go for single payer, don’t be a pussy.
Sorry females I’m not judging the fortitude of your vaginas, that statement was uncalled for. I’ve known men to fly to South America because of the power wielded by those thingies.
The irony is that Obama’s ancestors weren’t enslaved.
Now, now. I think these screeds are perfectly accurate. They’ve just been time-shifted forward by a few years and they used the wrong presidential name…
The rule of law? We’re told today by Obama and company that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. It’s a “living document” that needs to be constantly reinterpreted in different times.
Apparently, just as some people will continue to claim that “Evolution says man descended from monkeys” no matter how many times they’re corrected, the self-annihilating “logic” of Textualism will be on display forever. Since it is inherent in the act of public utterance of this nonsense that the speaker will never, ever, figure out what’s wrong with it, one is left to long for a magical 72-hour period when the most notable and egregious violation of this “principle”–defining “corporations” as “persons” under the 15th Amendment–would be made to disappear, and Originalists like Farah ran naked and bleeding through the night, screaming for people with nominal human intelligence to take over again.
Apparently, just as some people will continue to claim that “Evolution says man descended from monkeys” no matter how many times they’re corrected, the self-annihilating “logic” of Textualism will be on display forever. Since it is inherent in the act of public utterance of this nonsense that the speaker will never, ever, figure out what’s wrong with it, one is left to long for a magical 72-hour period when the most notable and egregious violation of this “principle”–defining “corporations” as “persons” under the 15th Amendment–would be made to disappear, and Originalists like Farah ran naked and bleeding through the night, screaming for people with nominal human intelligence to take over again.
Dear God:
You misread the reservations for Thursday’s arrivals. It’s ONE “R”, not TWO.
Thanks a lot. How much longer are we gonna be stuck with this one?
You misread the reservations for Thursday’s arrivals. It’s ONE “R”, not TWO.
Thanks a lot. How much longer are we gonna be stuck with this one?
Doghouse, the 15th Amendment had to do with former slaves rights to vote. I believe it was the 14th Amendment, intended to guarantee the rights of freed slaves, as born or naturalized citizens, which was the basis of the court clerk’s error. As a result entities with no more reality than Ming the Merciless (similar world views too) were granted personhood under the law. I’ve often thought that a malevolent alien race could not have come up with a better device to destroy humanity than that one.
Two things:
“and wish to see our nation operate more like the rest of the world?”
Which part of the rest of the country? I’m thinking France, I know he’s probably thinking Singapore.
“It’s a “living document” that needs to be constantly reinterpreted in different times. That’s not the rule of law. That’s the rule of men –”
Ok, call me stupid but wasn’t this document written by men who designed the Supreme Court specifically for reinterpreting said document when asked?
And if men (sic:all people) aren’t really ruling who is? Who’s been at the helm?
Oh yeah, that’s up to individual interpretation, go read a verse or two, the answer will come to you — as to whether to stone your daughter to death or not.
“and wish to see our nation operate more like the rest of the world?”
Which part of the rest of the country? I’m thinking France, I know he’s probably thinking Singapore.
“It’s a “living document” that needs to be constantly reinterpreted in different times. That’s not the rule of law. That’s the rule of men –”
Ok, call me stupid but wasn’t this document written by men who designed the Supreme Court specifically for reinterpreting said document when asked?
And if men (sic:all people) aren’t really ruling who is? Who’s been at the helm?
Oh yeah, that’s up to individual interpretation, go read a verse or two, the answer will come to you — as to whether to stone your daughter to death or not.
I love the bit where he mentions that Barrack, et. al., think differently from Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison, and adds “not to mention me”.
We won’t mention you, despite your weird belief you qualify to be in such company.
And one distinct way the current Democratic leadership disagrees with those founders? They are pretty much anti-slavery.
We won’t mention you, despite your weird belief you qualify to be in such company.
And one distinct way the current Democratic leadership disagrees with those founders? They are pretty much anti-slavery.
Scott:
We’re having a little trouble getting that Eve Arden photo — will a nude pic of Kaye Ballard do?
We’re having a little trouble getting that Eve Arden photo — will a nude pic of Kaye Ballard do?
There is not a doubt in my mind that people like Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the like just plain think differently than, say, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison – not to mention me.
Yes. For one thing, Reid, Pelosi and Obama don’t own slaves.
Well…maybe Obama does.
Yes. For one thing, Reid, Pelosi and Obama don’t own slaves.
Well…maybe Obama does.
Bidzillba,
Right amendment, but it’s not the originating legal decision:
The stronger concept of corporate personhood, in which (for example) First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been asserted by corporations, is often traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394). However, that particular Supreme Court decision did not address the matter of whether corporations were ‘persons’ with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment; in Chief Justice Waite’s words, “we avoided meeting the question”.
Indeed, the court had never really expressed its opinion on this positively until the 1978 decision which granted the First Amendment right to free speech (and therefore, campaign contributions) to corporations.
Somehow, magically, between 1872 (when Justice Miller specifically excluded corporations from the Fourteenth Amendment, stating the amendment was specifically written for “negroes and mullatoes”) and 1906, when somehow the concept of corporate personhood was accepted by the Court, things changed, because in that decision, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not bar states from passing and enforcing rules limiting corporate rights.
Right amendment, but it’s not the originating legal decision:
The stronger concept of corporate personhood, in which (for example) First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been asserted by corporations, is often traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394). However, that particular Supreme Court decision did not address the matter of whether corporations were ‘persons’ with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment; in Chief Justice Waite’s words, “we avoided meeting the question”.
Indeed, the court had never really expressed its opinion on this positively until the 1978 decision which granted the First Amendment right to free speech (and therefore, campaign contributions) to corporations.
Somehow, magically, between 1872 (when Justice Miller specifically excluded corporations from the Fourteenth Amendment, stating the amendment was specifically written for “negroes and mullatoes”) and 1906, when somehow the concept of corporate personhood was accepted by the Court, things changed, because in that decision, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not bar states from passing and enforcing rules limiting corporate rights.
Somehow, magically, between 1872 (when Justice Miller specifically excluded corporations from the Fourteenth Amendment, stating the amendment was specifically written for “negroes and mullatoes”) and 1906, when somehow the concept of corporate personhood was accepted by the Court, things changed, because in that decision, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not bar states from passing and enforcing rules limiting corporate rights.
Yes, they changed because in 1886 the court clerk printed Chief Justice Waite’s preliminary statement – [i]The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does[/i] – above the opinion and it has been treated as precedent and built on ever since, despite having no legal standing in that regard.
In the 1930′s the Dean of John Marshall Law School, Edward T. Lee, advocated for a new amendment to clarify the 14th and specifically exclude corporations from its born or naturalized citizens provision. He presented it to the House and Senate as a joint resolution. [b]“ARTICLE _______________________” “SECTION 1. The provisions of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be held to apply only to natural persons and not to corporate or other artificial persons created by law.[/b], but the corporations had become too powerful to challenge through a petition for redress of grievances.
I don’t disagree with you that corporate rights have continued to expand through ever more egregious court decisions, but the crack in the law was that initial error by the clerk of the Supreme Court.
Yes, they changed because in 1886 the court clerk printed Chief Justice Waite’s preliminary statement – [i]The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does[/i] – above the opinion and it has been treated as precedent and built on ever since, despite having no legal standing in that regard.
In the 1930′s the Dean of John Marshall Law School, Edward T. Lee, advocated for a new amendment to clarify the 14th and specifically exclude corporations from its born or naturalized citizens provision. He presented it to the House and Senate as a joint resolution. [b]“ARTICLE _______________________” “SECTION 1. The provisions of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be held to apply only to natural persons and not to corporate or other artificial persons created by law.[/b], but the corporations had become too powerful to challenge through a petition for redress of grievances.
I don’t disagree with you that corporate rights have continued to expand through ever more egregious court decisions, but the crack in the law was that initial error by the clerk of the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment