Posts Tagged ‘new jersey’
The Tea Party Republicans in Washington claim they’re concerned about the budget balance, but it’s a disguise! It’s not true! It’s a lie! That’s not what they want. They want — they want other people not to be able to have their own opinions. They don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution! But we’ll give them to them anyway. – Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
I get pretty rabid out here at times. And I usually hold no quarter for liberals despite the whiny gripes of moderates and liberals who ask me to “tone it down” because they don’t want to hear the harsh rhetoric.
Of course they forget, this blog is The Rabid Conservative. But hey, I figure if I speak the way most liberals do, perhaps they’ll understand, right?
Nah, I didn’t think so either.
At least I’ve never elected to say that some Americans, even the liberal ones, didn’t deserve the freedoms and liberties that I enjoy.
So anyway, take this crumb-cake, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey making the crazy statement that makes one wonder if he wasn’t drunk, stoned, or just completely stupid when saying. If New Jersey has the shape of a boot, then Lautenberg, based on his latest comment, is the fungus under the toenail.
So he had the audacity to say that Tea Party Republicans didn’t “deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution”.
So, who died and made you a Founding Father, you jerk? I’m sure there are tea-partiers all over the state of New Jersey who you just slighted with your off-the-wall comment, saying they don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution. They deserve them as much as you do. And I’m exercising them right now, beginning with the freedom of speech.
He went on to say, “But we’ll give them to them anyway.”
Oh, thanks be to the all-mighty Frank Lautenberg, the one who now bestows rights on us lowly Americans. Oh, as if he had any say in the matter.
What a clown. How does Gov. Christie put up with having a doofus like him in his state anyway?
I’m going to go pray to the One who bestows rights to people now, in penance for my rabid attitude another expression of my Constitutional liberty, and not just because you give me license, Frankie-boy.
The Dems absolutely hate the idea of a federal republic because it takes power from Washington and keeps it in the hands of the individual states or the individual citizens.
There has been a lot of analysis (ad nauseum, actually) regarding the 2009 election, about whether it was a Democrat victory – the beginning of a GOP revolution, a referendum on President Obama’s first year, etc etc.
But the thing that I found most amusing was Nancy Pelosi’s remark about how it was a Democrat win because [they] "picked up votes". And to that end, she’s right, the Dems added two to their number in the House majority – a majority that is whipping the rest of the House Dems into supporting the Nationalist Health Care Malform Bill. And while I won’t go into the particulars of that 1900 pages of bureaucratic rubbish today, I must say that, yes, with Pelosi having a chance that the bill could be defeated in the House, she needs every vote she can muster. So, when the delta is at about ten votes, two votes are important.
But aside from that, there’s one other angle that I’ve not heard the pundits discuss – and one that the Democrats in Washington seem to give very little care – the autonomy of the State and how this past election affects that dynamic.
Consider the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution:
IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
X: 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.
The Dems absolutely hate the idea of a federal republic because it takes power from Washington and keeps it in the hands of the individual states or the individual citizens. The Dems want a stronger central government to control what the states and the people can do, rather than leaving them to govern themselves, as the Founders intended.
There are scores of violations of these two amendments that have allowed for inappropriate growth of government. Using the federal court system to override the decision of people, such as Prop 8 in California (which was decided properly) and or 1972′s Roe v. Wade decision (improperly overriding Texas law) are clear if we apply the Ninth Amendment properly. Implementing exorbitant government programs and regulating behavior through these programs violates the Tenth. And all of these things are issues that should be left to the Several States or the People.
So when Nancy Pelosi gets the word that the Virginia and New Jersey will have GOP governors, she could care less. Pelosi and her liberal bunch don’t care about the rights of the Several States (unless they are in alignment with the liberal agenda). Liberals seek to subvert the power of the States in favor of their agenda – using the power of federal government to override the will of the people.
It’s quite interesting to see that when decisions are left to the people, such as recently demonstrated by Maine’s voters over Question One, exercising a People’s Veto (something that I like, BTW), the rights are preserved in the hands of where they should be – with the people, first.
Pelosi doesn’t believe this.
BTW – Had Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial races gone Democrat, we would have heard from Pelosi and her ilk that this was a clear referendum that the liberal policies are what the people wanted. But they certainly don’t believe it to be true with GOP wins. The spin on this one is pretty high for sure.