1 - 10 Next
Except for diverting attention, I can't understand why liberals are so down on DWS. After all, it seems that the characteristics she displays are much the same as those of most of the 'leadership' of 'the left.
Like a lot of others, I guess, the idea seems to be put ALL focus on DWS in order to keep the foibles of the rest of incumbent Democrats (at least the ones seeking election or re-election) out of the news. Those of us who have paid attention know that very few Democrats have been critical of the destructive policies of this Administration and even most of the legislation pursued by Democrats since 2007 (just to narrow it down to a DWS time frame in D.C.when Democrats gained control of Congress).
One of the complaints supporting 'secession' was being ruled by a 'government that was so far away. A large number of America citizens believe we, too, are being ruled by a government that is not only far away but out of touch with the real problems faced by 'ordinary' CITIZENS and a recent poll indicated that around 25% of the citizenry favor 'secession', at least from Washington, D.C. both Republican and Democrat politicians and bureaucrat and jurists. After all, secession would create 'new' nations, not bound by ridiculous 'rulings', executive orders, laws, programs and a host of other things foisted on us by a runaway, virtually 'foreign', federal 'government' which treats ordinary citizens almost as bad as the government of King George III -- if not worse, if one compares the grievances cited in 'The Declaration of Independence' and what we live with today including the 'edicts' from 'The White House' and even the violations of laws AUTHORIZED or 'PERMITTED" by the present Administrations and the agencies and departments of the 'Executive Branch'. Mistrust of government, while a good thing even when government is relatively 'trustworthy, is a good thing, but when government is almost devoid of any characteristic that is worthy of trust, it is almost foolish to think that things will get better unless we at least toss out the current crop of 'rulers' who want us to accept the confiscatory policies of the current liberal/progressive critters who think the Constitution and Bill of Rights were simply put up as a ruse to fool the citizenry while the 'leaders' do as they please to anyone whom they see as opposition to their retaining power or furthering their almost total control of all that we do, say, think or have.
It never ceases to amaze me that Democrats can get away with attacking 'the rich' and yet no one seems to wonder how they come up with the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars during election cycles. Obviously such enormous sums can't be coming from 'the poor' and 'disadvantaged' who live off the taxpayers. One could almost begin to believe that those attacks on 'the rich' by ANY Democrat is pure malarkey, because so many Democrats depend on THEIR 'rich friends' to keep them in power so their rich friends and their political office holders can get richer.
For the life of me, I can not recall any 'matter of real importance' regarding things that make anyone in this Administration look bad about which Democrats have told the truth without obfuscation. It seems that they lie as a matter of course, EVEN WHEN A LIE IS NOT EVEN PRACTICAL, always with something in the background reminding them of the clarity and simplicity with which Bill Clinton spoke when he said: ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
Why is it not mentioned that Mr. Sutter along with those 'white prosecutors in Southern towns' were Democrat (or Democratic) Party members? And we must not overlook Eric Holder and Mike Nifong, also Democrats. I realize there have been 'Republican' prosecutors and 'executives' and 'legislators' with at best, questionable ethics, but with Democrats controlling much of 'government', and in particular the politicized enforcement of laws about almost anything, I believe it is good to state the political party of those who seem to believe that once in office, their oath of office apparently means nothing to them.
Of course liberal/progressives find something 'objectionable' about any form of stated or implied personal responsibility. After all, how will they continue to grow the nanny state without an ever increasing supply of single 'mothers' expecting and getting 'government assistance' and of course, those 'pregnancies' also are beneficial to abortion clinics, many of which also get paid by 'government funds' (taxpayers.
I agree that such is the case on a very large number of decisions, but I think self-aggrandizement (Marbury, Income Tax Amendment and Social Security) and possibly self-interest or 'intimidation' (Obamacare and maybe Kelo). Way back between 1805 and 1820, Thomas Jefferson warned of allowing Marbury to stand without further limitations and even limitations on SCOTUS in general because he opined that even something like 'indigestion' or a 'quarrel with his wife' could color a Justice's outlook and rationale on any given day.
I believe that the actual mechanism of ignoring the Constitution came with Marbury v. Madison, which basically said that a simple majority on the Supreme Court could declare ANYTHING either Constitutional or UNconstitutional and that no subsequent deliberations were bound by previous decisions or rationale. Of course, the Founders soon realized that 'the People', or at least the politicians in the several states did not trust subsequent Federal elected politicians or appointees, and they tried to add 12 Amendments, with the following Preamble: " The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:" Only 10 of the amendments were ratified and became known as "The Bill of Rights".. Of course, over the years, it became clear that the distrust was justified as the politicians found more and more ways to circumvent the limitations or even usurp power they were never intended to have to the point that a high ranking Democrat (James Clyburn (D-SC)) even arrogantly proclaimed that Congress (and of necessity including the Executive and Judicial branches if they are separate but EQUAL)didn't worry about those limitations and even had the audacity to ask where was there anything that said that couldn't pretty much do as they pleased -- obviously hoping we had forgotten Amendments 9 and 10 which were very clear that ant power exercised must be SPECIFICALLY authorized IN THE CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS.
How many Democrats in high office have 'somehow overlooked' that they weren't paying enough taxes or transportation costs or other things UNTIL someone else (usually not in the lame stream media) reported the 'oversights'? I have lost count.
1 - 10 Next