Notable Quotables
You actually have to hear the Left sometimes to believe just how crazy they can get.
Remember this one?
"A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools their children; who has stored up survival foods and has a strong belief in the second amendment; and who distrusts big government.
Any of these may qualify a person as a cultist, but certainly, more than one of these would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family as being in a risk situation that qualifies for government interference."
Probably not. It was our former Attorney General, Janet “The arsonist” Reno giving an interview to Sixty Minutes on 6/26/99. In the words of the immortal Hans Gruber in Die Hard, I must have missed Sixty Minutes that night, what was she saying?
Looks to be that she’s saying if you’re anywhere near a devout Christian, believe you have freedoms endowed in you by your Creator, especially the right to defend yourself, distrust big government, tend to give to Christian charities or home school your children then you’re a cult freak and dangerous individual that the government should keep a close eye on, or possibly incinerate like she did the poor women and kids at Waco.
For all the harping I heard from my left-of-center friends back in the day about John Ashcroft and how he was going to be some jack-boot thug who would see all liberals and Muslims in death camps and being prayed over and persecuted by figures that would’ve made Torquemada blush, I never heard them utter a peep about the former Miami-Dade prosecutor who saw the citizenry as dangerous insects to be crushed if they stepped too far out of line. And at least he didn’t order the mass murder of people just because they were Christian. Janet holds that distinction. I wish to God (oh, look at me, Mr. Dangerous) more people would realize that, but perhaps it’s easier to forget history when it’s a part you’re either not proud of or when your side was in charge…or both. Right?
Here’s another good one. Stephen Breyer, one of our illustrious Supreme Court Justices and arguably one of the most left-leaning (after perhaps Ruth “Mao” Ginsburg) had this to say recently on his job regarding the Constitution of the United States, as excerpted from an article at NewsMax.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."
Nowhere do I recall in the Constitution where it lists the Supremes duties as above. They have no mandate to “promote the political rights of minorities” and they certainly don’t have any enumerated powers that allow them to “look beyond the Constitution’s text”. The Supreme Court has assigned itself powers since its creation (see: Judicial Review), but the likes of this sort of thinking borders on the insane. It does explain, though, why it’s a popular fad of the left-leaning Justices to pick and choose court decisions and laws from other countries.
They so despise their own and the Constitution which governs it, that they’ll use anything to tear it down. I don’t typically use the term in regular debate, but these are the truest forms of America-haters you will ever see on the Left.
And wouldn’t one assume that usurping that kind of authority, as Justice Breyer indicates he thinks he has, make one a bit “too powerful” in and of itself? That wreaks of a tyranny of the minority, a very small minority in fact as all he and his ilk has to do is convince “Shades” Kennedy to stand with them and they can write de facto laws of the land in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Congress should’ve impeached him when they had the chance.
You actually have to hear the Left sometimes to believe just how crazy they can get.
Remember this one?
"A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools their children; who has stored up survival foods and has a strong belief in the second amendment; and who distrusts big government.
Any of these may qualify a person as a cultist, but certainly, more than one of these would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family as being in a risk situation that qualifies for government interference."
Probably not. It was our former Attorney General, Janet “The arsonist” Reno giving an interview to Sixty Minutes on 6/26/99. In the words of the immortal Hans Gruber in Die Hard, I must have missed Sixty Minutes that night, what was she saying?
Looks to be that she’s saying if you’re anywhere near a devout Christian, believe you have freedoms endowed in you by your Creator, especially the right to defend yourself, distrust big government, tend to give to Christian charities or home school your children then you’re a cult freak and dangerous individual that the government should keep a close eye on, or possibly incinerate like she did the poor women and kids at Waco.
For all the harping I heard from my left-of-center friends back in the day about John Ashcroft and how he was going to be some jack-boot thug who would see all liberals and Muslims in death camps and being prayed over and persecuted by figures that would’ve made Torquemada blush, I never heard them utter a peep about the former Miami-Dade prosecutor who saw the citizenry as dangerous insects to be crushed if they stepped too far out of line. And at least he didn’t order the mass murder of people just because they were Christian. Janet holds that distinction. I wish to God (oh, look at me, Mr. Dangerous) more people would realize that, but perhaps it’s easier to forget history when it’s a part you’re either not proud of or when your side was in charge…or both. Right?
Here’s another good one. Stephen Breyer, one of our illustrious Supreme Court Justices and arguably one of the most left-leaning (after perhaps Ruth “Mao” Ginsburg) had this to say recently on his job regarding the Constitution of the United States, as excerpted from an article at NewsMax.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."
Nowhere do I recall in the Constitution where it lists the Supremes duties as above. They have no mandate to “promote the political rights of minorities” and they certainly don’t have any enumerated powers that allow them to “look beyond the Constitution’s text”. The Supreme Court has assigned itself powers since its creation (see: Judicial Review), but the likes of this sort of thinking borders on the insane. It does explain, though, why it’s a popular fad of the left-leaning Justices to pick and choose court decisions and laws from other countries.
They so despise their own and the Constitution which governs it, that they’ll use anything to tear it down. I don’t typically use the term in regular debate, but these are the truest forms of America-haters you will ever see on the Left.
And wouldn’t one assume that usurping that kind of authority, as Justice Breyer indicates he thinks he has, make one a bit “too powerful” in and of itself? That wreaks of a tyranny of the minority, a very small minority in fact as all he and his ilk has to do is convince “Shades” Kennedy to stand with them and they can write de facto laws of the land in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Congress should’ve impeached him when they had the chance.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home