A sure sign of just how close to anarchy we’ve come is this new notion that ‘democracy’ or majority rule should be a sure way to know the will of the people.  Whoever shouts loudest, longest, hardest wins the day.

The Founding Fathers knew how dangerous mob mentality can be; they’d seen in.  And so when they set out to devise government, they came up with ways to keep tyrant-kings from crushing folks with whim taxes or crushing mandates.  Freedom was paramount in the infrastructure to protect our new nation.  And so it was decided that a Republic would suit the bill.  Voices would gather to choose an official would speak on their behalf.  The ‘local level’ would work amongst themselves to figure out who would speak, and what they’d say.  This would preserve the diverse interests of our nation, while keeping the cacophonous voices organized.

It seems natural and sensible that groups would gather geographically, decide rules of behavior and govern themselves according to their beliefs.

So it was with great interest that I noticed a new lawsuit this morning.  A suit that challenges the formation of newer, smaller cities in the metropolitan Atlanta area.

Finding themselves on the fringe of the bustling metropolis and really suburb-cities with shopping zones and city services, etc. the citizens believed they could be better served by more-local voices.  After years of planning, districting, jockeying with county and city officials, working with the state…these small cities became efficient and strong; safe and clean.

What could possibly be wrong?

Blacks aren’t in control.  And we just can’t have that with a black President and a black mayor…we can’t permit there to be any areas where white people clump up and have the majority. Divide like the Red Sea this clump of white folks!

http://www.ajc.com/news/lawsuit-seeks-dissolution-of-888729.html

Maybe Atlanta wants the taxes back.  Maybe it’s because the state has a record 50/50 white to black ratio.  Whatever the case, Liberals want it both ways. They want to be the majority and the minority.  They want to be the loudest voice even if they are the fewest in the room.

Can you imagine the outcry if a white Reverend launched a lawsuit to dissolve cities that are predominantly black (and there are those) in the same area? The outcry would be Racism. And so this play is Racism.

This mood, this tactic is making the rounds.

This echoes what’s happened in Wisconsin.  Use the law as a weapon to blast into power.

And if the majority votes go against them, they cry foul…they want a court to stop everything until they can wrest control back again.

This is what’s happening in the Federal level as well.  It is not simply good enough for the Conservatives to keep the Liberals from progressing, we must beat them back; repeal their measures, bend the rules the way they’ve shown us they will…at least as far as they have.

Rep. Steve King reminds us that the Vietnam War was ended by a Liberal Congress defunding the war during a Continuing Resolution.  A Conservative Congress can surely defund ObamaCare using the same tool and the same language.

——

Follow-up…Salon.com did an article on the most segregated cities in America.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/29/most_segregated_cities/slideshow.html

But segregation does not equal racism.  The article could just as easily have been named “Black Strongholds” or “African American Supermajorities”

This posting is a duplicate.  The original posting is at

http://breadandcircusesforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/03/government-busting-liberal-style.html

President and Professor of Law, Barack Obama took a little time off from poking CEOs with his pitchfork a few weeks ago to deride captive Supreme Court Justices at the State of the Union for overturning “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman’s 1907 Congressional Act that prohibited corporations from contributing to federal campaigns for public office.

The public insult that Juan William’s derided immediately after the constitutionally required address would have been egregious enough had the non-tenured legal expert been correct about the recent case that overturned portions of the McCain-Feingold law, but, as Ronaldus Magnus said when asked if liberal Democrats were stupid: “No, they aren’t stupid. Its just that so much of what they know, isn’t so.”

Well-funded free speech anathema to Democratic party policies

Justice Clarence Thomas weighed in as well, on the kinship of pitchfork weilders:

President Obama and the media critics are wrong to say the Court’s January ruling struck down the 1907 Tillman Act that bans corporate contributions to federal campaigns. It didn’t. It merely held unconstitutional portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law which freed the Post, the Times, Dan Rather, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Madow while putting a gag on tax-exempt groups like Family Research Council and, on the left, the Sierra Club. The Court ruled that corporations do not surrender their First Amendment rights to speak about public issues during an election campaign.

Justice Clarence Thomas skipped the State of the Union gong show. He refuses to take part in a ceremony that has become increasingly theatrical.

But Justice Thomas wonders why the left is so solicitous of the Tillman Act. He knows something about the background of that law. The Tillman Act was named for its chief sponsor, Sen. “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman, the arch-segregationist Democrat.

Sen. Tillman, says Justice Thomas, wanted to attack corporations because he saw them as backing the Republican Party, the leading defender of black civil rights. Tillman responded in a 1900 debate on the Senate floor to Republican criticism of his segregationist stance:

I want to call the Senator’s attention to one fact. He said that the Republican party gave the Negroes the ballot in order to protect themselves against the indignities and wrongs that were attempted to be heaped upon them by the enactment of the black code.

We did not disfranchise the Negroes until 1895. Then we had a constitutional convention convened which took the matter up calmly, deliberately, and avowedly with the purpose of disfranchising as many of them as we could under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments.

Once again, the Supreme Court did notstrike down the Tillman Act. It struck down major portions of McCain-Feingold. But isn’t it odd to find all the right thinkers (and left doers) of today defending “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman’s legacy?

Ben Tillman was governor of South Carolina when it re-wrote its Constitution to conform to the egregious Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v Ferguson that re-defined the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law to mean “separate but equal.”

From Tillman’s one-drop rule to Harry Reid’s rule

In the late 19th early 20th Centuries, Tillman’s Democratic Party hadn’t evolved to the level of its 21st Century Harry Reid standard that accepts as equal the light-skinned that can turn negro dialects on and off at will.

No, the party of the donkey was so then so wedded to Jim Crow that they used their congressional majorities to silence Corporations that backed a Republican Party born to end slavery and enact civil rights laws.

Why limit segregation to just race?

Jim Crow’s great grandchildren now seek de jure segregation writ large, in terms well beyond race.

Yes, the Democratic Party is still a safe haven for people that assume Cambridge cops are racists and slander their “typical White (read racist)” grandmothers. Now, though, instead of making them sit in the back of buses, they throw them under buses.

The Obama Administration continues the party’s racist tradition by protecting New Black Panther voter intimidation thugs in Philly while denying black majorities in the Tar Heel State the right to hold non-partisan municipal elections lest Black folks forget where their bread is buttered.

ObamaDems push criminal laws that devalue hate against White folks and deny Indian tribes the right to drill for oil on reservations.

In short, the Democratic Party of the past three centuries see governance as a cornucopia of segregation possibilities, the latest being the separation of We the People from our right to pursue happiness unless that happiness is sought with a union card or at the direction of a Pay Czar.

In their desperation to pass socialized medicine, they even sought “constructive secessions” by reconstructing Nebraska as the Medicaid master of 49 states and the District of Columbia. Even those that fired on Fort Sumter weren’t that ambitious.

Obama’s horse corpses

Recently, several Democrats and even some Republicans have suggested that the failing President replace his inner circle, dubbed by Mark Steyn as the “Four Corpsemen of the Obamalypse”. I understand why liberals would want to try and get more competent handlers in order that Obama could be more successful in advancing the statist agenda.

Thank God Obama is failing

But wasn’t Rush right, and speaking for the vast majority of We the People when he declared his desire, over a year ago, that he wished Obama would fail? Obviously.

Therefore, isn’t it time for elected Republicans and pundits to stop giving Obama advice on how to better ruin America and instead call out Obama for what he is? Obviously.

Remember Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and the Marxist dreams of his father? Is Jay Rockefeller really surprised to find that the Senator that desired to bankrupt the coal industry still pines for a coal-free nation as President.

Republicans can never make the Drive-By media stop calling us bigots no matter how much we try to conform to their PC Police codes, so why not take off the gloves and call out the Democrats for what they truly are.

They don’t care about the poor and middle class, and we can’t wait another century for them to see the dark-skinned with southern accents as equals.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

I am going to dare to venture deep into a topic that few white males dare to dive into… race. I am sure that I will be blasted by many on the left for my remarks as this blog gets more exposure, however due to the recent news controversy regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I feel that I owe it to our readers to delve into this subject matter.

The History of Race and Federalists

On the issue of Federalism, there are two lines of thinking when it comes to racial equality and the role of the government. There are Federalist who believe that a strong Federal government is essential in protecting the rights of minorities. They evidence Supreme Court cases such as Brown vs. BOE and Roe v. Wade in their arguments. These Federalists bask in the light and the glory of the role Affirmative Action played in promoting the interests of minorities in the work place. Generally Anti-Federalists are painted as the sexist/racist villains because they question the wisdom of such a strong central government. The masses jump on this bandwagon, never stopping to questions things.

I believe there to be well intentioned Federalists and maniacal Federalists. I believe that most of the masses are well intentioned Federalists who believe that a strong Federal government will protect them and their rights. The maniacal Federalists on the other hand use the well intentioned masses to demonize Anti-Federalists and garner more power for themselves. I must state the obvious here, that but for cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and Koremotsu v. United States where liberty and justice are NOT for all, there would have been no need for cases like Roe v. Wade and Brown v. BOE. Federalists marvel at the Federal government’s ability to “give” rights to the people; the problem is that these Federalists overlook the fact that it was the same strong central government which took those rights away in the first place. The flaw with Federalism is that the government givith, and the government taketh away. This runs contrary to the principals of inalienable rights which state that our rights are granted to us by GOD… NOT some temporary institution called government.

Federalists: The modern day racists?

You may be asking yourself: “How does this relate to race and Harry Reid?”. I must refer you to two quotes:

President Barack Obama: “Just because you have a right does not mean that the state or local government cannot constrain that right”.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “A right delayed is a right denied”

You see here that one man believes that rights are inalienable, the other man believes otherwise. The Supreme Court, as explained above, believes that IT has the final word on your rights, the same as the man on the left pictured above. I will not go so far as to say that Dr. King was a Conservative, a Republican, or an Anti-Federalist, but he certainly understood the incredible power that a strong Federal government could wield over an entire race of people. Dr. King certainly understood what inalienable rights were. Neither will I go so far as to say that President Obama is a racist, only that the policies he supports lend themselves to restricting liberty and fairness.

At the core of our inalienable rights is the principal of fairness. However, there is a double-standard in this nation. If a Republican or Conservative says something idiotic regarding race he is immediately labeled a racist in the court of public opinion. This man or woman is not judged by the content of his or her character as Dr. King would call for, but instead is run out of town on rails. If the same happens with a Democrat, all that is needed is an apology and things are made okay.

I submit to you that President Obama is weak. Here an incredibly accomplished, intelligent, revered leader was demeaned to what Senator Reid would call a “negro”, and instead of showing this nation his strength, and that that racism will not be tolerated, regardless of political party, he instead opted to cow tail for the sake of beltway party politics. This is the same kind of crap that Republican Federalists do.

Then there is the logic of President Obama, the same man who said that a Cambridge Police Officer “acted stupidly” without knowing the facts of the case, dismisses Senator Reid’s comments without equivocation. This isn’t “Change You Can Believe In”, this is more of the same insider party politics.  I believe that Trent Lott was RIGHTFULLY run out of D.C. for his remarks, and so too should Senator Reid. OUR public servants should be held to a higher standard. Yeah, and Kanye West is the “jackass”? Kanye’s got nothing on Reid. Please, share your thoughts.

This concludes Anti-Federalist No. 3

The Divided States of America:

I will not start this blog off with a bunch of rhetoric about what this nation was founded upon. Instead I want to impress upon my readers what this nation does not stand for as of THIS date. Because we can go tit for tat about all of the bad things the U.S. government has done, and while it may be true that those things have shaped us as a people, but I argue that it has shaped us into a better people who do not wish to repeat the mistakes of the past. This is where we must go:

On Abortion:

I personally am the exact opposite of John Kerry on this issue. Religiously, I am pro-choice because I believe that every person on earth is endowed by their creator with free will. However, legally I believe that it is the responsibility of the government to protect those least capable of protecting themselves.

No serious thinker is PRO abortion or ANTI choice. We must stop demonizing those who do not agree with our ideology on this issue. Let it suffice to say that abortion will never be outlawed, but neither should it ever be allowed to be “abortion on demand”. There is no such thing as an absolute right to do anything. Even rights which are explicitly stated in our Constitution have been limited by the Federal Government (the right to bear arms for example). Why then would a right that is implied, and not explicitly stated in the Constitution not have limitations? The fact remains that no “right to privacy” is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, and even if it were explicitly stated, every right that is explicitly stated has been limited by our Federal Government; why would “privacy” be any different? Instead of running on a platform to outlaw abortion or to make it free and available “on demand”, we should strive to bring common sense limitations on the practice and end the divisive rhetoric on this topic once and for all. It’s time to stop the politicians from dividing us on this issue. If we discuss things long enough, I believe we will find that we agree on more than we disagree on. Keep in mind that with every right comes responsibility.

On Race and Poverty:

I’m not going to say that people should vote party line. I despise political parties, and if it were up to me I would do away with them completely and force people to be educated on the issues before they cast a vote. Ignorance causes poverty and it is this ignorance that war must be declared on. That being said, the American people MUST stop voting party lines based on race or financial disparity.

I find it ironic that all of the cities with the top 10 poverty rates in America have been run by Democrats 92% of the time since 1965. This isn’t saying that the new Republicans who act like little Democrats are any better, but we must see this for what it is. This is ironic because it is usually the poor who vote Democrat, and statistically, it is the Democrat that keeps the poor people poor.

I refuse to back one party over another, but I MUST point out that on this issue, history has been forgotten and misrepresented in order to foster political gains. Keep in mind that it was the Republican Party (GOP) that was founded on the premise of eliminating slavery. During the Civil Rights movement, it was the Democratic Party (DNC), and not the GOP which was responsible for racial oppression, especially in the south. I will not even go into how many Democrat leaders were members of the KKK. Yet somehow, we have allowed the DNC to paint the GOP as the party of racists because of a few people that have been allowed within the ranks of the GOP. Never mind that the DNC has statistically had more racists among their ranks than the GOP has had.  Again, I must stress that the house isn’t clean for Republicans either, but I believe it necessary to point out a lie when I see one.

On Homosexual Marriage

We must define this issue in legal terms rather than emotional terms. Those on the left have argued for years that there exists a “wall of separations between church and state”. Now, never mind that neither these words, nor this language exist anywhere in the Constitution; I recommend however that we allow those on the left to win this argument for the sake of discussion. If there exist a separation between church and state, why would the state recognize ANY marriage, straight or homosexual? If this separation exists, shouldn’t the state ONLY recognize civil unions and leave the business of “marriage” to the church?

The Constitution does give every one of us the right to contract, and civil unions are protected by that right to contract. This solution allows the government to step aside and let the church leaders fight this battle. This would allow us to get down to real issues rather than allowing career politicians to divide us and guarantee themselves life long careers in Congress.

On Economics:

While “trickle down” economics is a viable principal, there exists a certain way in which to maximize returns to the public with regard to the way that capital trickles down. With Barack Obama bailing out every corporation from GM to Bank of America, and now perhaps even the New York Times, we must be aware that it is now the Democrats who have turned over a “Pro-Big Business” leaf. Instead of being Pro-Big Business, should we not focus on being “Pro-Free Market”?

Americans believe in FAIR competition and STRONG economic growth. If liberal economic policies work so well, then why is California on the brink of bankruptcy while Texas has experienced below average unemployment and wasn’t hit as hard as the rest of the U.S. economy. The American people must ask themselves: “Economically, would I rather live in California or Texas?”.

Conclusion:

Our leaders have divided us on economic lines, religious lines, racial lines, and along the lines of sexual preference for one reason and one reason only, power. The party leaders divide up the states and draw lines in the sand to dictate political districts. How do you think they come up with those lines? You guessed it, the lines are based on economics, religion, race, and sexual preference, although the party leaders will never admit this. We MUST stop buying into their rhetoric. It is time for We the People to lead on these issues and let our Representatives know that we will no longer stand for these distractions.

This concludes Anti-Federalist No. 1