Transgender Men Have an Unalienable Right to Use Girl's Bathroom

Take a look at this cartoon.  This special piece of stupidity was published in the Charlotte Observer.  Kevin Siers won a Pulitzer Prize for propagating this kind of liberal absurdity.  Does this self-identifying man (I think) really believe Thomas Jefferson thought transgender men have an unalienable right to use the little girl’s bathroom?

 What in the world has happened to today’s liberals?  If they want to wallow in the realm of idiocy that’s their business, but don’t drag the rest of us into your wonderland of perversion.  And don’t you dare hijack our founding principles to justify your sick behavior, 

The New Teat Squawking Colossus

Can we still say today’s immigrants are yearning to breathe free in the ideological sentiment of Emma Lazarus’ The New Colossus?  There was a time when people came to the United States looking for opportunities; now, they’re looking for a handout.  More than half of today’s immigrants are on welfare; 76% if they have children.

Freedom has a new meaning in the Age of Obama.  The new definition of freedom is squawking for a federal government teat so citizens can pay for their food, clothing, housing, medical care and education for their children.  This country has changed and it’s not for the better.   

Thomas Jefferson defined freedom in his first inaugural address.  Here is an excerpt:

 Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

Today’s federal government has repudiated these simple truths.  Our Washington D.C. masters look upon the citizens of this country as an unruly mob that can’t be mollified.  We have to be replaced by third-worlders who appreciate the heavy hand of a beneficent government who’ll take from others and give it to them.  Is it any wonder Democrats are reluctant to define the United States as an exceptional nation when they have nothing but contempt for its people.

Source:

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/jeffersons-first-inaugural-address

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

Sen. Chuck E. Schumer: Super Genius Moves to Outlaw Political Speech

A notorious slime ball in the U.S. Senate has weighed in on the Democratic Party’s latest fascist scheme to silence organizations, corporations, and associations that they don’t agree with. Sen. Chuck E. Schumer: Super Genius and his totalitarian cohorts want to pass a constitutional amendment to limit political speech. New York’s Mussolini equates political speech to someone who yells fire in a crowded theater.

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was the “worst” decision since the court upheld racist segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson.

“The point I’d make here – and that’s why a constitutional amendment shouldn’t be necessary but is – there’s balance in every amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. You can’t falsely scream fire. We have anti-pornography laws. We have libel laws, and what more important balance than to keep the wellspring of our democracy?

“Citizens United was an outgrowth of this. It is the worst decision since Plessy v. Ferguson – I believe that – of the United States Supreme Court,” Schumer said Wednesday at a conference of Democratic members of Congress and liberal groups focusing on amending the Constitution to repeal Citizens United.

So, political speech by an entity that Senator Schumer doesn’t agree with is pornography and a violation of his civil rights. But Mr. Super Genius isn’t through. He also invokes Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to make his case:

Schumer said that a constitutional amendment was needed to roll back the free-speech rights expanded by the court since Buckley, particularly the free-speech rights granted to political activist groups by Citizens United.

“This constitutional amendment is a moral, political, and substantive imperative,” he said. “And frankly, if Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton – both sides of the equation – were looking down on this room, they’d say ‘Go forward, right on,’ because our democracy is being ruined by these decisions.”

That assertion is absolutely absurd. One of the dirtiest elections in American history was between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Here is an excerpt from a CNN article:

Negative campaigning in America was sired by two lifelong friends, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back in 1776, the dynamic duo combined powers to help claim America's independence, and they had nothing but love and respect for one another. But by 1800, party politics had so distanced the pair that, for the first and last time in U.S. history, a president found himself running against his vice president.

Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.

Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."

And as for Alexander Hamilton, he could get just as nasty as the rest of them. As a matter of fact, it cost him his life.

Alexander Hamilton got in a swipe against President Adams writing…”the disgrace of his foolish and bad manners…he does not possess the talent, there are great and intrinsic defects in his character which unfit him for the office…infected with some visionary notions, imagination sublimated and eccentric, vanity without bounds, and a jealousy capable of discoloring every object.” Not too severe an attack, until you realize they were in the same Federalist party. This was private correspondence leaked to the press.

Adams responded to Hamilton’s slurs calling him…”an intriguant, the greatest in the world…a man devoid of every moral principal…a bastard.”

Even the universally worshipped George Washington was not off limits. Benjamin Franklin’s grandson declared…”if ever a nation has been debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by Washington.”

Alexander Hamilton also hated Aaron Burr. His attacks on the future Vice-President were relentless for years. During those years Burr seems to have either ignored Hamilton or was simply too busy with his own intrigues to care. But all this changed in 1804. Burr lost his election for Governor of New York, and Alexander Hamilton was one of the reasons. A letter appeared in the Albany register which proclaimed Burr was “a dangerous man who ought not to be trusted.” Not remarkable for the times until the letter writer declared “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.”

This called for clarification from Aaron Burr. Historians are not certain as to the “despicable opinions” are but some believe he claimed Burr having an incestuous relationship with his own daughter.

Burr called Hamilton out and Hamilton agreed to an “interview” (duel).

On the morning of July 11, 1804, the men settled their differences as Vice-President Aaron Burr put a one ounce slug into Alexander Hamilton’s liver. Hamilton died the next day.

Politicians like Sen. Chuck E. Schumer: Super Genius isn’t worried about their political opponents mud slinging. What he and his democratic thugs are concerned about is the revelation of their fascist records. And they can’t have that.

Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/schumer-citizens-united-worse-racial-segregation-case-plessy-v-ferguson

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-22/living/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans_1_jefferson-family-sally-hemings-vice-president-jefferson?_s=PM:LIVING

http://buffalo.indymedia.org/content/violence-slander-and-libel-american-way-politics-part-one

Charlotte Observer Says Constitution is Complex and Repugnant

The U.S. Constitution was read on the House floor this past week for the first time in history. Many on the left portrayed it as a political stunt; the Charlotte Observer is no exception. However, they did acknowledge that it was a good reminder of the supreme law of the land.


Of course approval by Progressives comes with a caveat. Democratic House members skipped over passages that they deemed odious and repellant to their 21st Century sensibilities. The offended class decided to edit our history, instead of learning from it:

It was also a reminder that the Constitution was not perfect and has evolved as America has become more enlightened. Members of Congress left out entire passages of the original Constitution because they were so repugnant to 21st-century thinking and have been repealed. Section 9, Article I allowed for importing slaves; Article IV, Section 2 required that escaped slaves be returned to their owners. Another section in Article I pretended that Indians didn't exist and provided that each black person counted as just three-fifths of a person. The 18th amendment enacted Prohibition, one of the great constitutional failures in American history.

I would say that the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments has also been constitutional failures, but I wouldn’t skip over them.

The Editors at the Disturber couldn’t help themselves. They subscribe to the theory that the Constitution is a “living and breathing” document, meaning you can read anything into it. I guess you can, if you distort our history and language, as the House members did when they omitted huge chunks out of their “recital” this past week. An example of this is provided by that august paper:

America evolves. The Constitution requires amending. Interpretation of it evolves. The Founders themselves expected and wanted this.


Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816:


"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, ... institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Jefferson stated that institutions must advance with the times; that is why we have an amendment process. I don’t recall him saying anything about judicial oligarchies or evolving interpretations.

Finally, the Disturber concluded with this little gem:

Emphasizing selected aspects of it to accomplish one's political ends is intellectually dishonest, and misreads history.

And isn’t that what Democratic House members did when reciting our Constitution this past week? I wish the editors at the Charlotte Observer were intellectually honest with themselves.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/09/1965823/reading-constitution-reveals-its.html#ixzz1Aa45Zny0