Posted on 11/26/2003 2:12:34 AM PST by JohnHuang2
No hoods, no robes, but ideologically still the same
Posted: November 25, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Those who understand the inner machinations of politics understand that liberals – not the liberals who believe in a chicken in every pot – but the social progressive liberals, who being cognizant that their socialist agenda would never see the light of day legislatively, turn to the courts to rule what we the voters would never permit otherwise.
This is the reason for their manic obsession to obstruct judicial nominees who would uphold the Constitution, not subvert it.
These social progressive Marxists are destroying America, yet many voters sit quietly – more interested in who wins "American Idol" or what "Joe Millionaire" does, than the systematic stripping away of our rights.
I listened from the Senate gallery as Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., explained how the "real mainstream" groups opposed judicial nominee Carolyn Kuhl. "Real" mainstream groups like the Sierra Club, NARAL, People for the American Way and the NAACP.
I listened to Mary Landrieu, D-La. – who I unapologetically and euphemistically state danced barefoot in the streets with every special-interest group she could approach to get re-elected – talk about the "middle of the road mainstream." I listened to her talk about "moderate mainstreamers."
Does anyone know what those two things are? Has anyone heard of them before that Thursday, Nov. 13, at approximately 9 a.m.?
It is time for all to realize that just as al-Qaida and the Taliban hate America's collective guts, so too do the social progressive liberal extremists – who are in most cases racist.
They align themselves with true liberals, then not unlike a disease cell that takes over a healthy cell, their malignant cancer starts to consume the good. And does so until all is gone and you are left with a mutation.
True liberals do not push for the elimination of God and for social engineering – communists and Marxists do, because they know men and women of substance will never bow before their vile heterodoxy.
They unambiguously engage in social programming – thus, the unprecedented intrusion of political correctness into every facet of life. They are intent on controlling how people think, speak and behave.
These leftover manifestations from the militant anti-establishment groups of the '60s have a plan for America, but it doesn't include peace and understanding, goodwill toward men.
Theirs is conquest by division. During the "Justice for Judges" marathon, I listened to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., call it "low cheap shots" to say they Democrats were "anti-black and anti-Hispanic."
But their record shows otherwise. In a memo dated Nov. 7, 2001, to Sen. Durbin, D-Ill., President Bush's judicial nominee Miguel Estrada was identified "as especially dangerous, because he is Latino." (Wall Street Journal, Nov. 14, 2003)
Judicial nominee Janice Rogers Brown, a black jurist from California, has been excoriated by Democrat Sens. Durbin, Boxer, Schumer, et al, precisely because she is black, conservative and comports herself as a woman of character. If Justice Brown had illegitimate children, believed in welfare, indiscriminate abortion and ideological lap-dancing like certain other Senate Democrat women, she would be "A-OK."
Even more reprehensible is that white Marxists, like People for the American Way, encourage short-sighted jaundiced blacks to play the useful idiots. In other words, white bigots use black "Punchinellos" to attack independent-minded minorities. Their reward? A seat at "Barmicide's" table. I digress to ask you just who the real "house slaves" are?
Judge Charles W. Pickering has been eviscerated because he dares to be a Catholic who practices his faith. If he were a Wiccan (choose your spelling and gender after defining same) – as are certain Democrat senators – he would be totally acceptable.
Schumer and his Punic Democrat counterparts can read my lips: Their behavior is not only anti-black and anti-Hispanic, but anti-God, family, woman and America as well.
It should also be noted that filibustering is nothing new for Democrats. Six of them filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 57 days, with Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., being the final filibusterer. In the final analysis – even though they removed their hoods – some things never change.
Racing toward us is a microchip to be implanted beneath the skin. With the flood of illegals and the next major terrorist event, which will no doubt occur, see if that call doesn't go out that we need better control of who's who in this land.
Anyway, why would you object to implantable ID chips unless you have something to hide?
This term should be used in its entirety whenever referring to the extreme left who love to describe themselves as "progressives." The former is far more accurate.
Truer words never spoken.
I've seen oligarchies (Philippines 30 years ago) and maybe Massachussetts falls into this category, but our nation does not.
The problem arises when court decisions are applied to anything other than the case before the court. It once was that way, and it was the correct interpretation of the Constitution. Anything else is judicial activism - and the creation of law by the judiciary.
Racing toward us is a microchip to be implanted beneath the skin. With the flood of illegals and the next major terrorist event, which will no doubt occur, see if that call doesn't go out that we need better control of who's who in this land.
If enacted by the federal government, such would be a violation of the Article I § 9 (non-enumerated powers), 4th Amendment (privacy), 5th (self-incrimination), 9th & 10th Amendments (reserved powers/federalism). And if your religion prohibits such, forced implants would be a violation of the free excercise clause of the 1st as well.
Probably for the same reasons that I would object to:
1) having a GPS-equipped cellphone (that couldn't be disabled) which would let who-knows-who track my movements without my knowledge or consent. If I was going on a trip, or a walk, and wanted people to know where I was: then I would consent to the coverage; in the course of my daily activities though, I expect a right to privacy.
2) having hidden cameras installed practically anywhere, for essentially the same reasons.
3) having an implanted chip (considering today's technology's ability to detect chips from several-meters distance), while it may be beneficial or convenient for VOLUNTARY identification (i.e. making charge purchases, admittance to work ILO an ID badge, and so forth) can also be MISUSED and become another way for others to make a "papers, please" demand of you without the necessity of actually ASKING you.
If a cop wants to know who I am, he can ask to see my identification - and if I refuse to show it to him then there are established methods by which he may obtain information about me. Implanted ID tags may work with unthinking, uncommunicative animals (so, if you are amenable to having yourself tagged, consider that last bit to be an insult to you) or objects for inventory purposes, but not for Individuals who consider privacy and freedom a constitutional right.
She DID! And the G-- D--- liberals can't accept that a Black woman, who went through a personal history similar to Maya Angelou would pick herself up without government "help" and use character instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.