Confederate Republic
As readers of Green Eagle may know, I occasionally elevate conservative posts from Wingnut Wrapup to their own individual commentary. Usually this is because of idiocy above and beyond the call of duty. I want to discuss a piece here (a piece of what I won't make clear for fear of offending women and small children) from one of my favorite right wing websites, Renew America. Before beginning, I want to make it clear that this site is not the product of some fringe lunatic with a miniscule readership, like, say, Green Eagle. It was founded by former Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, and is one of the most read right wing websites in existence.
Anyway, this is an article titled The Sotomayor Scare, by some idiot named Timothy Baldwin. Not that it has much to do with Sonya Sotomayor, as you will see. This wanker graduated from "the Cumberland School of Law," which calls itself one of the oldest law schools in the country, except that it was sold lock stock and barrel to a Baptist university in Alabama in 1961, where it had to be forcibly desegregated a few years later, by the the Federal government. He claims to have written a book to be published soon by "Agrapha publishing." I can find no reference to this alleged company anywhere on the internet, but I would like to note that, in searching, I discovered that the word "agrapha" refers to alleged sayings of Jesus that are not in the Gospels. A good title, as this guy apparently has read a different constitution than the one the rest of us are used to referring to as our "constitution." Well, enough with the derision; here he goes:
"....the time has come in our Confederate Republic (the USA) to acknowledge and understand that the power to govern ourselves justly and constitutionally is in the hands of the people of the several states of America — NOT in the hands of the branches of federal government. What most people in America have been duped to believe is that the US S CT is the final arbiter in all matters concerning government actions related to the US Constitution."
Don't you just love the "Confederate Republic" thing? I won't bore you with it, but he refers over and over again to our country as a "confederate republic." What point do you think he could be trying to make by using that language, huh?
Now, apparently we've been "duped" into thinking that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Duped, I would like to point out, by a conspiracy going back to the time of the people who wrote the constitution, all of whom seem to have participated in this gigantic conspiracy, and including every significant constitutional scholar in our country's history. God, you'd think by now, someone would have spilled the beans.
"people feel hopeless and think that regaining freedom somehow means replacing the "liberal" judges with "conservative" judges."
Well, you tried that. Unfortunately, electing presidents who pollute the court with corrupt right wing thugs like Antonin Scalia appears to be perfectly legal. However, there is a hunger for violence among the right today, at the indignity of having to see a Democrat and a black man in the White House. This hunger cannot be sated by legal behavior; it requires a purging, an apocalypse, a Gotterdammerung.
"Let me state this clearly: the US Constitution does not grant to the US S CT the power to interpret the Constitution in contradiction to the terms of the Constitution, and it does not strip the powers of the States to actively arrest and resist tyrannical federal actions."
Here we go. Of course (much to the dismay of us liberals the last thirty years) the Supreme Court does have the power to interpret the constitution and, legally, that is what the constitution means, not what some Baptist wacko from Alabama says.
As you can see, this is the point where he starts talking about actively resisting the Federal Government. What do you think he means by that?
"What sense does it make that the US S CT is bound by an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then has the power to interpret it however the heck they want to?"
Sorry, you pathetic idiot, but that's the way our Federal Government works. Interpreting the constitution, that's their job. Don't like it? Why not move to Honduras or Pakistan, where they have other ways of resisting tyrannical federal actions? But no, that wouldn't soothe the rage that boils in this man's chest every time he thinks of the black man living in the White House, sleeping in the same bed once occupied by Saint Ronnie, or the blessed Christian Patriot George W. Bush. That calls for real men to take real action.
"One cannot credibly and correctly argue that whatever the US S CT says goes....Thus, the question becomes, what can and what must the states do when all three branches of the federal government ignore the Constitution and trample over the intents of its foundational principles?"
I wonder what that might be? Maybe elect different representatives who won't approve these unamerican, foreign-named intruders, like Sonya Sotomayor? No, that won't do. No, no. that would never be enough. Not with the horrible communistic islamic threat facing our country today, in the form of the illegal alien Obama, who is clearly committed to destroying everything decent about our country- things like its regal insurance industry, its wonderful opportunity for the rich to further engorge themselves on our national wealth, its vital determination to allow one section of the country (the South) to survive on welfare provided by all the rest of us, while dictating, through obstruction, threats and lies, how we all shall live...
"....the question is, what are the states going to do in response to the usurpation of powers that have been tyrannically taken by all three branches of the federal government? The question is, what are the states going to do when the federal government has passed, upheld and executed laws that are not "enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction"? After all, such laws are by definition NOT the supreme laws of the land and consequently, the people of the states and the states themselves are not bound to them."
Whatever laws we don't agree with, we have no obligation to follow. Now, that's the American way, right? And clearly WE get to decide which laws to obey, at least when "we" is taken to mean those of us on the right. Dare not, ye liberals, to decide to take the same privilege for yourselves. YOU have no right to decide, for example, that people's health is more important than insurance companies' profits, or that people of all races deserve equal treatment by our government. That is communism, and we will fight it to the death. Or at least until the shooting starts and we go running home to mama, while someone else fights our battles for us. Now that is the American way- the American conservative way, anyhow.
"The time has come that the people of the several states of America wake up to the truth of their history: they are citizens of independent and sovereign states; the US S CT is NOT the final arbiter in matters of freedom; the federal government is not the source of our freedom; the states have the duty to resist the encroachments of federal usurpation; and freedom can be restored when the Confederate Republic is restored."
A duty to resist. Independent and sovereign states. I see- the states can do whatever they want, regardless of what the Federal government has to say about that. Listen, guy, some other people from Alabama and adjacent states had that exact same idea about 150 years ago. Remember how that went down?
Now, given all of the above, what do you think he means when he talks about restoring the Confederate Republic? I mean, what does he really mean?
Well, folks, this mixture of belligerence and deliberate denial of our history and laws is what it's come to here in the U.S. of A. Six months of a black president and its time for certain states to assert their "sovereignty," i.e. refuse to recognize the authority of the Federal Government, i.e. secede, and establish a "Confederate Republic." Like Dracula, some things just never die.
And sad to say, a lot of people think this way. Lucky us, huh?
Anyway, this is an article titled The Sotomayor Scare, by some idiot named Timothy Baldwin. Not that it has much to do with Sonya Sotomayor, as you will see. This wanker graduated from "the Cumberland School of Law," which calls itself one of the oldest law schools in the country, except that it was sold lock stock and barrel to a Baptist university in Alabama in 1961, where it had to be forcibly desegregated a few years later, by the the Federal government. He claims to have written a book to be published soon by "Agrapha publishing." I can find no reference to this alleged company anywhere on the internet, but I would like to note that, in searching, I discovered that the word "agrapha" refers to alleged sayings of Jesus that are not in the Gospels. A good title, as this guy apparently has read a different constitution than the one the rest of us are used to referring to as our "constitution." Well, enough with the derision; here he goes:
"....the time has come in our Confederate Republic (the USA) to acknowledge and understand that the power to govern ourselves justly and constitutionally is in the hands of the people of the several states of America — NOT in the hands of the branches of federal government. What most people in America have been duped to believe is that the US S CT is the final arbiter in all matters concerning government actions related to the US Constitution."
Don't you just love the "Confederate Republic" thing? I won't bore you with it, but he refers over and over again to our country as a "confederate republic." What point do you think he could be trying to make by using that language, huh?
Now, apparently we've been "duped" into thinking that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Duped, I would like to point out, by a conspiracy going back to the time of the people who wrote the constitution, all of whom seem to have participated in this gigantic conspiracy, and including every significant constitutional scholar in our country's history. God, you'd think by now, someone would have spilled the beans.
"people feel hopeless and think that regaining freedom somehow means replacing the "liberal" judges with "conservative" judges."
Well, you tried that. Unfortunately, electing presidents who pollute the court with corrupt right wing thugs like Antonin Scalia appears to be perfectly legal. However, there is a hunger for violence among the right today, at the indignity of having to see a Democrat and a black man in the White House. This hunger cannot be sated by legal behavior; it requires a purging, an apocalypse, a Gotterdammerung.
"Let me state this clearly: the US Constitution does not grant to the US S CT the power to interpret the Constitution in contradiction to the terms of the Constitution, and it does not strip the powers of the States to actively arrest and resist tyrannical federal actions."
Here we go. Of course (much to the dismay of us liberals the last thirty years) the Supreme Court does have the power to interpret the constitution and, legally, that is what the constitution means, not what some Baptist wacko from Alabama says.
As you can see, this is the point where he starts talking about actively resisting the Federal Government. What do you think he means by that?
"What sense does it make that the US S CT is bound by an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then has the power to interpret it however the heck they want to?"
Sorry, you pathetic idiot, but that's the way our Federal Government works. Interpreting the constitution, that's their job. Don't like it? Why not move to Honduras or Pakistan, where they have other ways of resisting tyrannical federal actions? But no, that wouldn't soothe the rage that boils in this man's chest every time he thinks of the black man living in the White House, sleeping in the same bed once occupied by Saint Ronnie, or the blessed Christian Patriot George W. Bush. That calls for real men to take real action.
"One cannot credibly and correctly argue that whatever the US S CT says goes....Thus, the question becomes, what can and what must the states do when all three branches of the federal government ignore the Constitution and trample over the intents of its foundational principles?"
I wonder what that might be? Maybe elect different representatives who won't approve these unamerican, foreign-named intruders, like Sonya Sotomayor? No, that won't do. No, no. that would never be enough. Not with the horrible communistic islamic threat facing our country today, in the form of the illegal alien Obama, who is clearly committed to destroying everything decent about our country- things like its regal insurance industry, its wonderful opportunity for the rich to further engorge themselves on our national wealth, its vital determination to allow one section of the country (the South) to survive on welfare provided by all the rest of us, while dictating, through obstruction, threats and lies, how we all shall live...
"....the question is, what are the states going to do in response to the usurpation of powers that have been tyrannically taken by all three branches of the federal government? The question is, what are the states going to do when the federal government has passed, upheld and executed laws that are not "enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction"? After all, such laws are by definition NOT the supreme laws of the land and consequently, the people of the states and the states themselves are not bound to them."
Whatever laws we don't agree with, we have no obligation to follow. Now, that's the American way, right? And clearly WE get to decide which laws to obey, at least when "we" is taken to mean those of us on the right. Dare not, ye liberals, to decide to take the same privilege for yourselves. YOU have no right to decide, for example, that people's health is more important than insurance companies' profits, or that people of all races deserve equal treatment by our government. That is communism, and we will fight it to the death. Or at least until the shooting starts and we go running home to mama, while someone else fights our battles for us. Now that is the American way- the American conservative way, anyhow.
"The time has come that the people of the several states of America wake up to the truth of their history: they are citizens of independent and sovereign states; the US S CT is NOT the final arbiter in matters of freedom; the federal government is not the source of our freedom; the states have the duty to resist the encroachments of federal usurpation; and freedom can be restored when the Confederate Republic is restored."
A duty to resist. Independent and sovereign states. I see- the states can do whatever they want, regardless of what the Federal government has to say about that. Listen, guy, some other people from Alabama and adjacent states had that exact same idea about 150 years ago. Remember how that went down?
Now, given all of the above, what do you think he means when he talks about restoring the Confederate Republic? I mean, what does he really mean?
Well, folks, this mixture of belligerence and deliberate denial of our history and laws is what it's come to here in the U.S. of A. Six months of a black president and its time for certain states to assert their "sovereignty," i.e. refuse to recognize the authority of the Federal Government, i.e. secede, and establish a "Confederate Republic." Like Dracula, some things just never die.
And sad to say, a lot of people think this way. Lucky us, huh?
Comments