Archive for the ‘james madison’ Category

Vote for the Witch! You would think that would endear her to all those moonbeam atheist Dhimmicretins, wouldn’t you? I guess their worship of the omnipotent state takes precedence. She actually understands that the “separation of church and state” is not in the First Amendment to our Constitution. To them that’s a bigger heresy than witchcraft that they would under all other circumstances they would approve.

Also:

Palin, O’Donnell Speak, Dhimmicretins Expose Ignorance

Mark Levin Rips A New One On Moron Caller About Separation Of Church And State

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Nick Popaditch running for Representative for CA51 opens his debate with the incumbent Pelosi-bot Bob Filner by expressing his four qualifications for legislation.

1.What does his constituancy want?
2. Is it Constitutional?
3. Is it moral?
4. Is it ethical?

Now normally when a politician says anything remotely resembling this, I feel it is time to grab your wallet and jump into a bomb shelter. However Gunny Pop is a retired (not ex) Marine Gunnery Sergeant with a Silver Star, so I’m prepared to take him at his word (officers are occasionally political weasels but senior non-coms usually say exactly what they mean). And it is possibly the best concise statement of what a Representative should be doing that I’ve ever heard actually proposed.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Sarah Palin told supporters Monday they couldn’t “party like it’s 1773” until Washington was flooded with like-minded conservatives. Intellectually “superior” leftards from Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas to PBS moderator Obama cheerleader Gwen Ifill took to Twitter to snicker about Palin’s historical illiteracy never taking the time to google “party+1773” and find the 4,240,000 results referencing the Boston Tea Party.

Christine O’Donnell is getting a massive amount of attention today because during a debate with Chris Coons, she asked: “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” He replied fairly well quoting the non-establishment phrase which is not the question she asked. When pressed further the “bearded Marxist” could not list the freedoms contained in the First Amendment. The religion clause reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The “separation of church and state” is a doctrine first referenced by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. In Jefferson’s letter, he was reassuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedom would remain protected – a promise that no possible religious majority would be able to force out a smaller church. The worst part of this was the students at Widener University Law School laughed at her question. How can you be in Law School and quite obviously not have read the constitution? Or is their reading comprehension so horribly low that they can’t understand that simple phrase? As a PSA for them is this link, Boston College 3L Asks for His Money Back; Hilarity Ensues.

Sharron Angle covered the same ground when Jon Ralston confronted her over her 1995 statement that excluding religious schools from Federal funding is un-American and that the separation of church and state is an unconstitutional doctrine. Then this exchange ensued:

RALSTON: The separation of church and state arises out of the Constitution.

ANGLE: No it doesn’t, John.

RALSTON: Oh, it doesn’t? The Founding Fathers didn’t believe in the separation of church and state?

ANGLE: Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted, like I’ve been misquoted, out of context. Thomas Jefferson was actually addressing a church and telling them through his address that there had been a wall of separation put up between the church and the state precisely to protect the church from being taken over by a state religion. That’s what they meant by that. They didn’t mean we couldn’t bring our values to the political forum.

Now you may quibble over the use of the word “arises”, and if you mean that the constitution raises the point, you might be right, but the actual meaning is almost exactly opposite of the leftists’ use of the term.

To hear the Obama administration tell it, there are few things worse than anonymous political activity. Just recently, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the Christian Science Monitor:”The untold story of 2010 is not the “tea party” or not the health-care bill, or a number of these issues. It is the amount of money that is flowing in districts around the country and particularly the amount of anonymous money….I haven’t been any place where there aren’t dozens of ads now being run and nobody knows who is behind them…I am used to a political system where people engage in battles and you know who brought them to the dance.”

But is anonymous political speech really that new – or that bad?

Indeed, anonymous political speech isn’t just a great American tradition. It helped create the United States of America. The Federalist Papers, the series of essays that influenced the adoption of the Constitution, were published under the pseudonym “Publius” (in reality James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay). The anti-Constitution position was in turn articulated by “the Federal Farmer,” whose identity remains a mystery.Former Federal Election Commission chair Bradley Smith lays out other arguments in favor of anonymous political speech in a contemporary context:”[Election] disclosure regulations are some of the most burdensome. Disclosure limits free speech because it allows the government to retaliate against people. The Supreme Court has consistently held that people do have a right to anonymous speech. The cases speak for themselves.The most prominent one is probably NAACP v. Alabama (1964), when Alabama wanted to know who was funding the NAACP’s activities. We can see how that would be intimidating. Then there’s McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995). McIntyre was doing anonymous brochures against a school tax, which all the school officials supported. She had children in the schools who needed grades and access to such things as athletic teams and bands. She didn’t necessarily want her name known, even though it was important for her to fight this issue. Another major case was Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee (1982). The socialists rightly said, “If we have to reveal our donors, they won’t give us money. They will get harassed. Their businesses will get blackballed and that sort of thing.” Disclosure can be more inhibiting than people think.”Which is something to think about when people already in power push legislation such as The DISCLOSE Act, which would force groups to list donors and reveal their names in advertisements. The DISCLOSE Act is in part a response to this year’s controversial Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission ruling by the Supreme Court. Hyperbolically likened by critics to the infamous Dred Scott decision, Citizen’s United dealt with a documentary film censored by the government and broadened the speech rights of corporations, unions, and nonprofits. Far from opening American politics up to undue influence by unspecified foreigners (as President Obama has charged), the ruling makes it easier for smaller groups and individuals to spread their messages.

As with many political firestorms, the current one about “dangerous” anonymous speech generates more heat than insight. Anonymous speech is fully in the American grain but it also comes at a price. When the source of political speech is not known or disclosed, voters tend to discount it, or at least look for corroboration elsewhere. Which is exactly how it should be. And if you don’t in the end trust voters to make informed decisions, then all the mandatory disclosure in the world can’t help them.

“Who is Publius?” is written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie. Approximately 45 seconds.

For downloadable versions of all our videos, go to http://reason.tv. To receive automatic notification when new material goes live, subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel.

Vodpod videos no longer available.