The American Spectator : Desperate Democrat Distractions

Text Size

Campaign Crawlers

Desperate Democrat Distractions

By Robert Stacy McCain on 10.20.10 @ 6:08AM

Smear and loathing on the mid-term campaign trail.

HAGERSTOWN, Maryland -- Neil Parrott admits he was "very surprised" to find himself accused of supporting "tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas." The attack, he says, "came out of nowhere."

Although the shipping-jobs-overseas accusation has become a standard-issue smear against Republican congressional candidates this year, its application in this case is particularly surprising, because Parrott isn't a candidate for Congress. He's a local businessman running for a seat in the Maryland state legislature, and utterly mystified by the claim his Democratic opponent makes in a slick four-color mailing sent to thousands of Washington County homes last week. The mailing depicts Parrott in front of a map of Mexico and urges voters, "Vote NO on Neil Parrot -- BAD for JOBS, BAD for US." Adding to the xenophobic tone, the Democrat's mailer calls Parrott an "outsider" and says he "isn't from Washington County," although the Republican is a lifelong Maryland resident who lives in Hagerstown -- which is in Washington County -- where he owns a highway engineering company.

Never mind the facts. It's an election year, and Democrats desperate to distract voters from their own party's policy failures aren't going to let truth stand in their way, so that a small business owner running for a state legislature seat is portrayed as an "outsider" pursuing a hidden agenda behalf of a "Washington D.C. special interest."

That "special interest" would be Americans for Tax Reform, and the not-so-hidden agenda is ATR's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge." Since 1986, when it was introduced with an endorsement from Ronald Reagan, this promise to "oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes" has been signed by thousands of candidates for public office. The list of state-level candidates who signed the ATR pledge for 2010 is eight pages long, including more than 50 candidates in Maryland besides Parrott.

The ATR pledge is a non-partisan promise and some Democrats have signed it, but for months, the pledge has been fodder for Democratic Party attacks on GOP candidates, conveying the impression that Republicans are running for office with no goal more important than shipping jobs to China and Mexico. When the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) employed this charge in April against Charles Dijou in a Hawaii special election, the group FactCheck.org labeled it flatly "false."

This accusation dates back at least to 2004, when John Kerry raised it repeatedly against President Bush. Because the United States has a relatively high corporate tax rate, the Internal Revenue code has for several decades included a "loophole" that protects U.S.-based multinational companies from being taxed on profits earned by overseas operations. The sensible solution, of course, would be to remove the need for the "loophole" by reducing corporate tax rates. Instead, after Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, Texas Democrat Rep. Lloyd Doggett attached to a House farm bill a measure that amounted to a tax increase of more than $7 billion on U.S. companies that do business overseas. President Bush threatened a veto and the Democrat-controlled Senate stripped the measure from the farm bill.

Amidst that 2007 controversy, ATR issued a "legislative alert" informing members of Congress that a vote in favor of the Doggett amendment would be considered a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Such is the pretext for the ridiculously misleading accusation that any candidate who has signed the no-tax-increase pledge is in favor of "outsourcing jobs… to foreign countries," as the mailer against Parrott phrases it. This protectionist rhetoric was promoted as the Democrats' last best hope for political survival in an Oct. 6 memo from strategists James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, and is now part of a predictable arsenal of attack ads against Republicans.

When Democrats aren't twisting tax policy into dishonest attack ads, they're dumping their opposition-research files into TV spots that usually combine allegations of impropriety with a large dose of class warfare. In New York's 24th District, for example, Democrat Rep. Michael Arcuri portrays GOP challenger Richard Hanna as a greedy millionaire who "got rich while his construction company overcharged taxpayers thousands, was sued three times for injuries caused by faulty construction and was cited 12 times for health and safety violations."

Lawsuits and citations are normal hazards of doing business in a litigious and over-regulated society, problems that arguably contribute far more to U.S. job losses than the tax "loopholes" that Democrats cynically demagogue. But the logic of these personal attacks is obvious: It turns the GOP candidate's real-world business experience from an asset to a liability. If that kind of tactic succeeds against businessmen like Hanna, it will mean the playing field is tilted to favor politicians like Arcuri, a lawyer who has been drawing a government paycheck since being elected a local district attorney in 1993.

One reason Democrats might think they can succeed with these deceptive ads is that the establishment press seems content to repeat Democratic Party talking points without critical examination. In New York's 25th District, for example, Republican challenger Ann Marie Buerkle held a press conference Monday to rebut attack ads from Democrat Rep. Dan Maffei. The local newspaper -- which "couldn't be more biased if they tried," as one Syracuse-area blogger said -- ignored the press conference and instead published an editorial that repeated the "outsourcing jobs to China" smear, while also accusing Buerkle of benefitting from "secret money."

Ah, yes, secret money! President Obama and his allies have been pushing the "secret foreign donors" angle against those evil Republicans (who, we are assured by the president, are also beholden to the Slurpee cartel). Even a liberal like Ezra Klein recognizes this conspiracy-theory stuff as ineffective. Among the organizations implausibly accused of furtively funneling foreign funds to the GOP is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That could offer attack-ad fodder for Parrott, whose Democratic opponent is chief executive of the Washington County Chamber of Commerce. Is the Democrat a puppet for shady foreign interests? "That's something I might want to look into," says Parrott, laughing.

Republicans can laugh at these attacks, but it is a sad irony that, even while Obama accuses voters of succumbing to fear, his own party shamelessly tries to exploit fear in its mid-term campaign. Americans appear ready to reject these desperation tactics and Democrats risk losing nearly 100 House seats Nov. 2. The time for fear is over. Let the loathing begin.

About the Author

Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (105) | Leave a comment

Christopher Kelleher| 10.20.10 @ 7:01AM

I recommend the following. Whenever I hear "tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas," I e-mail the Democrat making that accusation and ask (1) to which part of the tax code he or she is referring and (2) why a Congress dominated by his or her political party since January 2007 has not repealed or attempted to repeal these "tax breaks." (I know. These are questions that the press should ask, but even Fox News has been too lazy or clueless.) I never receive a reply from the candidate. That's a good thing: silence from a Democrat, no matter how momentary.

Ned| 10.20.10 @ 10:49AM

Yes, but if they're silent, they are usually up to something unpleasant...

Nunya| 10.20.10 @ 11:50AM

Reminds me of children--when they are not making noise, they're doing something they know they shouldn't be....

Deborah D| 10.20.10 @ 8:34AM

Just add this to the growing list of political shenanigans perpetrated by the Democrats. They are so low they have to look up to see an earthworm.

There's the latest story from Houston's Harris County about how the Dems are suing 65-year-old Republican women poll watchers for voter intimidation...here: http://libertypundits.net/arti.....ng-places/ ... this was filed before there were any complaints.

Then there's Obama's own foreign donors problem that the Dems seem to overlook...see John Fund at the Wall Street Journal.

Then, there's the Cincinnati schools busing high school students to the polls during school hours (oh, and giving them Dem ballots) here: http://news.cincinnati.com/app...../10190308/

These are just a few stories I've run across today. These people are beyond the pale. So, get out and vote because we're going to need every last one to defeat these crooks, liars, thieves and lowlifes.

Redstateboy| 10.20.10 @ 9:41AM

Early voting happening in E. Tenn. - voted last night.. I love being in one of the Reddest of the Red States - where Freedom and Personal Responsibility are still considered normal.

Butterfly53| 10.20.10 @ 10:51AM

Boy, where in East Tennessee? My fam was from a town south of Knoxville called Maryville, at the foot of the Smoky's. Lovely country!

Angry MD| 10.20.10 @ 11:15AM

My grandmother went to college in Maryville back in the 1920's at Carson-Newman. My family has been in TN for generations. I thought everyone in the world was conservative except for people on TV until I reached adulthood and moved out into the world. Glad to be still in the South , though, in Georgia

Redstateboy| 10.20.10 @ 2:41PM

Knoxville Tennessee - the Sunny-side of the Smokies.

Petronius| 10.20.10 @ 8:49AM

Bogus attack adds work because they are aimed at the economically illiterate boobs who will repeat the charges in public before the fact. The first given of the libtard template is, business screws people. The corollary of that is, people only complain about the price of things they don't want to spend money for. No matter: whether it's a gallon of gas or a visit with the GP, when the idiot's comfort level is "violated" regardless of actual cost, he's getting the shaft and whines to mommy government demanding regulation, vindication, and satisfaction according to his definition of what is "fair." The Democrats requite him. But economies don't run on spite.
Why would any viable business hire such a person? Would any sane banker loan him more than a nickel? The Democrats will tell you. He is Entitled.

Old Soldier| 10.20.10 @ 9:13AM

We could more accurately call it "tax policy that keep international companies from sending the entire corporation overseas to avoid our ridiculously high taxes."

Redstateboy| 10.20.10 @ 9:22AM

The Rats will do what Rats do and there's always going to be enough stupid people or dependent people who'll vote for a Rat but I think even they know their days a waning. America's at a Crossroads.. Either we're going to be a Country that provides Jobs and paychecks or a crumbling Western European Socialist Republic with the citizens dependent on the government for their food and shelter. You can not have both.

Anthony| 10.20.10 @ 10:48AM

CNN last night tried the same smear with O'Donnell and her "Constitution gaffe".
Ms. O'Donnell was absolutely corrrect. Article I of the Amendments to the Constitution does not contain the words "seperation of church and state'". That was her point, and that is all she said. Coons, on the other hand, did not know the rights expressed in Article I. No mention of this by CNN.
O.K. I can live with Coons' ignorance, but don't make a federal case out of a correct statement made by O'Donnell.
The Establishment Clause has nothing to do with seperation of church and state; it deals with the establishment of a national religion, as is the case of the Church of England.
The MSM know this. They deserve to be treated as the whores that they are.

Butterfly53| 10.20.10 @ 10:53AM

Tony, they're desparate and will do anything at this point. They can't believe their grasp is slipping away!

Ned| 10.20.10 @ 10:57AM

Thanks for clarifying that, Anthony. I don't go near CNN other than an occasional peek at the screamers during commercials elsewhere, and I had spotted the banners about O'Donnell not knowing the Constitution. My first thoughts were, "What smear have they invented now?", but I hadn't seen (yet) any explanation of her "gaffe"... shoulda knowed that the gaffe was entirely the invention of the media.

Nunya| 10.20.10 @ 12:00PM

I don't go to CNN at all. As to O'Donnell, I heard what she said on the radio this morning, and she was indeed mocking her opponent when she asked him "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?".

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 12:32PM

Gee, Anthony. I guess Thomas Jefferson is just as ignorant as CNN about the First Amendment:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Assn. 1802.

Bob S| 10.20.10 @ 12:44PM

Dear RCV:
Please sign up for the nearest remedial reading comprehension course ASAP. The First Amendment does NOT use the phrase "separation of Church and State". Whatever Jefferson's personal interpretation of the First Amendment are, these interpretations are his, and are NOT part of the Constitution. O'Donnell 1, Troll 0.

victor| 10.20.10 @ 12:52PM

Gee, Anthony, I guess RCV is just as ignorant as CNN about the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Separation of Church and State does not appear anywhere in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution. The vast majority of cases were not decided until the mid twentieth century starting with the Evilson decision in 1947.

If Jefferson never received and never answered the Danbury Baptists you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself today.

Or maybe you would.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 1:54PM

Victor and Bob S: The Constitution is a set of general governing principles, not a statute book of specific rules. The courts must take these guiding principles and apply them to specific fact situations, and thus we gradually develop the body of jurisprudence that governs in any area. For example, the Fourth Amendment does not use the word "privacy interest," but speaks of "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."

Jefferson, like the myriad of Supreme Court justices who have had ocassion to summarize the evident intent and meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, have used the term "separation of Church and State" in the same way as the Court has used "privacy interests" to describe what the Fourth Amendment is protecting. Sorry if you don't agree with the characterization, but the absence of the words themselves don't make the conclusion incorrect. I'll stick with Jefferson's view, as has the Court.

victor| 10.20.10 @ 2:36PM

RCV:
"Jefferson, like the myriad of Supreme Court justices who have had ocassion to summarize the evident intent and meaning....have used the term "separation of Church and State"

If you were under oath would you be able to cite the
first occurrence of the phrase "Separation of Church and State"?

And "summarize the evident intent and meaning"
does not mean that those words are in the Constitution.
The "right to privacy" is not, but ALCU lawyers (is that what you are?) have found it, right next to the "Right to an Abortion" and next to "The Right to Gay Sex".

Rights that ARE in the constitution are ignored by you guys, i.e. the Free Exercise Clause when it applies to Christians that attempt to preach the Gospel.

You keep repeating the same old tired responses without addressing the questions put to you.

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 2:47PM

Victor,
RCV could not be more incorrect. The Constitution as you know, enumerates the specific powers granted to the government by the people. It is the abuse of those powers in creating "rights" which have brought us to this moment. It would be well for the Left and RCV to recall the very specific right listed in the Declaration to whit "... to alter or abolish." Does RCV and his ilk really want to take us there?

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 2:52PM

No right to violent resistence in a society where the people are self-governing and can elect their leaders. Your problem, AL Adab, is that you lost the last election. If your side wins in November, they'll get to try to persuade the People of the rightness of their proposals within our Constitutional Republic. But if you try to act outside the system, and resort to violence, you'll be rounded up and put away like any other terrorist. Any questions?

Helen Donnelly| 10.20.10 @ 3:07PM

No, heir comandant!

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 4:49PM

Just...put...the...gun...down...Helen.

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 3:50PM

RCV,
What rights then do the citizens retain in that they have not consented either through themselves or their representatives (district by district, state by state) to the imposition of mandates by the Federal government in violation of the compact?
Our rights are absolute as they derive from nature and reason. No power can lawfully remove them from the people's control nor can the people themselves give them up.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 4:52PM

They have the right to exercise and enforce the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution. That's why we have an independent Judiciary. (And please don't go on and rail about the judiciary - that's what you guys do when you don't get your way.) The system the Framers gave us works - but that doesn't mean YOU always get to have your way.

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 5:09PM

Surely you do not suggest that "the system the framers gave us" abrogates the rights we hold as citizens, which rights derive from our creator not from our government or ourselves. A reading of the 10th shows clearly, as did Hamilton in his discussion of the "necessary and proper" clause, that the powers not enumerated are reserved to the states or people. Do you deny the people their power to exercise those rights?

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 5:17PM

Surely, I do not. Did you have something specific in mind?

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 5:35PM

Then we arrive back at my 2:47 post to which you tok exception and we come to the final determinant question: At what point does our Government, under our Constitution, become a government "destructive of these ends" and what actions then remain to the citizens if not the ability to "...alter or abolish"?

Perhaps a Constitutional convention or a congress of several states? What other?

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 6:39PM

When there is available constitutional redress, that rather than violence is mandated. Constitutional amendments, election of new representatives to end the destruction, suits to enforce existing constitutional guarantees, are all available to us in this country.

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 7:17PM

Twenty states have in fact filed suit over the healthcare mandates. Perhaps your bar card permits of taking their argument on.

My bar card only allows of 16 year old Lagavulin.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 9:59PM

Alas, having retired from active practice, I 'm not you guy.

Cabermon| 10.20.10 @ 4:59PM

Yes, RDV, I have a question:
Why are you leftists, seemingly without exception, condescending arrogant elitists?

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 5:18PM

It just comes naturally to us. Something we were endowed with.

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 5:41PM

Too good to pass up, "endowed" by whom?

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 6:40PM

By the Creator, in whom I most fervently believe.

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 7:16PM

LOL :)

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 7:40PM

It is good to know that even our differences admit of some commen ground.

Tim*| 10.20.10 @ 10:29PM

Thomas Jefferson :
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

Hspin| 10.21.10 @ 2:39PM

Is that not what the second amendment is for? To insure that the govenment is kept in check by an armed populus?

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 2:49PM

Couldn't swear it under oath, since like you I wasn't there, but my understanding is that the phrase first was used in Jefferson's letter in 1802.

I have represented several Christian churches in Free Exercise First Amendment cases, a right I strongly endorse and defend.

skip| 10.20.10 @ 5:43PM

If one examines what Jefferson is stating in this 1802 letter intelligently and honestly, it can be determined the separation is not to prevent the church from interfering with the state, but to prevent the state from interfering with the church. When the constitution was ratified six of the original thirteen colonies had a state church. The constitution creates a wall of separation of state and property. The constitution's purpose is sixfold: the formation of a more perfect union; the establishment of justice; the insurance of domestic tranquility; the provision of common defense; the promotion of general welfare; the security of the blessings of liberty to ourselves and all future generations. Excluding, of course, certain unborn Americans who do not qualify for life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness even though created equal. RCV is welcome to begin discussing topics intelligently and honestly; posters to this site would welcome this were it to ever happen.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 6:45PM

Skip, I am a life-long student of Jefferson and in my 63 years I have read just about every word published about him or by him. If there is one thing I am certain of from that reading is that he believed in BOTH the state not interfering in religion, and the church not interfering in the state. His writings on the subject are extant and adament. For example, he wrote to a friend, "Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.

Jefferson believed fervently that ANY entanglement between church and state befouled both the state and the church. He also abhored state established churches, and celebrated the abolition of the last one in letters to his friends.

Quartermaster| 10.20.10 @ 8:42PM

Somewhere in your "63 years" you've somehow avoided learning what a Church is. It is people, RCV, not some monolithic "it" that can interfere with the government.

Your stand of "separation of Church and State" means the disenfranchisement of the people that are the Church. You leftists do your best to evade the force of your arguments, but that, at the bottom line is what people like you want - teh disenfranchisement of anyone whose Christianity informs there mores.

Claiming to have represented Churches in free exercise cases does nothing to remove the onus from you. You, and others like you, wish the Church to go away. We will not as we are citizens of this country and have as much right to stand for what we believe as you think you have the right to tear it down.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 10:03PM

Sorry, Quartermaster, but I can't cop to that plea. I'm a regular church goer, and like any believer, my faith informs my view on most every thing I do.

skip| 10.21.10 @ 4:17PM

Okay, a liberal believer. How do you reconcile the following: Christ charged everyone, regardless of wealth, to tithe individually, not to force your neighbor to do it ; Christ said to those who have been given much, much will be expected, with the obvious implications; forcing people to pay for others assistance against their will has nothing to do with charity; the 10th commandment demands no one be envious of other people including their possessions.

RCV| 10.21.10 @ 5:10PM

Skip, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. There's your (and my) role as a Christian, which requires us to do charity -- and the more we receive, the more is expected of us. That I try to live by, and each of us is answerable to God for that.

The government's role in society is to secure the common defense and promote the general welfare of its citizens. I think it's entirely appropriate in an increasingly urbanized, free market system with periodic dislocations in the business cycle, for government to insure that all its citizens have access to health care and the minimum necessities of life, as part of government's responsiblity.

skip| 10.21.10 @ 6:39PM

The Constitution defines what is caesars and what is not. Liberalism blatantly violates this definition. You did not honestly or intelligently address the points of my previous post. General welfare refers to policies that benefit every citizen. Liberal policies benefit some at the expense of others and has nothing to do with general welfare and you know it. I defy you to find where Christ extols us to help the clueless as opposed to the truly helpless. Liberalism actively seeks to destroy Christianity. Liberalism more accurately reflects the desires for humanity of satan, not the desires of Jesus Christ.

skip| 10.22.10 @ 1:19PM

18 hours without a response so apparently we are done here. You probably saw where I was going. Jefferson: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves or abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."

The first admendment did not actually reflect Jefferson's opinion on the matter. Our Founding Fathers numbered well over one hundred, and each had their own thoughts and opinions on the formation of a new nation. All these thoughts and opinions were sifted and modified into the documents our founders officially produced.

The policies you support Jefferson has called "sinful and tyrannical". Two powerful words. 63 years and a lifetime studying Jefferson you say?

I abhor liberalism. Liberalism is a political ideology wholly lacking in intelligence and wholly lacking in honesty and has never produced a policy or idea of any benefit to this nation. Every policy and idea produced by liberalism has been detrimental, destructive, damaging, and dangerous to this nation.

RCV| 10.23.10 @ 9:30PM

As you well know, unless you were being disingenuous, Jefferson was speaking about forcing citizens to support churches and religious propaganda, sentiments with which I heartily agree.

I abhor sanctimonious conservatism of the tea party brand, an ideology wholly lacking in intelligence or a shred of real Christian love and compassion. Every policy it espouses is dangerous, damaging and detrimental to our country and it's future. It will have a lifespan much like its intellectual forbearer, Know-Nothingism.

skip| 10.24.10 @ 11:35AM

The Lord: You shall have no other gods before me.
Liberalism: Socialism. The Environment. Tolerance. Redistribution. International Globalism. Obama. Etcetera.

The Lord: You shall not worship graven images.
Liberalism: Socialism. The Environment. Tolerance. Redistribution. International Globalism. Obama. Etcetera.

The Lord: You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
Liberalism: Goddamn America! Real Christian love means forcing your neighbor against his will to pay for those who won't do so themselves. Etcetera.

The Lord: Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
Liberalism: Sabbath? Sabbath? Are you serious? Hey! Take that cross down, it's illegal! You can't bring a Bible into this school, its illegal! You can't pray in this school either! Get that Nativity scene off this property now, that's illegal! You can't tell her to take off that burqa, it's illegal! Etcetera.

The Lord: Honor your father and your mother.
Liberalism: Or your father and your father. Or your mother and your mother. Or your father and your little brother. Or your father and your father and your father and your goat and your gerbil. Etcetera.

The Lord: You shall not murder.
Liberalism: Over fifty million innocent unborn American babies have been 'legally' killed. And we've only just begun. Oh, and don't you dare violate the unalienable rights of convicted serial rapist murderers by capital punishment, that is illegal! Etcetera.

The Lord: You shall not commit adultery.
Liberalism: Impeach the president of the United States over a little sex? Are you serious? Etcetera.

The Lord: You shall not steal.
Liberalism: Taxes are you patriotic duty. Redistribution is real Christian love. Just because they have no income, no job, and no assets, is no reason for you to defy real Christian love and not pay for their home. Funding Planned Parenthood supports American's unalienable rights. Etcetera.

The Lord: You shall not give false testimony.
Liberalism: Teabaggers (a bigoted term referring to a disgustingly sick and perverted sexually deviant act that only liberals, not conservatives, approve of) are nazis. Teabaggers are sanctimonious. Teabaggers are destroying America. Teabaggers have no shred of real Christian love in them. Etcetera.

The Lord: You shall not covet your neighbor or any possession of your neighbor.
Liberalism: Daily rhetoric promoting class warfare. An income amount where you've made enough. Tax policy where the top one percent pay more than the bottom ninety five percent, it is the party of equality after all. In the name of equality reduce everyone's standard of living and liberties. Etcetera.

The acknowledged author of the Constitution, James Madison: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

skip| 10.25.10 @ 11:52AM

No pontification in 24 hours. Perhaps the realization the Founding Fathers would have considered you the opposition has set in. Perhaps that has not even been a consideration yet. Perhaps the notion conservatism is more in line with Christ than liberalism has caused paralysis or seizure.

R(eprehensible behavior in the name of)
C(hristianity is)
V(ile)

Yosemeti Sam| 10.21.10 @ 3:00AM

Well then, TJ had politically subordinated a FUNDAMENTAL Biblical LAW - The First Commandment - to a man-made 1st Amendment
religious egalitarianism.

Um, I think - GOD don't think it works that way
in HIS universal domain!

Kishego| 10.20.10 @ 3:00PM

Wrong again, your such a tool. Or the apropo, "useful idiot" emphasis on the idiot.

Anthony| 10.20.10 @ 3:17PM

Actually he is, as are you. See my last post.
You have cited the First Amendment, do you see the words "seperation of church and state" there?
The answer is NO.

CalMark| 10.20.10 @ 2:37PM

Thomas Jefferson is irrelevant in any debate about the Constitution.

Jefferson wanted nothing to do with the Consitutional Convention--he stayed home and sulked. Jefferson had nothing to do with the Federalist Papers--he didn't want the new Constitution ratified.

In short, Thomas Jefferson was the classic Democrat: pour scorn and hate on the Constitution, then take advantage of it for your own personal power--Jefferson made George Washington's life a living hell for 6 years because Washington wouldn't do exactly as Jefferson told him to.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 2:47PM

Jefferson didn't "say home and sulk" during the Constitutional Convention, you dolt. He was serving his country as Minister to France, and had extensive correspondence with his close friend, James Maidson during the process.

Finrod| 10.20.10 @ 5:27PM

So, what you're saying is, you knew that Thomas Jefferson was not even in the country when the Bill of Rights was being debated and passed by the First Congress, yet you think his description of it after the fact is more important than the text of the First Amendment itself?

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 5:45PM

Of course not. Whether he was in or out of the country is completely irrelevant. The starting place for any constitutional (or for that matter, statutory) interpretation is the text itself. With respect to a Constitution, textual analysis alone is often problematic since we are dealing with governing principles, not detailed statutes, and the principles are necessarily broadly stated. While "judicial conservatives" are more enamored of looking to the founders' intent than I (which founders are we talking about?), most courts find it useful and instructive to understand what those who proposed and passed an enactment intended to accomplish with the general language to understand its reach and scope. Jefferson may have been in Paris serving his country, but as his correspondence with Madison, the prime author of the Bill of Rights, makes clear, he was one of the driving forces behind their enactment. His close work with Madison in drafting the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a precursor to the Religion Clauses in the First Amendment, makes him a natural source for understanding the original intent behind the provision.

Brad| 10.20.10 @ 2:48PM

Actually, Jefferson was in France at the time of the Constitutional Convention. But you're dead on right about everything else.

Brad| 10.20.10 @ 2:49PM

I meant CalMark is right. Not the ignorant RCV.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 3:01PM

In fact, CalMark, Jefferson did not oppose ratification of the Constitution, as did his fellow Virginians, Patrick Henry and George Mason. Like the latter, he was concerned with the lack of a Bill of Rights in the document, but was persuaded by his friend James Madison that passage of such amendments could be later secured.

CalMark| 10.20.10 @ 3:49PM

Jefferson was largely responsible for the brilliant Declaration of Independence. He was a key player in 1776. If he supported something, Jefferson was all-in, front-and-center.

A guy like this was coincidentally in France during the most momentous proceedings of the millenium, and didn't weigh in first-person. WHAT? Then afterwards this brilliant scholar-writer didn't lift a finger to write any Federalist Papers to support ratification. Again, WHAT?

Jefferson hated any form of central government (ironic, given what the party he founded has become). Thus, he DIDN'T support the Constitution and OPPOSED ratification. Deal with it.

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 4:10PM

Hello guys,
T J was in France. The irony here is that everything the anti-federalists feared has in fact come true albeit much more slowly than they feared. Nonetheless, I will take my stand with the Constitution as understood in it's clear language by the various state ratifying conventions.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 4:35PM

CalMark. Jefferson did NOT oppose ratification. When Madison sent him a copy of the proposed Constitution, Jefferson expressed reservations because it had no Declaration of Personal Rights. Madison followed up on his suggestion that one be added, and with the adoption of the proposed Bill of Rights, Jefferson urged ratification. See James Morton Smith's "The Republic of Letters" at 519-20.

CalMark| 10.20.10 @ 7:29PM

Clearly you're a Democrat who can't let go of the "Jefferson was a Constitution supporter" fable, so that you can keep quoting him on Constitutional issues.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." I'm done with you.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 10:06PM

I figured you would be, but if you have some factual source for your assertion, I'd love to see it.

Yosemeti Sam| 10.21.10 @ 3:03AM

Well then, TJ had politically subordinated a FUNDAMENTAL Biblical LAW - The First Commandment - to a man-made 1st Amendment
religious egalitarianism.

Um, I think - GOD don't think it works that way
in HIS universal domain!

Anthony| 10.20.10 @ 3:11PM

I am well aware of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. I propably knew of this letter several decades before you.
Jefferson wrote many letters and treatises that appear to contain contray points of view, he was, afterall a true scholar.
Jefferson was not saying that there should be a wall of seperation between church and state, what he was opining on was that if the government was to institute a "national religion" as England's Church of England and also if the government was to prohibit the free exercise of religion, then government would be building a wall between chruch and state, because it would be interfering with the individuals right to worship as he/she saw fit. Got it now?
Remember this is the same man who wrote in the Declaration of Independence "that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights".
You, like most liberals, have always misread this statement by Jefferson. Now that you've learned something, don't be so damn smug in the future.
All this said, the Constitution does not contain this phrase in Article I of the Amendments, which was Ms. O'Donnell's point.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 3:46PM

Sorry, Anthony, but Jefferson wanted no government involvement in religious matters, and no involvement by religious authorities in government. He meant what he said by "wall of separation". As he wrote, "Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.

You can disagree with old Tom, but don't try to make him into something he wasn't.

Yosemeti Sam| 10.21.10 @ 3:04AM

Well then, TJ had politically subordinated a FUNDAMENTAL Biblical LAW - The First Commandment - to a man-made 1st Amendment
religious egalitarianism.

Um, I think - GOD don't think it works that way
in HIS universal domain!

GavInTucson| 10.21.10 @ 12:36AM

RCV, the establishment clause simply means that the Federal Government cannot establish a national religion (remember the Church of England?). I means the government cannot mandate what religion you're "allowed" to practice.

And remember, then ending of the establishment clause states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means that anytime a child got a bible confiscated during recess (in a federally funded school, I might add), his or her Constitutional rights were violated.

You seem to think that the establishment clause means the absolute stripping of anything religious in government. Not true. Every session of Congress begins with a prayer. Every session of the Supreme Court begins with "God save the Supreme Court." The Presidential oath (thanks to Washington) ends with "so help me God." This has gone on since the country's founding.

Call me crazy, but the Founders (and especially James Madison) understood the document they created when they wrote the Constitution.

GavInTucson| 10.21.10 @ 12:41AM

Oh, and I forgot to add, there's a gigantic "IN GOD WE TRUST" carved in the marble in both chambers of Congress, above the Speaker's and President of the Senate's (VP's) head.

So much for the "separation" of church and state. All this in a building that was designed by the Founders that wrote and understood the Constitution.

RCV| 10.21.10 @ 1:02AM

You're absolutely right about every one of those points. It's what case law and commentators term "civic religion" - the ceremonial invocation and acknowledgement of a nondemonination creator. It clearly doesn't violate the First Amendment, and repeated challenges to those practices have bee properly rejected by the courts.

RCV| 10.21.10 @ 1:07AM

And certainly confiscating a Bible from a student would be an outrageous violation of the free exercise clause, which ought to be foughtvtooth and nail any time it would occur.

Yosemeti Sam| 10.21.10 @ 2:51AM

Well then, TJ had politically subordinated a FUNDAMENTAL Biblical LAW - The First Commandment - to a man-made 1st Amendment
religious egalitarianism.

Um, I think - GOD don't think it works that way
in HIS universal domain!

Gerald Stephens| 10.20.10 @ 4:07PM

WORSE! John Gibson (FOX) was full throat belittling O'Donnell this date as a looser but parenthetically acknowledging she was correct on the First Amendment. He represents the very model of a modern major RINO.

He has vehemently dismissed those who opine on the issue of eligibility as little more than fools, and becomes highly animated when one advocates forceful defense of the nations boarders as a provocation to Americans of Hispanic origin, driving them into the Democrats fold, a pathetic paternal insult to our very proud and patriotic Latino citizens.

November 2nd is but phase I of the revolution. The RINOs involved in the destruction of the O'Donnell campaign will revel in their miserable work and will be of even greater danger in the new congress.

Phase II will require absolute vigilance for the RINO game plan...COMPROMISE. It must be crushed at first odor.

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 11:47AM

What continues to baffle me is the fact that so many of our fellow citizens actually see the two parties (not to mention the Conservative Movement within the GOP) as viable alternatives to one another. Even a cursory review of the positions of the two reveal the chasm between them and their visions for the future. Their dicotomous understanding of the role of government should enable everyone to see the ditinction. Why are so many blind to the road to serfdom?

dnha14| 10.20.10 @ 1:06PM

"where he owns a highway engineering company. " That's the problem. The guy owns something of value. He probably also actually hires people, pays them and provides insurance. Shame on him for living the dream.

Is everyone out there seeing why the schools never improve? It would be against the Democrats best interests to have educated people that actually think making judgments on their policies. They pray for a little Forrest Gump in everyone.

Marc Jeric| 10.20.10 @ 1:19PM

These criminal tactics by our Democrats and associated eco-nazis and commies should not surprise anybody. Abu Hussein al-Mombassa (or wherever in Kenya that marxist Muslim was born) has his system of local soviets in place - ACORN brownshirts, and SEIU, AFL-CIO, NEA, AFSCME, and other union thugs ready to stuff ballot boxes, vote the dead, nullify absentee ballots, transport out-of-state "voters", "perform" recounts... Our Community Organizer-in-Chief still has $8.7 billion reserved for them from his stimulus bill. By the way, in Russian "community organization" is called "soviet" - the principal Lenin's invention that brought him to absolute power back in 1917.

Oldefarte| 10.20.10 @ 2:09PM

One word for this BULLEXCREMENT: LYINGMFFATHERLESSCHILD!!!!!!!!!!

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 2:54PM

Thanks for your usual thoughtful and insightful observations. Someone should disable the caps lock and exclamation points on your keyboard.

Ken Roberts | 10.24.10 @ 8:14AM

As in also take a bible away from a student , and it is his way of expressing him self so you would take that from him also . If he wants he can use caps every other letter, you or I need not read his reply but that is with in his rights as an American to do that , see it may not be palatable to you but it is his right . As long as we do not step on someone else's rights we are unlimited in what we do , Does he take responsibility for using all caps , yes he does as he could be removed from posting here for violations of the posting rules , most blog posts have rules . Off hand I do not know if it is against the rules here to type in all caps .

Redstateboy| 10.20.10 @ 3:18PM

Is there anyone... Left, Right or Center who'll dispute the MSM does not have a Leftist bias?? it's ludicrious. PBS, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Washington Post, LA Times.. NY Times?? No Liber-ul bias there?? and so when FOX or talk radio come along.. Liber-uls freak! Why? Cause the Liber-uls can't Control the message completely anymore - isn't that Facism? When you have just one single side of the story? Our Democracy.. this Great Country.. being sold down the River by a bunch of pompous, effete, condescending Liber-ul... "journalists" ?

Nunya| 10.20.10 @ 4:23PM

I actually have a cousin that denies the bias in the media. He claims FOX is a right-wing organization as well, and actually believes Bush had something to do with 9-11 as well.

Sadly, that is a true statement.

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 4:43PM

There Nunya is a frightening fact. This President is actually to the right of 30% in his party who believe as does your cousin. Be afraid, be very afraid.

RCV| 10.21.10 @ 1:34PM

Boy, are your ight about that, Al Adab. The other night I heard a commentator on Pacifica Radio (left fm network) go on about how (1) Obama is simply a tool of Wall Street and American capitalism and has done everything he could to continue Bush's economic policies; (2) Obama's health care reform bill is just a way to funnel money to health insurance companies instead of providing real single-payer care; (3) Obama is a militarist who is continuing American neo-colonialism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ken Roberts | 10.24.10 @ 8:16AM

I dispute that they do not have a bias , in order to have a bias you must sort of let other items slide , in other words to have a bias means you lean that way, in the case of the MSM they do not lean they are laying flat to the left . no bias there! all the way left period no bias .

David| 10.20.10 @ 4:01PM

RCV, why did it take the Sup Court until 1947 to start meddling with the issue of religion? Until that time the Court had always considered such issue outside their scope of authority. Or in the words of Obama, the justices on the Court rightly considered such issues "above their pay grade".

Further, at the time the Constitution was signed, several states had an established church. If the framers intended for there to be "an absolute separation of church and state" would they not have addressed the state churches when drafting the Constitution? Wouldn't they have banned Bible reading and prayer in schools instead of waiting until 1964?

And you are completely misrepresenting Jefferson's entire view of religion based on one letter when he had much to say about religion in public life.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 4:18PM

David, we've been over this many times in other posts, but here we go again. The Bill of Rights as originally drafted applied only to the federal government. And yes, many states indeed had established churches -- Jefferson celebrated the ending of the last state established church in letters to his friends. It wasn't until passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1869 that the proscriptions in the Bill of Rights were extended to state governments as well. The Fourteenth expressly provided that no state could pass any law that infringed on the "privileges and immunities" of any citizen of the United States.

The Supreme Court does does not reach out to "meddle" with issues at its leisure. It addresses arguments made by parties in cases before it. That issue came before the court in 1964, just as school segregation came before it in Brown.

Nunya| 10.20.10 @ 4:30PM

RCV, the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states, it was designed to prevent Southerners from disallowing blacks to vote as you well know. It did not however change the rules of the game--in that the States are still sovereign, and have rights of their own designated to them in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Court rulings on things such as the 10 Commandments displays are far over-reaching the initial intent of either the 1st, or 14th Amendments, and are completely wrong.

Also, please note that we had the 14th for roughly 70 years before the progressive justices put in by FDR started claiming that it applies as it is now interpreted.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 4:42PM

Nunya - It did indeed change the rules of the game. The Radical Reconstructionists who proposed the 13th through 15th Amendments distrusted state governments as much as the Founders distrusted the federal government. That's hardly surprising, since they had just come out of the bloody Civil War, an experience as wrenching as the Revolution was for the original Framers. If you look at the debates on those Amendments you will find that they deliberately sought to cut back on the independent powers of state governments, and to rein them in as the founders had the Federal government. They specifically sought to alter the state-federal balance in the original constitution. That was also the impetus behind the Seventeenth Amendment, providing for direct election of Senators, rather than appointment by the states.

Your perspective may and obviously is different. But the reality is that the Reconstructionists distrusted state government, which they blamed for the Civil War, and they specifically sought to forge a Nation out of our country, rather than a collection of sovereign states.

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 4:46PM

Another little twist here guys. The Federal government made ratification of the 14th a precondition for readmission of the Confederate states into the union. Problem of course is that Lincoln and the North fought the war maintaining that those same states were never out. At least RCV you know your history.

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 5:31PM

When you win the war, you usually get to dictate the terms. I enjoy your postings, which are intelligent and polite. Take care.

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 5:37PM

I likewise appreciate your courtesy and dignitas. Have a great evening.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.20.10 @ 7:48PM

Hi RCV.

Have you gotten my book yet?

Sales are doing very well for an e-book. I'm getting reviews as I write. If you have not gotten the book, check your spam file. www.texassaidno.com

Some spam filters block out the e-mail delivery.

I often think about Paul the Apostle imagining his letters being scrutinized 2 thousand years later. Heh, he expected Christ to return "next month latest".

Sir, after all of your expostulations, a hundred million American men and women will NOT accept the communism, (pardon the shorthand), that you seem so happy with.

Sir, I cannot prevent a hundred million free men from shooting your assses. I am doing my best, and November 2nd will decide it.

If you communists prevail, then I have failed. Your asses are toast.
being a communist congress-critter will enjoin a very short life.
That is not a threat, but simply an observation.

At some point, free men will simply shoot your asses. No arguments will suffice. No brilliant thought will suffice. Your guilt will be pitied as you fall, and then you guys can discuss it with God.
RCV
I'm asking you to join the free men.

A lot of us will fall as well when it gets down to it.
I would simply rather get a bullet in the chest...rather than a bullet in the back of my head while on my knees at the feet of a communist murderer.

You sir, are brilliant arguing minituae. Yeah Yeah, you have spent a lifetime at it.

BOOM! You are dead! Your communist congresscritters are dead.

While you are answering to Our Creator, perhaps armeggedon is happening here.

We all die, RCV.
The final question is: "Given a once in history chance to be free men...will free men bow to their 'betters' ."

RCV| 10.20.10 @ 10:36PM

Wow, Ken. I'm blown away (no pun intended).

I just can't share your apocalyptic outlook. I fully expect a large GOP gain in November, but no matter what happens, the Republic will endure just fine. Indeed, as I 've said here before, a split of power between Congress and the WH has historically worked out quite well in the past, as during the Reagan and Clinton years.

I expect to go quite quietly in my bed, God willing, and don't have too much worry about you and your fellow See-a-Communist-everywhere friends getting too randy. If you, I 've worked enough with law enforcement to have every confidence they'll have you well in hand in short order.

skip| 10.22.10 @ 9:03PM

When I feel my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are threatened to such a degree that it is pointless to go on with the status quo, I will cling to my Bible, I will cling to my guns, and the tree of liberty will be refreshed, one way or the other.

RCV| 10.24.10 @ 12:16AM

The tree of American liberty will continue to be refreshed, as it has been for more than 200 years, with the water of self-government at the polls. And you whining self-delusioned would-be William Wallaces will continue to make yourselves feel like heroes by posting on TAS.

skip| 10.24.10 @ 11:47AM

Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's nature manure."

After a lifetime (three score and three years) of studying Jefferson it is ironic you don't know it is blood, not water, that is it's natural manure. Are you aware the Founding Fathers created a republic, not a democracy? That they abhorred democracy for reasons they communicated as understandably as they did unalienable rights and constitutional intent?

In Christ intelligently and honestly forever!

skip| 10.20.10 @ 6:28PM

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." James Madison (Federalist No. 45) But what would he have known about the Constitution?

GavInTucson| 10.21.10 @ 1:12AM

RCV, you and I may disagree on a great many things, but you're spot on with this post.

However, I'd like to make the point that I think the 17th amendment was a mistake (one I'd like repealed). This took too much power away from the States. It took us farther from a Republic and closer to a democracy. And, in the end, a democracy has but one fate.

RCV| 10.21.10 @ 1:52AM

Gav: There's much to be said for that proposal, tho I doubt it would have much chance of success. Taking away the right of popular election from the People is always a hard sell, and this is especially true given the disgraceful Blagoivich scandal, which would raise in many people the fear of political corruption in the Senatorial appointment process.

I think the decisions in Baker v. Carr/Reynolds v. Sims -- which required equal districting for legislative representatives at the state level -- was also a mistake. In a large and diverse state such as mine, itbtook away the option of having a state senate that gave reprsentation to diverse geographic interests. There's simply no point in having a bicameral legislature if both houses represent the same interests.

The One We've Been Waiting For| 10.20.10 @ 7:25PM

We're buying shrimp, RCV. One troll left and he wants to talk about the constitution. Oh that's what we want. The one thing that could kill every idea we have. At the end of the discussion you try to hump the leg of the enemy. Somebody should warn Al Adab that those are your pick up lines. Not that there is anything wrong with that. You were a total zero on selling Obamacare, wind farms, the Chevy Volt, the summer of recovery or me just giving money to my friends. You need to call this stuff reason and science. You know like astrology and ponzi schemes. Like most of my unfaithful trolls you are always trying to change the subject to a Republican. It is free advertising for them! That may have worked when I was an unknown but now they are on to me. Even if I get impeached and convicted nobody will ever beat my golf records. My goal is to play everyday. Cap and trade, baby.

Al Adab| 10.20.10 @ 7:57PM

One: I understand fully what is going on here, but we made a good record of the argument and I admit I enjoy the rerparte'.

Ken does a great job of putting clarity to work. Keep fighting both of you, the stakes are higher than we can imagine. Nov. 2 is only a new beginning. Much work (blood, sweat, tears) remains.