Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Protection Of Civil Rights: Factual History Versus Today's Politically Correct View

Isn’t is interesting in consideration of today’s narrative about Republicans in general and Tea Partiers in particular to learn that it was Democrats who historically opposed racial equality, not Republicans? Until mid-last century most of the Democratic party favored segregation. In the 40’s and 50’s things began to change and by the early 60’s a significant majority of the Democratic party and their representatives opposed segregation. In fact, Democrats have done a remarkable job overcoming their racist roots.

Nevertheless, a large enough percentage of Democrats in the US legislature still opposed equal rights at the time that they nearly defeated landmark Civil Rights legislation … the 1957 Civil (Minorities’ Voting) Rights Act and also the 1964 Civil Rights Act for which Martin L. King, other Civil Rights leaders, the Republican party, and millions of Americans fought so hard. In fact, Southern Democrats (sometimes referred to as Dixiecrats) voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act 92 to 11! That’s nearly THREE times the total(!) number of the votes against it by the entire Republican party! (Yes, some Republicans did oppose the Civil Rights Act but it was a fairly small minority of the party.)

Think about that for a minute. Only 46 years ago 90% of the Southern Democrats in the US legislature voted AGAINST the landmark 1964 Civil Right Act and came scary close to defeating it! Yet the narrative today and what, incidentally, our kids are being taught via distortions in The Media, schools and from Democratic leadership is that it’s Republicans and Tea Partiers who are and, by extension, always have been against Civil Rights. That makes NO sense whatsoever based on actual history. Sorry, but truth is truth.

Yes, Republicans tend to be against excessive welfare, believing that it makes people dependent on the government for their lives which in turn effectively robs them not only of their self-respect but of their will to succeed that is uniquely possible for all Americans. That doesn’t make them racist … because, if for no other reason, the use of welfare is not limited to African Americans. It’s a stupid argument to say Republicans are racist on that basis. As for racism, it’s the Republican party that has fought the hardest against it. The facts of history prove it unequivocally. (Ref the link at the bottom for more proof of that.)

Look at the history of the Democratic party in all aspects of Civil Rights and be reasonable for a minute. Fact is, NEITHER party nor Tea Partiers can be considered racist as groups now. Indeed they DO have racists among them and I’d estimate that the numbers are ballpark equal between the two political parties. Neither party has a right to call the other racist and the Democrats can rationally be called hypocrites (or worse?) for many of their recent claims about which party protected and protects Civil Rights the best/most.

And to say that Tea Partiers are racist because Rand Paul who, in general, supports the Tea Party movement recently said he doesn’t like one aspect (ie, States’ Rights) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is nutty on many levels. First and foremost, States’ Rights and racism are two distinctly different issues. Supporting one DOES NOT automatically mean you support the other. It’s a nonsense argument. Second, it is Democrats who’ve been historically opposed to integration and related Civil Rights. Check out the link below.

Who filibustered vigorously AGAINST and nearly defeated the 1957 Civil (Minorities’ Voting) Rights Act? Democrats! It was, in fact, a historically RECORD filibuster! Who filibustered vigorously AGAINST and nearly defeated(!) the LANDMARK 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT? Democrats! Good grief folks! How can you fall for Democrat leadership’s nonsense claim that they’ve always been THE party that protected Civil Rights? Maybe they do now … but so do Republicans who always have done so.

If you need more proof, the following link provides it. The Republican bias obvious on the website may be annoying to Democrats but I encourage you to block it out and pay attention to the actual voting record of Democrats over the years. After reading it perhaps you’ll understand why Republicans and Tea Partiers get a little annoyed at today’s narrative about being racist. BTW, I’d be the first to say that Democrats’ history does NOT mean they’re still racist as a party. In easily provable fact, they’re not.
http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

Monday, June 28, 2010

Answer To Question #3 (Who Conducted The Longest Senate Filibuster And What Was His Political Party?)

Answer to question #3: Senator Strom Thurmond, Democrat, lobbied strongly against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, setting a filibuster record in the process. Incidently, he was considered the Democrat's elder statesman of the senate at the time.

Next blog: some observations and analyses about my recent questions/answers regarding the 1957 Civil (Minority Voting) Rights Act relative to today's perception about what the Republican Party in general and the Tea Party in particular are all about with respect to civil rights.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Answer To Question #2 (What Was The Date & President Re. Voting Rights Act W/Longest Filibuster?)

Answer to question #2: Eisenhower was the Republican president who, in 1957, successfully pushed for passage of the Civil (Minority Voting) Rights Act that was filibustered in record fashion by Democrats.

Next question #3 (to be answered in my next blog): who conducted the record Senater filibuster aimed at defeating it and to what political party did he/she belong?

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Answer To Question #1 (What Was The Target Of The Longest Senate Filibuster In US History?)

So, question #1 in my previous blog was: What was the nature of the legislation that was the target of the longest Senate filibuster against a bill's passage in US History?

ANSWER: An Important Civil Rights Act aimed at affirming and judicially protecting African Americans' right to vote

Question #2 (to be answered in my next blog): What was the legislation's year of debate and passage and who was the president that pushed for this law?

Friday, June 25, 2010

Target Of The Longest Filibuster In US History?

I have a question for you: What legislation was the target of the longest filibuster in US Senate history? I'll have an answer for you in my next blog.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

How Does It Feel Mr. President?

Let's see if I have this straight. President Obama says insulting, demeaning and dismissive things to us "Tea Baggers" ... the people for whom HE works ... and that's okay. But General McChrystal does essentially the same thing to him (for whom McChrystal works) and that's NOT okay. Not only is it not okay it's deserving of firings and a trip to the woodshed.

From what I read about this, Obama is "furious". Oh, I get it. HIS furry is justified and understandable but ours is not. That seems fair to me.

Hmmmmm. Maybe just a tad hypocritical and arrogant? Maybe a LOT hypocritical and arrogant!

Monday, June 21, 2010

A US Senator Doesn't Like The Federal Government Playing Politics With Border Security

OMG Senator Kyl, you CANNOT be serious! You, a member of our legislature, are upset with Obama playing politics with border security? Whether he did or not, who exactly are you to criticize someone else on this subject?

You’re a member of the same branch of government that, FOR 30 YEARS(!), HAS REFUSED to do immigration reform the way a large majority of Americans want (ie, seal the border … NOW). You all have refused for 30 years to carry out one of your most important constitutional duties and keep our borders secure. You’ve refused to do reform because we citizens won’t let you do it the way YOU want. YOU ALL have been playing political games with sealing the border for all this time and you have the unmitigated gall to complain about someone else doing it too?

I strongly recommend you close your hypocritical pie-hole, roll up your OWN sleeves and help get the senate going on securing the border. THAT, sir, is not only your constitutional duty but is what we The People want as well.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

It's Better For "The People" If The Money's In The Government's Hands. HUH?

I Just heard one of the liberal commentators on the Fox News Channel say that having that $20 Billion put into a fund is much better for gulf coast folks who will suffer because of the spill. Because, otherwise, it would have to sorted out via lawsuits in the courts! OMG! Please read my previous blog, especially the quote from "The Daily Reckoning" and consider why we're supposed to believe we're better off with the government in charge of such a fund!

First of all, having it in a fund will NOT keep the funds distribution out of the hands of lawyers and courts. It didn't for the tobacco fund. It won't for this spill fund. Actual history proves that claim is a flat lie.

If money to redress the damage done by tobacco had gone through the courts isn't it rational to think that we would have been better off? If it had been completely handled in courts, isn't it logical that the only people getting it would be those harmed and lawyers ... with lawyers getting their usual cut of 40% or so? That means those harmed by tobacco would have gotten 60% of the fund's money, not the 5% they actually got with it being handled via a 'fund' set up for it.

To hear anyone try to claim that money to redress the spill's damage is better off in the hands of our government makes me laugh. It makes NO sense whatsoever. When was the last time the government handled money well? Good Grief folks!

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Who's REALLY Going To Get The $20 Billion?

C'mon folks do you really think that the people who are being hurt by this oil spill will be the ones getting most of the compensation from BP's $20 Billion fund that will be in the hands of our government? History and common sense say no.

Here's what'll actually happen to the fund:
1. Our government will 'borrow' or outright steal much of that money before it is spent and
2. Lawyers and special interests will get most of what's actually paid out.

Don't believe me? Consider the following quote from The Daily Reckoning:

"Remember the giant tobacco settlement? In 1998, the tobacco companies lay down and opened their veins. A quarter of a trillion dollars [$250 Billion ... ten times what's being allocated for this oil spill!] was paid out in a huge class action settlement. The money was supposed to go to redress the damage done by smoking. But $19 out of every $20 found its way, instead, into the pockets of the lawyers, the activists, and the bureaucrats. That is to say - the zombies got it."

If approximately the same thing happens to this fund (and do we have any reason based on actual history to think it won't?), the amount that goes to redress damage done will be in the neighborhood of 5% of that or $1 Billion. Guess who'll get the other $19 Billion?

Just imagine for a minute what's been going on in legal firms in DC and in the gulf states since word of the fund began leaking (no pun intended) out. Who thinks they have NOT made it their top priority to get as much legal fees income out of this fund as possible? Who thinks that, in fact, it won't happen? $20 Trillion of relief? No way! At best, no more than half will find its way to those directly impacted by the spill and be spent on anything one could rationally call 'relief'.

You've heard the expression used to describe what progressives think of problems like this: "Let no emergency go to waste (regarding advancing an agenda as a higher priority than dealing with the emergency)!" It's the unspoken motto of legal firms as well.

Cap and Trade must be passed because THAT is the solution to problems like this? Huh? Who believes that Cap and Trade, if FULLY implemented already would have prevented this spill? C'mon now, how can a TAX prevent a technical and competence problem like this? What WOULD have prevented this spill is BP running its business better and our own federal government NOT allowing them to get away with hundreds(!) of safety violations! Now, like most emergencies, it's just turning into another justification for grabbing more money and redistributing it (the golden ring of progressivism) ... mostly to lawyers, unfortunately!

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Economic Recovery Has Hit A Wall? What Economic Recovery; Realistic Economic Considerations

The AP reported an economist saying today that rising unemployment claims last week shows that "We've definitely seen the economic recovery hit a wall". I suppose that IS a surprise for Kool-Aid drinkers who have actually been believing the nonsense that we've been in a recovery.

If you take government hiring out of the picture (which does NOTHING to build up the production of goods and services in the private sector which undergirds a healthy economy), the economy has been going nowhere for 1 1/2 years and has aruably gotten worse, not better.

State and local governments and, therefore, government spending have grown steadily throughout this current worst economy in our lifetimes. And their spending of OUR money has grown at a rate far, FAR beyond anything we've ever experienced in our history. The state and national debt that's been created (and continues to be expanded!) has sucked the life out of the patient.

Fannie, Freddy and the banking industry are still holding all those toxic sub-prime mortgages but in collusion with the US Congress have found clever ways of hiding it so it doesn't LOOK so bad any more. Did you think it just magically evaporated because you don't hear about it? It's still there and is still sucking life out of our economy. GM and other industries now owned by the government will not be able to contribute REAL growth now that they're owned by the Democrats so what economic good have we done by owning them? Unions have benefitted but not our economy. Which really matters more in the long run? C'mon, be realistic!

Realistically now, when has ANY big thing the federal government was responsible for done well? I'm open to proof they've done anything big well. How has Social Security done? Medicare? Medicaid, food stamp program, education? Democrats, mostly progressives, created all of them, expanded all of them beyond reason and proceeded to mismanage ALL of them. They're ALL(!) about to bankrupt the country! Doesn't that tell you ANYTHING? Now they own GM, other companies and the entire health care industry.

All together our government has control over half of our economic engine. How can a rational person honestly say that's not a formula for failure when every big program they've run for the past hundred years is going bankrupt? We're collectively insane to believe this is good and healthy for our country ... economically or with respect to our freedom and way of life our founders gave to us.

The Progressives that are currently running our country and gaining a stanglehold control over the economy and our lives in general are steering us down the EXACT same road that the EU is now try to find an exit from. Do you actually think that's not where we're headed now under this 'regime'? You'd better wake up to actual reality before your inattention has contributed to selling us down the socialistic rathole completely.

American Exceptionalism has created the most successful and generous country in history. While we've created some unfortunate pockets of exceptional wealth, we've done so much good around the world that no one else has come close to. And why have we? Because we were a strongly socialist country? Stop the focus on a few things wrong with our culture before you destroy all the good we've done and could yet do.

The current Progressive leadership in our country is steering us head-on into a "one world government", "one world economy", "one world judicial system", and "one world culture". With the FEW arguably good things that can do it WILL destroy the entreprenurial spirit and zeal that's been at the heart of this American economic engine which has, in turn, pulled our planet's countries through many hard times. NONE of the growing countries that are complaining about us would be enjoying such economic success if America hadn't the economic strength to buy their products. Think about that realistically. Where would they be if our economy had been toast (ie, socialistic) the past 30 years?

Good grief America! How can you live with this progressive, one-world course we're on? How can you accept that? In my lifetime, we're never settled for anything in this country but trying to be the best we can be at the level of the individual citizen. No other country has had the positive can-do spirit that we have. Do you really want to lose that? I guarantee you WILL when this one-world un-exceptional spirit takes firm hold here. There is much, MUCH more at stake here than you realize.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Democrats Admit To Wearing Themselves Out Spending Our Money!

Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (June 12th Washington Post): "I think there is spending fatigue" in both houses of Congress. Yes indeed, Americans, we wore ourselves out spending your money. You citizens should be grateful for all that hard work and personal sacrifice and cut us some slack if we have no energy left to work on another state government bailout.

(Ref: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37665192/ns/politics-washington_post/ )

Yep, Mr. Hoyer, all we citizens had to do the past couple of years was figure out a way to get by in this economy that you created (your sub-prime mortgage mess caused this, remember?) and can't fix. The economy is no better off but at least you found a way to spend mountains of money WE DON'T HAVE. Hard work for sure but someone's gotta do it ... and who better, eh? Good job sir. Of course you deserve a break from that. Go for it. In fact, please DO take a break because we won't survive any more of your hard work.

We understand now why you don't want to waste time on a (constitutionally required!) budget and why being the first Congress within memory to punt on that pesky little task is no big deal. Too worn out to bother with a triviality like that, eh? We understand sir. We really have no interest in seeing what all that spending actually did to our national budget. I'm sure you didn't do anything fiscally irresponsible. After all, sir, spending money is more important than understanding whether we can actually afford it. That's how we citizens are supposed to live, right? You ARE modelling how you think we should live, right?

Funny Headline

AP Headline in today's paper: "Congress defeats health help for jobless"

If Republicans had been the ones stopping the health benefits subsidy extension for unemployed people there can be no doubt The Media would make sure we knew it was those bad, evil, thoroughly heartless GOPers. But when Democrats do something like this, the headline makes no mention of the party. Hmmmm.

The reason for Democrats' reluctance to spend more money on this is 'interesting' and is the subject of my next blog.

Getting Tired Of The "Bush Left Me A $1.3T Debt His Last Year" Lie

Yes, Bush created $1.3T in debt his last year in office ... technically but not actually. Over half of that was for the TARP bailout which was short-term debt, most of which has already been repaid. A couple of points worth mentioning about that:

Fact #1: Bush didn't create the $700B TARP bailout debt ... the Democratic(!) Congress did. Yes, Bush signed the bill but he would have had nothing to sign if the =>Democratic<= Congress hadn't decided to create it. Fact is, Bush couldn't have stopped it if he wanted to so it's irrational (as well as factually incorrect) to call it a debt he created.

Fact #2: It wasn't really debt in the usual sense that our federal government creates debt because the money Congress came up with was A LOAN to credit-worthy companies. It wasn't just 'spent' on infrastructure or other government program. Contrary to most government spending, this money was to be repaid so it was NOT a burden put on Obama that he would have to suffer from.

Fact #3: Not only was it a self-correcting 'debt problem' because it was to be repaid, it's being repaid with interest! So, Obama's budget actually BENEFITS from that loan, not only by getting it repaid automatically(!) but Obama gets the profit from it, not Bush! Do you think we'll ever hear from Obama that he's grateful to Bush for TARP because he (Obama) gets to benefit from the profit? Don't think so! ;-)

Aren't actual facts pesky things? Yeah, they tend to get in the way of a good time when people who like to live in the real world keep pointing them out. The reality is, Democrats have turned $700B of that so-called Bush debt into their debt. It's no longer Bush's debt because his debt has mostly been repaid by those it was LOANED to. Democrats have turned the repaid bailout money into their personal $700B slush fund and think they get to call it Bush's debt! NOT while I'm watching them they don't!

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Not Going To Keep Your Current Health Plan After All! What A Surprise!

Many, many Americans are happy with their current health care plans and expressed MUCH concern over losing them under the new government health care program. Do you remember Republican leaders telling us that most of us would lose our coverage? Do you remember President Obama and Democratic legislators claiming that Republicans were lying and only wanted to whip up hysteria over the Plan? Do you remember Democrats in general, the president spefically, PROMISING over and over again that "You can keep your current plan if you want to."?

Guess what folks? Like most of the other claims about cost increase, debt increase, loss of coverage, loss of doctors, and decreased care being Republican scare tactics, the 'promise' you could keep your current plan if you wanted was nothing more than hot air too, according to information trying to be controlled by the White House. Check it out at:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537208/201006111932/Keep-Your-Health-Plan-Under-Overhaul-Probably-Not-Govt-Analysis-Concludes.aspx

At what point do we admit that these people currently in charge of our country don't know the harm they're doing? Or do they know the truth but they're just not willing to tell us?

Friday, June 11, 2010

I'll Go With Data

Latest retail sales info not only shows continuing sales decline, but the biggest decline in 8 months! I thought the president just said the economy is improving. Isn't he the one who just said just a couple of days ago, "The economy is getting stronger by the day"? In fact, yes he is! But he thinks it is because the government is still hiring like crazy and apparently doesn't understand that it's private sector hiring that makes for a good economy.

The liberal media is trying to paint a rosy picture of the economy using the measure of "public sentiment" about (ie, confidence in) the economy which just increased. Well, folks, that's just their 'opinion' isn't it? Based on what? Maybe based on the president just saying everything is fine when it isn't? I think public sentiment is improving because the president and his administration are telling us the economy is just fine now, not because it is improving in fact. Pardon me. Mr. President and the Kool-Aid creating media, but I'll go with actual data over what the Kool-Aid drinking public thinks. Also over what a president says who doesn't appear to understand basic economics.

Pardon me Mr. President, but we need a leader who understands what's really going on, is truthful with us, knows what to do that'll actually work, and is willing to do it. We don't need a cheerleader right now, sir. We need action and positive results.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Playing Games With Employment Numbers and Recession TRUTHS

The Obama administration made much of the latest jobs numbers but it's another example how one can play games with statistics.

431,000 non-farm jobs were added in May. Sounds like a signal that the economy is picking up, eh? Not so fast though! 412,000(!) are temporary(!) government(!) jobs for the 2010 census whose layoff in the fall will send unemployment rates back up.

The administration also bragged about the unemployment rate dropping from 9.9% to 9.7%. Sounds good too. Until you know that 322,000 Americans dropped completely out of the job market which means they're no longer counted as unemployed. They gave up looking for work because there are no jobs available.

The president's quote about the numbers: "The economy's getting stronger by the day ... an indication that our policies are working". HUH? Either he really knows what the numbers mean and is consciously being dishonest or he refuses to recognize the reality of a stagnant economy. At some point he's going to have to face the reality that most of us understand ... adding scads and scads of government jobs doesn't fix a broken economy. In fact, in the absence of help for small businesses, it'll make things worse.

To put the jobs numbers in perspective, consider this. it'll take approximately 292,000 new jobs every month until 2015(!) just to get back to 5% employment that we had before the recession. 125,000 new jobs per month is needed just to keep it at its current stagnant level and keep it from getting worse.

Remember what got us here. It was not Bush policies that caused the recession although his policies made it tougher to recover because of the debt he created. The cause was unequivocally the sub-prime mortgage mess and that was the doing of Democratic meddling in the mortgage business going back to the Clinton years when he, by executive order, forced Fannie and Freddie to make HALF(!) of their mortgages be the toxic(!) sub-prime type. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. both leading democrats, made it worse by pushing sub-prime mortgages even more and denying that they were causing a problem when it was clear to everyone with half a brain (even Bush!) that they were trouble with a capital T. Bush tried to stop sub-prime mortgages but democrats shut his proposals down.

It's at the same time funny and sad that democrats have continuously gotten away with claiming the recession is Bush's and Republican's fault. Never mind that everyone agrees it was the Democrats' own sub-prime mortgage ideas and policies that caused it. Never mind that democrats were in power in Congress (the body responsible for fixing such messes, not the president!) for two years(!) before the recession started. They had two years to fix it and could have if they had wanted to. How they can get away with calling it Bush's fault just amazes me!

Now that the recession is worse than Obama expected and lasting longer than he expected he's still blaming Bush even though democrats were not only responsible for most of it but had two years to do something to fix it before it happened. Politics is interesting, eh? That so many Americans still swallow that nonsense is nothing short of astounding!

So, I think it's time once again to ask President Obama, so how is that government bailout thing working out for you ... and for us? You know, that bailout we agreed to that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%. His lame excuse of "it's Bush's fault" is wearing a bit thin, is it not?

Pardon me, but I've got to say, I told you so my friends.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Truth's Out Now ... Thanks A Lot Helen!

A big problem I have with far left folks is their hidden agenda nature. Yes, nature. It seems to be inherent in their character to speak political correctness all the time whether it matches their actual beliefs or not. It's really, REALLY difficult to know what they're really trying to accomplish because they only talk about it with respect to aspects that only 'sound' like a good thing. Once in a while, however, their true thinking emerges. Case in point: Helen Thomas' schizophrenic remarks the past few days.

First she said Israelites "should get the Hell out of Palestine" and "go home". When asked where 'home' was, she said "Poland, Germany, the United States" and other places they came from to get to Israel beginning in the 1940's. They're occupiers after all she claimed.

There was predictable outrage over her comments. She was called Anti-Semetic and a bigot in many circles which, from a basic definition standpoint are true for sure. The shock of it rippled through The Media and I'm sure the left became upset more over the fact that she took the mask off the far left's hidden agenda and let their heart's desire be known. But that's not the most important aspect of what happened.

Following the outrage she 'retired' from the White House Press Corps (or, as the President likes to pronounce the word, the White House Press Corpse). Her move proves wrong the claim that senility made her do it. It was the smart thing to do. Before national outrage demanded it. But THAT isn't the most important aspect of what happened either.

What IS crazy amazing is that, in her resignation comments she called for "peace in the Middle East" and THEN mutual respect and tolerance. HUH? This woman who UNarguably uttered fundamentally disrespectful and intolerant words (expressing her true feelings in an unguarded moment!) is calling for respect and tolerance? HUH?

What I think we need to understand is that she clearly means we should be respectful and tolerant of those who live in Gaza, not of Israelites. But, as typical of people who practice political correctness, she says words that she knows mean something different to those who hear them than what she actually believes/means.

She doesn't care a whit about being respectful and tolerant of Israel and anyone who thinks that's what she means is drinking the political-correctness Kool-Aid. What rational-thinking person can square an unguarded comment that clearly reflects her true thinking with comments about being respectful and tolerant?

She and many on The Left like to preach respect and tolerance but Helen exposed what they usually mean. That is, they want us to be respectful and tolerant of their progressive craziness but practice intolerance and disrespect toward those who dare disagree with them. One doesn't have to look any farther than the hostile pro-immigration marches in Arizona recently and the clearly peaceful Tea Party gatherings on tax day. The latter were claimed to be "violent" even though The Media couldn't find any examples of it. The former were claimed to be either peaceful or 'justifiably vigorous' even though there were examples of violence (that you only saw if you watched Fox!).

Outrageous behavior (ie, disrespect, intolerance and even violence) is justified if practiced by people who have a politically correct views of things. It is NOT justified if practiced by people with a rational opinion that we're straying too far from constitutional principles. 'Living' constitutionalists versus originalist constitutionalists. The argument is fundamentally valid and a legitimate (ie, based on differing but completely rational 'interpretations' of our founding documents, the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence) discussion is healthy for our country but we won't have that because of their total intolerance of our views.

We on The Right would LOVE to have a rational discussion about constitutional principles and their place in American society today. We respect progressives' right to believe what they believe but they most certainly show disrespect for our views in as many ways as they can, including barring our representatives from the legislative process in DC, thus disenfranchising nearly half of Americans they represent. So much for ACTUAL respect! The hypocrisy amazes, disappoints and disgusts me. The extent of it over the past three years or so highly motivates me to not just sit back and accept it any longer.