We must be doing something right for progressive fascists like Ruth Marcus of the Compost to be getting the vapors:
Tea Party types and other conservatives talk about how they’d like their country back.
I’d like my Constitution back.
Listen, you Tumblefucked Twat™, there is only one of them, and it’s called The Constitution. No, you can’t have “your” Constitution “back” because it doesn’t exist outside of your minuscule blob of decaying gray matter.
The rise of these self-proclaimed constitutional conservatives is an ominous development that has received too little notice — and too little push-back.
They are the push-back after decades of lying thieves like yourself laboring day and night to render that sacred document null and void.
Until now. Under the banner of “Constitutional Progressives,”
Alright, that does it. No point in submitting more entries for Moronic Oxymoron of 2011™, because that one takes the whole she-bang in a landslide. Better luck next year, because this one’s a wrap.
a coalition of liberal groups has begun making an important, two-part argument: first, that a progressive government agenda is consistent with constitutional values;
It’s a wonder how they find time for that in between making the argument that the sun has nothing to do with global climate patterns and that giving preferential treatment to groups of individuals based on the color of their skin isn’t racism, just to name two.
and second, that the constitutional conservative approach represents a dangerous retrenchment of the government’s role.
Yep. Limiting (that’s the two-dollar word for “retrenchment” but at least we know that Ruth’s handler owns a copy of Roget’s Thesaurus) government’s “role” in our lives is “dangerous.”
Progressivism in one short sentence. All you’ll ever need to know about liberal fascism.
This bid to “rebut the constitutional fairy tales being peddled by the Tea Party,” as Douglas Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center put it,
Here’s a copy of the “fairy tale”, in case you’re interested and don’t already own a copy, which we’re sure that you do.
could not be more timely, with the dizzying rise of Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R).
Quick, bring Ruthie her smelling salts! She faints, she fades!
Would it be cruel to point out to her that Perry is just about the least of her worries. He’s a fucking piker compared to what the Rottweiler Nation™ intends to do to restore our founding document.
The constitutional conservative critique, as articulated by Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and others, goes far beyond the familiar laments about activist judges. It is, at bottom, an argument against the 20th century
From Wilson to Ogabe. Can’t see any reason not to make an argument against that. As a matter of fact, the argument pretty much makes itself unless you’re mentally stunted enough to vote Democrat.
— specifically against the notion that the Constitution envisions and empowers a muscular federal government able to ensure that its citizens have clean air, healthy food and safe workplaces.
A “muscular” federal government. Really, now, Ruthie, just because your nethers haven’t been serviced since the Truman administration doesn’t mean that you have to, er, “stimulate” yourself in such a fashion right out there in public view. Some of us aren’t done digesting our lunch yet, you know.
And no, no matter how many times we read through the Constitution, and we’ve read through it more times than you ever have (which is no accomplishment seeing as how you’ve yet to struggle through the first time), we see no mention of “clean air, healthy food and safe workplaces” in there. We have nothing against those three things, which we know will come as a shock to a cerebrally cocksmacked liberal, but it is absolutely none of the federal government’s business. If it were, it would be in the Constitution.
And yes, you can put it in the Constitution, but then you’d have to follow the amendment process, which involves getting the consent of the governed and we all know how liberal fascists feel about that!
The danger posed by the constitutional conservative approach is to attempt to lash together debates about what the federal government should do and what the Constitution allows it to do.
Case in point. Allowing the people to have a say in what the Constitution should do, as in “proposing amendments and trying to get support for them as the Constitution says you should”, when it’s blindingly obvious that the Constitution doesn’t allow the government to do it yet, well that is just… dangerous!
A white paper by the liberal Center for American Progress spells out the potential consequences of the constitutional conservative vision. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would be deemed to exceed the federal government’s enumerated powers.
Absolutely. That doesn’t, of course, mean that we can’t add those programs to the federal government’s enumerated powers, we most certainly can, but it will involve the, to a liberal fascist, “icky” prospect of having to ask the people for permission first.
Oh the HORROR! Try reading the preamble at least. See the words “We The People?” That means all of us, not just a gaggle of beltway insiders and unelected judges. Yes, it’s true. The Founding Fathers, having just gotten fed up (pun very much intended) with one tyrannical rule to the point where they were willing to risk their lives and their sacred honors to defeat it and break loose, decided to do everything they could to make sure that this nation would never again be ruled over by lairds and tyrants ruling by decree rather than consent.
“This is a way to weaponize the Constitution to prevent a real debate about how the government can solve national problems,” Kendall told me.
Which is utter bullshit, of course. It’s not the debate that conservatives are against, we’re all for the debate. Remember “We The People” and “consent of the governed?” We actually believe and hold dear those concepts, to the point where many of us have sworn an oath to uphold them, even if it means dying in the process. What we’re not for, and what we will violently resist if it’s forced upon us, is the current system where the “debate” is really only a backroom chit-chat among the Anointed Establishment as to what those damn plebeians will just have to accept from here on out.
We tried that model once before, and it didn’t end well for the tyrant and his henchmen.
It won’t end well for them this time either.
You have been warned.
Strong words, but the constitutional conservative vision is too extreme to continue to ignore it in the hope that it will fade on its own.
You’ve got that one right, Ruthie, finally you managed to get at least part of the picture.
Us Oath Keepers won’t just “fade away”, we’ll have to be put away if you want to get rid of us, and we strongly recommend that you don’t even try. We have nothing to lose. Our sacred honor is tied to that oath and we have nowhere else to run, even if we were to consider running, which we won’t.
There are only two options for you wannabe tyrants: Battle or surrender. If you choose battle, be prepared for losses. Lots and lots of losses. And we don’t mean that metaphorically. You may be able to put those chains on us, but the only thing you will gain after burying all of your dead will be a bunch of chained corpses, dead men and women who at the very least died free.
Keep that in mind.