How reading our U.S. Constitution aloud — as an opening act by the 112th Congress — should cause anyone anxiety, distaste, disgruntlement or anything of the negative-kind is beyond me but that’s exactly what the reactions have been by the Left since yesterday’s reading: freaking-out, moaning, condemning, criticizing, ridiculing the deed and the new Republican majority in the House for doing so.
Many a comment by many a Leftwinger on internet-published articles associated with this issue — this reading of the Constitution as the House began it’s 112th term — is either unintelligible or distraught with vile condemnation (or both) of this act and about the Republicans for implementing the reading, if not about the Constitution itself. Throw in the recurring ridicule of the Right, in general — leading those denigrations are the wan, banal pejoratives of “teabaggers” and “birthers” by the Left about (in general) the American public — and the picture is complete: the Left, not only political losers, are losers all around — and consider this, were Code Pink screamers ever arrested for bursting forth in Congress?
My only remark in question of the reading by Congress of our U.S. Constitution is as to a portion having been dropped from the reading, as explained, “so as not to offend anyone” — the part that originally addressed “slaves” as not-complete-persons, since readdressed and amended. Explanation of this omitted portion follows at the end of this post.
This fact from our history should not, of course, “offend” anyone but since the Left maintains all possible offense, particularly emotionally, about all possible ideas not their own (that statement is not an exaggeration, either, based upon my experience), I can well understand how the new-Republican-majority in the House would not want to make any bigger waves than they are already making simply by existing, but apparently anything the new Republic majority has and can say (and do) will flood the Pelosi Swamp and so, go ahead, be historical, read the whole thing, offensive or not, let it be stated if that’s part of our nation’s history. Yet the portion was omitted, since it’s one of those since amended portions (understandable, however, as to the contents of the original-versus-existing Constitution).
The Left appears, by their own statements and behaviors, to hate the Constitution. Reading it aloud from the floor of Congress has sent shivers of revulsion throughout their midst, despite Nancy Pelosi participating even as she has demonstrated during her term as former House Majority Leader to discard the Constitution in her push to legislate against it.
The Constitution is an inconvenient truth to those whose vision for this nation has and continues to be another country, not this one, to replace what is here. In this dark plan, I include Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi most certainly and the Progressive Caucus and everyone who participates in and supports it: their idea of the United States of America is another country, not this one, moreorless like an infecting agent whose due course is to take over the host and erupt it’s parameters into multiple legions of those who are not the original.
All members of Congress in any political party swear by Oath of Office to that very document — read aloud yesterday to open a Congressional Session for the first time in the history of Congress — our Constitution, that declaring, nation-creating document that the Democrats yesterday couldn’t stand to remain present for. And, as to those who refused to remain present for this reading, as also all the Left foaming all over the internet yesterday and today about this deed, their Oaths of Office appear to have been mere fantasy in recital as also those who voted for such: phantom forgery of loyalty and government, public office held in disdain of their oaths and the Constitution they swore to protect and defend.
Congratulations to new House Majority Leader, John Boehner. Congratulations to the new-House majority, Republicans. Now do what you have been elected to do: protect and defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Note those last words.
From John Hayward, in DAILY EVENTS,
Democrats are howling about the new Republican majority’s decision to read the Constitution in its entirety on Thursday. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York told the Washington Post it would be a “ritualistic reading” that treated the Constitution like “a sacred text” for “propaganda” purposes. “You’re not supposed to worship your Constitution,” Nadler huffed. “You are supposed to govern your government by it.” On her Headline News TV host Joy Behar wondered if “this Constitution loving is getting out of hand.”
Of course, it’s hard to govern our ungovernable government with the Constitution if we don’t know what it says. There is little evidence the Democrats are familiar with it, except as an obstacle to be worked around. (— Continued).
Associated Press rushes to try and scramble any credibility due the reading (and the Republicans for requesting this reading), complete with “birther” smearing:
And, by referring readers here to the likes of the New York Times as follows, this site in no way suggests anyone read such a publication, but an aspect of the Leftwing and Leftwing media’s huffing-and-puffing about the reading of the Constitution to open the 112th Congress yesterday is that a portion of it was omitted, so most reports about this reading yesterday focus on this when they are not focused on hating the Republicans, “birthers” and “teabaggers” so they write:
“Before the reading began, Jay Inslee, a Democrat from Washington, asked Republicans to illuminate exactly what part of the Constitution would be read, what parts would be deleted and who would decide how things would unfold.
It was decided in advance that any portion of the Constitution that was superseded by amendments — including the amendments themselves — would not be read, preventing lawmakers from having to make references to slaves, referred to in Article 1, Section 2 as “three fifths of all other persons,” or to things like prohibition. (— Continued).
About media bias, the predictable and deplorable Leftwing media being predictably but disappointingly biased, there is this coverage that shares a mere part of the Left’s uproar and bad breath:
Liberals vs. the Constitution
– by Robert Bluey, January 06, 2011, FoxNews.com
…Rather than celebrate this return to first principles, The New York Times condemned the GOP — even suggesting the Constitution’s reading was a racist maneuver.
“In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that [Republicans] alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation,” the Times opined. “Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.”
Yet the Constitution never speaks of race, nor does it use the word “slave,” as the Times implied. The newspaper was referring to a compromise with slave-holding states that was aimed at preventing those states from benefiting from their slaves for the purposes of House representation.
Reading the U.S. Constitution isn’t a “theatrical production of unusual pomposity,” as the Times suggested. The American people sent a clear message to Washington last November that the Constitution matters. They quoted from it at town hall meetings and waved copies at rallies.
Obviously, news travels slowly to the Times’ skyscraper in midtown Manhattan. (— Continued).
Like Holy Water to the possessed, reading the U.S. Constitution to open a Congressional Session literally burns the Left, Democrats, Liberals…