RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST, RACIST, ELITIST, & LIAR

In case you haven't been following this story, some pasty christain Assistant AG for the state of Michigan - Andrew Shirvell - has been actively speaking out against Michigan Student Assembly President Chris Armstrong since shortly after his election in March and maintains a blog called “Chris Armstrong Watch,” where he criticizes what he calls the MSA president’s “radical homosexual agenda.” 

OMG! this Shirvell guy is a douche bag.  And he was hired to represent the people of the state of Michigan?

Can you get a guy any more stupid sounding than him?  The Michigan courts must roll their eyes when this guy stands up to speak.  Who would hire a guy like this, I mean he could not have interviewed well.

Well it turns out ol' Shirvell was a  political supporter of the "family values" AG, Mike Cox.  'Family Values' seems to be a synonym for bigot, bully, idiot.

CNN's Anderson Cooper seems to allude that Shirvell's fixation and obsession about Mr. Armstrong borders on something akin to a jilted lover, but Shrivell has been obsessed with gays before Mr. Armstrong was even out of high school, unless......

Apparently back in 2005, the rainbow flag on pizza restaurant door made him see all the colors of the spectrum.

Shirvell said Maurice Grillo, one of the owners at NYPD, told him that an incident of some sort involving the gay community “forced his hand.”

Grillo said in an interview that he was never pressured to hang the sticker on his door by anyone and that Shirvell may have misunderstood what he told him.  “It was just a decision,” Grillo said. “There was absolutely no pressure whatsoever. I just felt like it was the right thing to do. If we feel like taking it down — we will.”

If you ask me, Shirvell has exhibited all the signs of a gay man in denial.  

Accept it Shirvell, then move on.

Red Skelton's misunderstood attempt to explain the pledge

My cousin sent me a link of a video with Red Skelton telling his audience about what the words of the pledge of allegiance meant.

Now I always like Red Skelton having watched his show on TV when I was a kid.  So I click the link and it brings me to a Facebook page called Media Causes with this little blurb about the video:

Red Skelton--from his television show in 1969 WOW ! Just think, he said this on his television show in 1969 and really had no clue it would ever come about. SAD, isn't it? What a wonderful and worthwhile clip to watch and share with all your friends and acquaintances!

I should have known from that blurb what I was being set up to watch.

Now don't misunderstand me on this, Red Skelton's words and feeling were beautiful, and even his comment at the end was OK, because it was heartfelt and he was trying to call for some understanding and reasoning regarding his concern.  He was subtle and gentle and so not like the in your face lets force God down everyone's throat bible-thumpers out in force lately.

But wanting a deeper understanding of the words in the pledge was not why the person who posted this video did so.  Instead it was to bolster the same old tired whining of "we can't do anything anymore because it upsets a few people and we are going to hell in a hand basket because we can't say "God."

Case in point, look at all the silly-ass comments posted.

do we really like where we are going in this country?

How times have changed!!!! 

Let reunite and bring it back

Put Christ back in the schools and watch this country turn around for the better! God bless the U.S.A.

I agree with Holly its way past time to take our country back. The government works for us, we are not suppose to work for them. I'm afraid if this country keeps going in the direction it is, we will all be standing in a line waiting for our bread and toilet paper. REMEMBER, ONE NATION UNDER GOD. Not Obama.

please watch and really listen and think.... back in 1969 he was trying to make a point... IF ONLY WE COULD DO THIS TODAY WE AND OUR CHILDREN WOULD BE DIFFERENT...

/sigh

So my question is: What do you want to take your country back to?

I found a picture of those good ol' days showing just how well saying the pledge of allegiance and praying every day in public schools worked in Little Rock back then:

IF ONLY WE COULD DO THIS TODAY WE AND OUR CHILDREN WOULD BE DIFFERENT...

No they wouldn't.

It would be the same only if you allow it to be

The conversation goes like this:

Steve's on the line with us from Norman, Oklahoma.

STEVE (Caller): Hello. I just want to make a comment about putting that mosque next to the World Trade Center site. I live in Oklahoma, and obviously, that was a big event in everybody's lives. And it would be just the same as putting a Ryder truck rental right across the street from the new federal building. It's inappropriate, and I just don't think it should happen.

(Neil) CONAN: Steve, you know it's not a mosque, and it's not across the street.

STEVE: Well, still, you know, it's close. You know...

CONAN: How close is too close? It's two blocks away, can't see it.

STEVE: Well, you need to have some I'm a firefighter for the city of Oklahoma City, and I just - stuff like that, symbolic stuff like that, it just really gets to the core of all of us.

It would be easy to make fun of Steve, to disregard him, to ridicule his lack of insight, but that would be disrespectful on my part.  What one can see - if one looks - is a guy troubled with what seems on one hand to be very wrong and on the other an uncertainty as to why.

He does not understand the why, he just knows there is a feeling of it being wrong.  He can't articulate it because it stands on both sides of the aisle.  It is both wrong and should not be wrong all at the same time.

Because if you really think about it, the placement of the Islamic center is really no different than putting a Ryder truck rental sign right across the street from where the Murrah Building.  Both had nothing to do with the culprits responsible for the act - but both are seen as an welcomed reminder.

And therein lies the problem for guys like Steve. For me, I can understand how Steve feels, and I can give credence to the example he gave.  But I choose to move past that and accept the other truth in play.  That despite how inappropriate it looks, the real harm is to punish the one who's only guilt is by association.

The Horse says "Not so fast...."

234 years later, the same arguments.  Only this time we have the internet where everyone's "take" on a subject can be presented.  Yeah...that includes mine.  I am a bit different (well of course you are!) then most, because I look for information to change my current way of thinking.  That is, I want to go where the truth is, regardless of how I feel about it.

So as a public health guy, I am naturally biased towards actions that benefit the health and safety of my fellow citizens.  That includes access to health care - which more than just helping my fellow American would also help me.  So now you know that whatever I write will be biased towards that end.  Well if that be the case it kind of defeats what I am trying to do with a blog I call "consilient inductions."  So yeah, some bias will sneak in, but it is not intentional or designed to mislead.

So as I was googeling I came across a website called called "From Reason to Freedom - Think for Yourself."

Now one of the things I force myself to do is read and listen to those who have an opposing view to mine.  I already know how I see it, I want to see how they see it and the reasoning used to support their view.  So this site has a discussion on the "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Whooohboy, does this illicit a bunch of view points!  And a whole ton of quotes from our "founding fathers" in order to support a particular way of interpreting the constitution.  Now when you quote you should cite.  And when you read a quote you should understand it's context (see my last post) - which means you should look it up.

Now there are two issues of contention in play when discussing Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

1. Does the term "public welfare" give Congress the power to do anything other than those powers specifically enumerated?
2. What does "provide for the public welfare" mean? 

Now this is a pretty large debate to tackle in one blog post, so I'm going to come back to it again.  For today, dear reader, it will involve looking at question 1 and how those who oppose anything the Federal Government does support their argument of "too much" government involvement in our lives.

A guy that calls himself "Capt. Karl" responded:

Question: When confronted by the indisputable facts, what excuse do those in Washington use to justify actions that factually exceed enumerated constitutional limits? Answer: They hide behind that ubiquitous General Welfare Clause. And what is the General Welfare Clause?

Now we’ve argued about the definition of this for over 200 years in the courts, in the congress and on the streets and you can reference almost any opinion you like because most will seek out the interpretation that justifies their action. Given the difference of opinion over the years, whose opinion really counts? Whose view is definitive? Speaking as a simple solider, I’d say it would be the folks that wrote the original document even more so than the subsequent courts that bastardized it.

What did the Founders really mean? After all, they’re the ones that can actually answer questions first hand concerning original meaning/intent and not be speculative or twisted politically by the passage of time wouldn’t you think?

OK, let’s see what they had to say and put this question to rest. Let’s ask James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Could they possibly shed any light on this?

[edited]

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.

From the proverbial horses mouths to your own eyes — the all-encompassing General Welfare Clause is not as all encompassing as our current “leaders” would have us believe. In no way does that one phrase grant unlimited power to the Federal government rather it pertains only to those enumerated powers that can and ought to be applied universally and in general to the several states.

Now if you read what he quotes, he makes a pretty convincing argument that we have gotten way off course from what the writers of the constitution wanted.  There is some truth to that, but that's the nature of having people govern themselves.  Sometimes we are right on and other times we veer off course.  Not everything one opposes means we have gotten away from the "original intent" of the constitution.  Nor do quotes from these old timers always lend support to our way of thinking.

I have spent the last two days (and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express) reading up on this subject.  What I have come away with is this:  If you are against something Congress does, it is either constitutional or it is not. It has nothing to do with how you interpret the meaning.  Most people opposed always shout something along the lines of:

THIS NATION UNTIL 1965 WAS BASICALLY THE ONLY NATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD WHICH HELD ITS NATIONAL POWER TO AN ENUMERATION OF 18 POWERS TO TAX AND SPEND.

A more reasoned argument, along the same lines, goes like this:

If the portion of the clause "to provide for the common defense" was indeed a standalone power, why would the founders then explicitly list a power "To raise and support armies"? It would be redundant. Does providing for the "common defense" exclude the raising and supporting of armies? Absolutely not. Therefore the only reasonable construction is that the power to raise and support armies is the explicit enumeration of the manner in which the general power to provide for the common defense is to be carried into effect.

What is missing from all of this is a clear understanding that the framers knew exactly what it had to say, which is why they wrote it and substantially got it approved and ratified.  The idea that somehow we veered off course with FDR's "New Deal", Medicare, Social Security, or "Obamacare" is what you may think but has nothing to do with it being constitutional.  You may think the powers are enumerated to 18 and that that the Power "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" can't be a standalone power because it makes the other 18 redundant, but it was decided a long..long..long time ago that this view is incorrect.

To put it bluntly, the Jefferson view of what the Constitution explicitly allows Congress to do - lost.  It did not loose because of Obama, or Johnson, or FDR, it was decided way-way-way back when the framers were still very much alive.  We the people - which includes me and you - through the governmental setup we adhere to (President, Congress, Supreme Court) - and a Constitution that gives this government its guidelines, has said that the Hamilton point of view is the correct one.

Now Capt. Karl quotes Hamilton's views on the subject, so lets look at one of them in whole.  This from 5 Dec. 1791, Papers 10:302--4:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. [edited]

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

So Capt Karl is half right:

From the proverbial horses mouths to your own eyes — the all-encompassing General Welfare Clause is not as all encompassing as our current “leaders” would have us believe. In no way does that one phrase grant unlimited power to the Federal government rather it pertains only to those enumerated powers that can and ought to be applied universally and in general to the several states.

That egg on your face was brought to you by Humpty Dumpty

My last post dealt with a bit o' back n' forth between a couple of commenters on another website over a 2001 speech made by Obama and his use of the word "redistribution" (among other things).

One of the posters, nathanbforrest45, felt that anytime someone comes to Obama's defense by saying "that's not what he means" what they are really doing is hiding the fact that he really is a socialist that hates America and wants to do away with the Constitution.  Why is "the left so esoteric" he asks "that we cannot understand their true meaning?"  "Perhaps," he states "the left should say what it really means in less "nuanced" phrasing."

And then he posts, without understanding the irony, this quote from "Alice Adventures in Wonderland" a book considered to be "one of the best examples of the literary nonsense genre."

"Words mean precisely what I want them to mean, neither more nor less" said Humpty Dumpty to Alice.

But alas, irony and logic are lost on the simpleminded.  The conservative wingnuts on the right have made a parlor game out of trying to make Obama sound like the evil antichrist they need him to be.  The reason you must understand the concept of context and nuanced phrasing is because that's how we speak.

If words only had one meaning, and only one meaning, Paul Simon would never have written "I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued."  There would be no need for the word misconstrued because words would mean precisely what was said.  So let us look at another example of how something got misconstrued and used in a way that it was not intended.

Way back in 2000, George W. Bush (you remember him) made the comment:

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier," pausing and then joking, "just so long as I'm the dictator."

Now, if you want to play the - they should "say what it really means in less "nuanced" phrasing" - game, Bush said he wants to be a dictator. I mean there it is in black and white.  He said it......I'm not putting words in his mouth or selectively editing.  What I would be doing, however, is taking them out of context, and misconstruing their meaning (which was an appropriate and funny joke about how difficult it is to get things passed).

So if you thought for one tiny second that Bush wanted to be a dictator, well now you know the truth.  If you continue to think this even after reading my explanation, well you are an idiot.

Which brings me to:

"He called the Constitution a deeply flawed document," 

Context and selective editing.  As a poster named Evelyn_S succinctly wrote back in 2008:

He did not  call the Constitution a deeply flawed document in either clip.  Did not use those words.  He was referring to the racism in colonial times, when humans were held in slavery.  This, he was saying, is a flaw in the thinking of the framers of the constitution.

So my fine Humpty Dumpty, words do indeed mean exactly what the speaker wants them to mean.  Now that you know what was actually said and meant, I'll excuse your ignorance.  But if you continue to want them to mean what you want them to mean then you are more akin to Tweedledum, which in less nuanced terms, I am calling you an idiot.

Smart Makes a (good!) Comeback

LoL

Reading makes me begat stuff, and I came across a website while looking up what the definition of "Public Welfare" means in the Constitution's welfare clause.  Found an interesting site, but the guy's bias shows through on his interpretations - however, a lot of the comments - both for/against - are really insightful .  But there is always one...that requires me to go a googlin' and a begatin':

P.S., with regard to recent revelations that Obama said that the Constitution is "deeply flawed" because the framers were "blind" and that the "constraints" they placed in it are impeding "spreading the wealth," it seems his goal is to rewright the Constituion or at least to "reinterpret" it out of existence.

Did Obama really say that?  I don't know why I just can't accept it as factual....but there are too many idiots out there making stuff up a'la' Fox News.  So I used the search terms:

Obama said that the Constitution is "deeply flawed"

Got a bunch of blogs that all seem to have the quote...I choose:

Barack Obama Wants SCOTUS To “Break-Free” From Constitution ...Oct 27, 2008 ... He called the Constitution a deeply flawed document – this IS the ... He simply said the Warren Court didn't break free of the basic ...

Which lead me to a website called "Argue with Everyone" and a post is by a guy named "naturemomma" where he quotes the 2001 radio interview and then (surprise, surprise) completely misunderstands the comments made and even makes stuff up.  Well another poster named "Smart Makes a Comeback" will not let this go unchallenged.  Some really funny stuff gets bantered back and forth.


smart makes a comeback 

You have no idea what any of that means do you ?

Nevermind..clearly you dont

You read a blog that told you it meant he wanted to change the constitution, you saw the word "redistribution" you dont know any better, so you ran with it.

My I suggest you get a smart friend to help you define some of the terms and put that intervirew into prospective. You will feel really stupid when you find out he was actually taking on a conservative point of view, but at least you wont go on spreading stuipidty and humiliating yourself even more

naturemomma

Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

'nough said....

smart makes a comeback

I know...but I was trying to be charitable and help you out.

naturemomma

Ever wonder why EVERYTHING Obama Biden time says, is "taken out of context" or "misinterepreted"?

Because he is lying you idiot!

In 2001, he wasn't watching what he said. He wasn't on good behavior, nor was he attempting to hide what he actually thought.

You people are incredibly niave and stupid.

nathanbforrest45

"Words mean precisely what I want them to mean, neither more nor less" said Humpty Dumpty to Alice.

So redistribution does not mean redistribution it means?????????????????

If I said I think Smart Makes a Come Back is a socialist turd I think she/he/it would see the negative in that statement and "run with it"

naturemomma 

C'mon now nathan, you know you can't use common sense with stupid-is-as-stupid-does. 

Words mean nothing to these people. And neither do actions... So I really don't know how they decided on the character of this man. 

......Ahhhh, this must be where the, "hope and change" thing comes in! 

smart makes a comeback

Nathan, once again, your home schooling by illiterates betrays and fails you.

I understand, the entire interview and it’s content are far over your head, but you when you take your cue from idiot talk radio, faux noise, whacky right wing blogs, and blithering dundereads like naturemomma and parrot what you hear, you display your ignorance all too graphically.

nathanbforrest45

Excuse me you arrogant and condescending bimbo but if the man says he believes in redistribution and that the courts need to do more and the Constitution only tells us what the government can't do then what exactly am I supposed to believe. Its not an issue of talk radio (and since I never listen to NPR I don't listen to idiot talk radio in any event) or right wing blogs (which I don't read), its an issue of reading the words and hearing the words and gaining an understanding from what is actually said, not what some commentator tells me that I should have heard.

I am able to read and understand. If the left is so esoteric that we cannot understand their true meaning that perhaps the left should say what it really means in less "nuanced" phrasing.

smart makes a comeback

Except that is not what he said you pathetic mouth breathing hick...LOL...so it seems you clearly are NOT able to read and understand 

"Nuanced" phrasing ? 

hahahahahaha !!!!!!!!

A reasonably intelligent 10th grader could understand that what he said was, that contrary to the belief of some, the courts did not engage in such activism.

Read and listen to what people say...Not what Limbaugh and Hannity TELL you they said....you wont look so silly

Good GAWD…can these people be THIS stupid ?

Good GAWD indeed!

Oh, and by the way.....no Obama never said the Constitution is "deeply flawed"

Marry Poppins you are not welcome here!

/sigh

I can't ignore the stupidity....I try...really.....but it is prevalent more and more.  I won't even go into the poll numbers showing the stupidity of my fellow citizens who think Obama is either not an American Citizen or is a closet Muslim.  Were not talking about the outer tail of the bell curve, but lots and lots of really stupid and ignorant people.  And no matter what you tell them or show them, they just keep up the dumbness.

So I am reading the Dallas Morning News and I come across this little diddy that screams for a response....so I did.

Real threat is nanny state

I am going to have an omelet, eat from the drive-through menu, drive a Toyota, eat spinach and apples, try to get the flu, look for a pelican soaked in crude oil, breathe some air and exhale some carbon dioxide as my bucket list issues, because these things apparently are going to get me. 

Let me tell you what is life-threatening -- this nanny, whining, wimpy, "goody two shoes" country we have become. When we decide that the new epidemic really is government intrusion in our lives, we will begin to feel a whole lot better. Bon appetite. 

Jim Janusz, Richardson

And here is my response sent to the Dallas Morning News about 5 minutes ago:

So Jim Janusz thinks we have become a "nanny state" (Letters 8/24/10) because our government works to prevent citizens from consuming E. coli contaminated spinach or salmonella infected eggs; cleans oil soaked birds; and works to prevent a flu pandemic.  I am unsure how Mr. Janusz could argue that - at the very least - the Constitution's welfare clause does not provide a valid excuse for our government to protect the health of its citizens.  Perhaps Mr. Janusz is instead arguing for a more Darwinian approach for society, that is, let them get sick and die, allowing for the strong to survive.  

If this be the case, then in the event that Mr. Janusz were to suffer a heart attack, I would hope he forgoes calling 9-1-1 and asking for a nanny-state provide paramedic to keep him alive.  At the very least this would save him the embarrassment of looking whiny and wimpy.  At the very best, it would take him - and his silly notion of what constitutes government intrusion - out of the gene pool.