Unsurprising: Constitutional Ignorance in the Media

"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..." -- Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution

Leave it to "journalists" such as MSNBC's David Shuster (and many other modern liberals, for that matter) to interpret this clause as giving the government expansive powers which the Founding Fathers never intended.

The Tenth Amendment, with which Shuster seems to have a problem, instructs that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prhibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This was added as a safeguard to reinforce any government encroachment on states' rights. If Article I, Section 8 gave the government such far-reaching powers as Shuster contends, eventually leading to federal programs such as Medicare and Social Security, then what's the point of the Tenth Amendment?

And what would be the point of listing the other powers of government directly after the "common Defence and general Welfare" clause in Section 8? James Madison wrote about this in Federalist Paper No. 41 in defending the Constitution from the Anti-Federalists' concerns of expansive government control.

Madison also noted that the same terms ("common defense" and "general welfare") were previously used in the Articles of Confederation:

ART. III: The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. (emphasis added)

ART. VIII: All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint. (emphasis added)

These examples indicate that the Constitution was not originally intended to allow the government such expansive legislative powers.

But maybe I shouldn't be surprised that a cable news channel with a statist agenda would overlook any of this.

Why do Liberals Fear This Woman?

The venom from the Left against Sarah Palin is obvious and plentiful. One only needs to enter her name on YouTube, and the videos in the search results will be mostly unfavorable or derogatory towards her.

Or search for her on Facebook, where one will find such pages as: "I Have More Foreign Policy Experience than Sarah Palin," "1,000,000 Strong Against Sarah Palin," and "Intelligent Women Against Sarah Palin," with each group containing at least 70,000 members. There is a Facebook page for her supporters, but even that's littered with liberal, attention-seeking trolls.

Tina Fey, who did an unflattering portrayal of Sarah Palin on "Saturday Night Live" during the 2008 presidential campaign, was voted the Associated Press Entertainer of the Year, while Katie Couric won a Cronkite award for her "gotcha" interview with Palin. I can say with utmost certainty that if it weren't for Sarah Palin, Fey would simply be a forgotten ex-SNL cast member on a marginally-successful "30 Rock" TV show, and Couric--well, she still IS a has-been anchor for an anemic-rated evening newscast.

So why all the intense hatred? Palin is despised because she is the living embodiment of everything that intimidates Liberals. She's a strong supporter of the military and the Second Amendment. She maintains a strong belief in God and family. She was pro-choice with her most recent child, and chose life. She didn't graduate summa-cum-snoot from some northeastern liberal university. She is a hunter (which gives the animal rights whack-jobs the willies), promotes the increase and expansion of domestic oil supplies (not going to make many friends with the eco-imperialists with that stance), and she believes in limited government and fiscal responsibility. Plus, Sarah Palin is an attractive woman for someone in her mid-40s, which exposes liberals' insecurities with their own self-image.

Palin, since resigning as Alaska's governor last week, hasn't ruled out a run for president in 2012, despite the predictable opposition from the left-leaning media (and from an increasing number of so-called conservatives). Personally, I think Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination, but if Palin chooses to involve herself with another campaign, I wouldn't mind seeing her as the VP nominee again. Any polar opposite to Leftism, especially the kind from the current inhabitant of the White House, is good for America.

God & Barack Obama

These made me chuckle:

"What do Obama and God have in common? Neither has a birth certificate. How do they differ? God does not think he's Obama."

"...another difference between Barack Obama and God, and that is that God only demands to be worshiped once a week."

(Paraphrased): Another difference between Obama and God? God wanted us to know about His plans.



-From Rush Limbaugh's "Pearls of Wisdom" - June 10
(graphic from ThePeoplesCube.com)