The Left Is Worried About The Constitution?

The left is all worked up because Governor Rick Perry of Texas has entered the presidential race and is an instant front runner. The liberals have awakened because they are worried about Perry being so unconstitutional because he believes in his religion and he held a a public prayer which was attended by tens of thousands of people. This, according to the left, is against the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a politician can’t hold public prayer. Nowhere does it say that prayers can’t be said in government buildings. Nowhere does our Constitution say that religion can’t be part of our government.

What our Constitution says is that Congress can’t make a law that establishes a specific religion as the state religion, or religion of the government. The Constitution also says that Congress can’t prohibit the free exercise of religion (any religion) in this country.

Morons on the left don’t understand this so Perry is perceived as a person who does not follow the Constitution.

The irony is that the very left that makes such a claim is concerned about Perry’s position on firearms. Perry believes that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms if they so desire and that government should not infringe upon their ability to do so. This is too much for the left and they are worried about a Perry presidency leading to more guns in this country.

The irony is that Perry’s position on gun ownership is absolutely Constitutional (as is his stance on religion) but the left will cry about Perry not following the Constitution on one hand (even if they are wrong about it) and then oppose him for a position that is absolutely Constitutional.

The left is full of morons that view our Constitution as a document of convenience that is right when it agrees with what they want and wrong when it does not. The mob that is the liberal world is easily led astray by great speeches and false information. They are whipped into a frenzy by their mob leaders and are lied to so often that they can’t understand the truth. They have trouble with reality because they have been taught liberal BS all their lives.

This is how we get liberals who are worked up over a politician who actually follows the Constitution (at least in the two examples cited) and who can’t grasp what is Constitutional and what is not.

The mob is dangerous and the only way to defeat it is with force.

While we have a long way to go and anything can happen, Perry might just be the one to apply that force.

BTW, in the linked article Al Sharpton says:

Perry, Sharpton said, “is looking to go to the O.K. Corral and start shooting. … Rather than the left get caught sleeping, we better load up, because he is bringing it.”

This seems like violent rhetoric. Did Sharpton not hear Obama call for civility? This seems much worse than cross hairs on a map and yet Sharpton is spewing such violence. Al is the first one to point his blood stained fingers at people when violence occurs and he is more than willing to blame the right for that violence (even though it is caused by the left and sometimes by Sharpton himself) so how dare he use such violent terms?

Is Sharpton suggesting that the left should not retreat but should reload instead? My, my, my… I wonder how something like that would be perceived by the left if someone like Sarah Palin said it. Oh, wait…

How long will it take for the liberal morons who went after Palin and other conservatives after the Tuscon shooting to come to Sharpton’s defense?

We already know they will call me a racist for bringing it up.

That is, after all, the mob mentality.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

12 Responses to “The Left Is Worried About The Constitution?”

  1. Ferd Berfel says:

    Oooooh! Big Bad Dog, you racist! Bad doggy. Down, Fang! Heel, Crusher!
    Adam! Come and curb your dog! Have you nothing to say, Adam?

    Well, I do;
    The Constitution says that Congress can’t prohibit the free exercise of any religion in this country. That would apply to Islam as a well, except it isn’t a religion; it is a homicide.

    And homicide is (for now anyway) illegal. Not prosecuted, but certainly illegal.

  2. Blake says:

    The position of the left is that the Constitution is “a living document that must change with the times”- well, that IS possible. The process to amend the Constitution is duly explained, but the socialists do not want , or more probably know that they cannot get this legal and constitutional process done, so they want to push this process through by illegally issuing executive orders and illicit regulations that SUBVERT the intent and legality of the Constitution.
    These people, led by the Kenyan-in-Chief, are TRAITORS, and should be dealt with as such.

  3. Adam says:

    I know you constantly promote this story about how conservatives love, understand and defend the US Constitution while liberals hate it, abuse it, ignore it, or generally want to destroy it, thinking it’s just subject to political winds we can change at will.

    The only problem is we’re talking Rick Perry here. He promotes an agenda that seeks to radically transform the US Constitution to strengthen conservative and fundamentalist Christian values in America. Is it really Perry who you want to use as an example of how wrong liberals are on the US Consitution?

  4. Big Dog says:

    I know it is tough for you Adam but there is a difference. The left wants to simply reinterpret the Constitution as a living document adapted to new situations rather than using the mechanism given for actually changing the document.

    As for you linked article, it clearly states that Perry wants to use the Amendment process to change things. That is a debate we can and should have as it is the intended way to do things. If people disagree with his positions then we don’t have to change it. If he were a liberal he would look to do these things by Executive Order or judicial activism.

    Out of the seven I see five that are worthy of the debate. The gay marriage and abortion issue should be left to the states without federal intervention in either direction (and that means stop using the courts to invalidate what voters accomplished).

    The rest are reasonable to discuss and see if they merit consideration as changes.

    I don’t see how you call it radical transformation. Two of the seven would return us to where we were in the past (taxes and election of Senators) and the others are issues that provide greater checks. I have no position on most of them as I have not researched them but from the article they do not give the appearance of radical transformation.

    I understand how you see it that way. Things that limit federal power are radical to you. That is why the Constitution is a radical document in a liberal’s eyes and why you all hate people who want to follow it.

    Nice try though. You should look at Obama and your libs if you want radical.

  5. Big Dog says:

    And, of course, you neglected the two items cited int he post which clearly show Perry is in compliance with the Constitution and the critics know not what they talk about.

  6. Big Dog says:

    And I would add to Perry’s list term limits for members of Congress…

  7. Adam says:

    “I don’t see how you call it radical transformation.”

    Of course not. You’re a radical. You think anything you believe is based on the constitution and anything that differs in the document from your views has been changed through judicial activism or a liberal agenda. It’s very convenient.

    “And, of course, you neglected the two items cited in the post which clearly show Perry is in compliance with the Constitution…”

    You mean I forgot to address your straw man about evil anti-religious, anti-gun liberals? When did liberals say Perry’s event was not in compliance with the Constitution? Who cares that Perry is a gun nut like every other gun nut running on the right?

  8. Big Dog says:

    Why do people who believe in exercising their rights have to be gun nuts? Do you call people who exercise free speech free speech nuts? Are those who demand a warrant before a police search warrant nuts? Why is it that those who desire to exercise a right that preexisted the Constitution have to be referred to as nuts?

    Is Obama a gun nut because he is surrounded by people who carry lots of guns to protect him? Is he more important that the rest of us so much so that he can have an army of armed people for protection but we are not free to protect ourselves?

    Of course it is not radical to express an opinion on what you want to change in the Constitution and then go about it in the proper manner. There is a big difference between going about it the right way and having the people decide (as Perry wants) and letting the judiciary make law from the bench.

    You don’t have to agree with the positions but there is nothing radical about wanting to do something in the manner prescribed. The people are smart enough to figure out what is good and what is not and can take a decision. That is how the Founders wanted it and how it is established.

    I am not a radical. Obama, Wright, Ayers, Dorn and Hoffa are radicals. I am a person who believes that we should follow the law of the land. I also believe that if you don’t like what is there you work to change it in the manner that is prescribed in the document.

    I don’t necessarily agree with all the items but I agree that if he believes them he is free to use the system as prescribed to change things. It involves the people and is how it is supposed to happen. You, on the other hand, prefer EOs and judicial activism. That is why your ilk works to use the courts to overrule the will of the people.

    There was no straw man in the post. Those were the positions presented, that Perry was unconstitutional because of his religious positions and what he has done. The group then decries his position on guns when it too is perfectly Constitutional.

    Something you are not too comfortable with.

    Hell, you think the government can force people to buy things. The entire Democrat Party thinks that and that, my friend, is radical.

  9. Professor Nell says:

    Big Dog,

    AS a NH Independent, I take exception to part of your argument.

    First of all I and other find this name calling on both sides reprehensible – “Liberal, Stupid” just to name two.

    Secondly you are right the constitution does not explicitly forbid prayer rallies or anything else like. However, if you read the Federalist Papers, and the writings of our forefathers, they clearly intended a definite separation of church and state,

    NH people do not like public drama or histrionics of any kind. Everyone is free to practice their own religion, as long as said religion does not harm other people or animals by word or deed.

    And churches are very much a part of our communities, and allow use of public gatherings, boy and girl scouts and other organizations for a nominal fee or for free.

    However we do not allow any religious services on public or government property. We believe religion is a private matter and that’s why we have churches/synagogues/temples etc.

    Our public schools are totally secular, and we expect our elected officials to work on governing regardless of their religious preferences.

    WE certainly are NOT stupid nor illiterate. If you check Great Schools, you will see that NH public schools are ranked among the nations best.

    We are number 1 in the Freedom Index if the 50 States

    And our unemployment rate us 5.2%

    Hard to argue with success. We like the way we live and interact and do resent others attempting to tell us what the constitution says or doesn’t. We teach the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and the writings of our forefathers as part of our history classes in our public as well as private schools.

    • Big Dog says:

      Professor, how is calling someone a liberal name calling? That is what they are, liberals. It is no more name calling than calling someone a conservative or, as you did, and in dependent. Were you calling yourself a name?

      I have read the Federalist papers (a lot of them) and it is obvious that religion played a big part in those men’s lives. The point is that there is no item in the Constitution that talks about separation of church and state and in the FP the separation they discussed was keeping government out of religion not the other way around. You also forget the part that says ; nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. If people, including politicians, want to exercise their religion they may do so anywhere at any time. This would certainly meet your standard of not harming anyone (people or animals). How is anyone harmed by a politician praying, or having the nativity in front of town hall, or a menorah, or having a Muslim symbol in front of town hall or on a postage stamp? Are you willing to remove the postage stamps that have religious symbols on them? There are plenty.

      We celebrate Christmas as a federally recognized holiday and it is religious. Should we abandon that and all work?

      The reality is the design is to keep government from establishing a religion, a particular religion. Resent people telling you what the Constitution says all you want but I am tired of people telling me that it says something it clearly does not.

      For instance, find the word abortion in the document. You won’t which means that it is a Tenth Amendment issue. A lot of places teach the items you discuss. Unfortunately, many teach what they think it says rather than what it does and what the Founders intended (through their own writings). The Second Amendment is a prime example. NH seems to do that one reasonably well. Perhaps that is why your state does so well.

  10. Adam says:

    “Why do people who believe in exercising their rights have to be gun nuts?”

    It’s the imaginary rights you think you have that are the problem. You take an ideologically driven view of the US Constitution, pretend the founders agree with you completely, then complain about your rights being infringed.

    “Of course it is not radical to express an opinion on what you want to change in the Constitution and then go about it in the proper manner.”

    I’m not shocked that you support radically changing the constitution to fit your narrow ideology. Those changes aren’t really changes anyway, right? Perry just wants to restore the Constitution to the way it was when it was written by those fundamentalist conservative christian founders before it was eroded by godless liberals.

    “Those were the positions presented, that Perry was unconstitutional because of his religious positions…”

    You’ll have to point that out to me. I’m still not seeing it.

    • Big Dog says:

      Adam, how is it an ideologically driven view of the Constitution when time and again I have provided you with the writings of the Founders on the subject. They were quite clear on the issue. What has actually happened is that you and all others opposed have taken an ideologically driven view that is against what the Founders wrote and said and have taught generations that this is the correct view. Perry has the view of the Founders on the Second. There is no way to prove otherwise. It would be more appropriate to call you an abortion nut than Perry a gun nut since he is in line with the people who wrote the Constitution and your position is not in there at all. Now THAT is taking an ideological view and pretending the Founders agreed with it.