Remedial constitutional education for Kos

posted at 6:35 pm on March 7, 2012 by Karl

As many of you still shun Twitter, I must share with you the wit and insight of nutroots commissar Markos “Kos” Moultisas on Rick Santorum’s Super Tuesday speech:

Following widespread mockery from the right, Kos did what he always does… dig himself a deeper hole:

Apparently, Kos was never taught that the Founders of our nation believed in natural rights, although this is obvious from the opening of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

(Emphases added for easier nutroots comprehension.) Of course, the Declaration is not the Constitution, even though many of the same people were involved in both projects. However, as Kos cites the Preamble to the Constitution, it is worth noting as the Supreme Court has, that “[a]lthough that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments.” That “We the People” formed a government simply does not mean the people or the government are necessarily the source of rights mentioned in the Constitution.

Kos obviously is unaware of the debate over whether the Constitution should be amended to include what is now known as the Bill of Rights, let alone the role of natural rights in that debate:

The Federalists contended that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because in their view the federal government possessed only limited powers that were expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. They believed that all powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government were inherently reserved to the people and the states. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Federalists pointed out, is the federal government given the power to trample on individual liberties. The Federalists feared that if the Constitution were to include a Bill of Rights that protected certain liberties from government encroachment, an inference would be drawn that the federal government could exercise an implied power to regulate such liberties.

Alexander Hamilton, one of the leading Federalists, articulated this concern in The Federalist No. 84. Why should a Bill of Rights, Hamilton asked, “declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” For instance, Hamilton said it was unnecessary for a Bill of Rights to protect the Freedom of the Press when the federal government is not granted the power to regulate the press. A provision “against restraining the liberty of the press,” Hamilton said, “afford[s] the clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.”

The Federalists were also concerned that any constitutional enumeration of liberties might imply that other rights, not enumerated by the Constitution, would be surrendered to the government. A Bill of Rights, they feared, would quickly become the exclusive means by which the American people could secure their freedom and stave off tyranny. Federalist James Madison argued that any attempt to enumerate fundamental liberties would be incomplete and might imperil other freedoms not listed. A “positive declaration of some essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude,” Madison said. “If an enumeration be made of all our rights,” he queried, “will it not be implied that everything omitted is given to the general government?”

Madison ultimately became an advocate for a Bill of Rights. Kos should read Madison’s arguments, as Madison noted that not all of the rights mentioned in the Constitution are natural rights. For example:

Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.

Madison won the day in part by proposing what became the Ninth Amendment, which provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This amendment in particular was to remind future generations of statists like Kos that our rights predate government. The Bill of Rights was largely intended to secure pre-existing rights against the new government. For example, this is why the First Amendment does not state that it creates a right to freedom of speech, but declares Congress shall make no law abridging our freedom of speech. That Kos seems so ignorant of these concepts is ironic in light of the role they played in the Supreme Court’s decision of… Griswold v. Connecticut, a case which Kos no doubt supports as much as Rick Santorum does not.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

God was here first.

RBMN on March 7, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Its a Living Breathing Document that can be morphed,
or Politically Shape-Shifted at any Progressive whim!!

Idiot Leftys!!
(snark)

canopfor on March 7, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention abortion, free contraception, a right to privacy, a right to free education, or a right to free health care. Therefore, since I know he is intellectually consistent, I have to assume that Kos opposes those things as well.

Shump on March 7, 2012 at 6:40 PM

The guy’s stuck on stupid. There’s no cure for that, so don’t waste the electrons!

microfiction on March 7, 2012 at 6:40 PM

I’m sure Markos has carefully considered the converse of his argument – that if government can create rights it can with equal power take those rights away.

He’s a short sighted fool.

Scrappy on March 7, 2012 at 6:41 PM

The topic is about where rights come from. The Declaration of Independence says it point blank and was definitely about government or at least those of the colonies.

MrX on March 7, 2012 at 6:42 PM

I’m shocked, shocked to find that KOS is wrong again!

Sultanofsham on March 7, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Dumb ass, if rights are derived from a piece of paper that paper can be changed at any time, Thats what John Locke’s point was all along when he first espoused the notion that a government that violates natural rights can be overthrown, in particular he was referencing the Glorious Revolution, where according to Locke, James the II was violating the natural rights to life liberty and property, and those rights he violated WERE NOT WRITTEN IN SOME ENGLISH VERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

rob verdi on March 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Have heard this “rights come from government” from the Left over the past few decades.

There is a purpose to this train of thought.

If government can grant “rights” it can just as surely take away “rights.”

Right to a job, anyone? Or right to a house? Right to being able to move from one state to another, maybe? Right to choose how one may receive education?

All part of a progressive/liberal trend to establish within the masses that government is their best friend…if they are loyal…and government is the worst enemy to those who would deign to challenge government.

Dictatorship of the people gone wild.

Been tried before. Has never worked as planned.

If only the right people were in charge. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Since true progressives recognize no God…well, maybe Gaia…having the population look to a higher authority for judgement, ethics and such…and Rights…just gets in the way of progressive governance.

No error on Kos’ part…he actually believes this and no amount of “education” will sway him from his pre-ordained and granted by government belief system.

coldwarrior on March 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Hmmm.

First there is a statement of fact about Santorum’s belief on the origin of right, then “in other words” which is followed by other words that have nothing to do with the original statement of fact that began the tweet. It’s interesting he would put those together like that. He’s a step above “Conservatives believe in limited government. In other words, murder should be legal,” or “Conservatives believe in limited government. In other words, bacon should be banned.”

This one’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?

alchemist19 on March 7, 2012 at 6:45 PM

The amendments specify rights protected and reserved to the people, not rights conferred by any government.

dgstock1947 on March 7, 2012 at 6:46 PM

coldwarrior,
its almost like the left’s selective hatred of the 2nd amendment is about more then “safety”.

rob verdi on March 7, 2012 at 6:46 PM

There is a staggering number of things wrong with both of those tweets. It takes a special brand of stupid to be a lefty.

thirtyandseven on March 7, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Founders?!?!?!?

Screw them!!!

BigWyo on March 7, 2012 at 6:49 PM

This ain’t cher ole man’s Magna Carta.

OkieDoc on March 7, 2012 at 6:49 PM

rob verdi on March 7, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Almost as if the Founders wanted the Second Amendment to protect the First Amendment.

Just imagine if there were none…of either.

Workers paradise.

coldwarrior on March 7, 2012 at 6:49 PM

its almost like the left’s selective hatred of the 2nd amendment is about more then “safety”.

rob verdi on March 7, 2012 at 6:46 PM

It is……can’t have any murderers, rapists, or thieves being injured or possibly killed. The Progs need every vote they can get.

antipc on March 7, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Both right and left have selective vision about where rights come from. As you said, Santorum goes off about how there is no right to privacy because it is not in the Constitution, as if the Constitution is the only thing that grants people rights.

AngusMc on March 7, 2012 at 6:52 PM

A government that gives you rights can take them away.

29Victor on March 7, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Markos “Kos” Moultisas

Isn’t this a great country? Even an ignorant mouth breather like Moultisas can prosper, and he can even advertise his ignorance at the same time to the masses using the free market made available by the free market system, one of the hallmarks of our republic.

The United States is the Greatest Country in the World. Just ask Constitutional scholar extraordinaire, and resident Kos twit Moultisas.

Dr Evil on March 7, 2012 at 6:54 PM

I’m pretty sure Kos, and his entire faction of the left, could never figure out how his second tweet contradicts his first one.

As for the necessity of the Bill of Rights, I get the argument by the Federalists that we didn’t need it. However, having something specific to point to and say this is what the Founding Fathers meant is often necessary with the nitwit left. On the other hand, if they didn’t have the First Amendment actually specifying something like free speech, do you think the nitwit left wouldda ever figured it out?

stukinIL4now on March 7, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Both right and left have selective vision about where rights come from. As you said, Santorum goes off about how there is no right to privacy because it is not in the Constitution, as if the Constitution is the only thing that grants people rights.

AngusMc on March 7, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I think this applies here as well…

First there is a statement of fact about Santorum’s belief on the origin of right, then “in other words” which is followed by other words that have nothing to do with the original statement of fact that began the tweet.

alchemist19 on March 7, 2012 at 6:45 PM

sharrukin on March 7, 2012 at 6:54 PM

If parts of Waziristan or Somalia are effectively ungoverned, then the inhabitants can have no rights, and we can carpet bomb immediately. thanks Kos!

trubble on March 7, 2012 at 6:54 PM

An omniscient God has no need for a “right to privacy.”

/

coldwarrior on March 7, 2012 at 6:55 PM

That boy ain’t very smart is he?

Bmore on March 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Dumb ass, if rights are derived from a piece of paper that paper can be changed at any time, Thats what John Locke’s point was all along when he first espoused the notion that a government that violates natural rights can be overthrown, in particular he was referencing the Glorious Revolution, where according to Locke, James the II was violating the natural rights to life liberty and property, and those rights he violated WERE NOT WRITTEN IN SOME ENGLISH VERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

rob verdi on March 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I would highly recommend Pincus’s book 1688: The First Modern Revolution. It’s worth noting that James thought his power and right to rule also came directly from God.

lexhamfox on March 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Obviously the government’s power to grant rights is under the ‘good and plenty clause’.

jhffmn on March 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM

‘We the people’ was designed to outrage the courts of Europe, and it did.

In documents of this type the sovereign who was speaking was always the first word on the document – this is a convention going back before Christ. In the Magna Carta, it is ‘John…’ in other documents from the middle east is was ‘Hammarubi…’

This convention establishes the sovereign who is speaking – the final arbiter of the legitimacy of the government – as such, it did indeed fulfill it’s purpose and it did indeed outrage the courts of Europe.

“We the People…” ???!!?? Those vile upstarts!

ElRonaldo on March 7, 2012 at 6:59 PM

god does not exist, so what is this fuss about?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:00 PM

jhffmn on March 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM

And the liberals snuck in to our current system of governance under the “Good & Fruity” clause, apparently.

coldwarrior on March 7, 2012 at 7:01 PM

C’mon, people. The Constitution is null and void to Kos. He’s just reaching for the other side’s cudgel to hit them with it (unsurprisingly landing the blow squarely on his own nose).

If anything, the entire document is self-deleting to liberals because it operates on natural rights. As any self-respecting rationalist knows, natural rights have been disproven and overtaken by science. Excuse me, “Science!”.

HitNRun on March 7, 2012 at 7:01 PM

This is so, so typical of these fools that they don’t have even the most basic idea of the principles on which this country is founded. I swear they never really learn anything, they just decide the way they’d like things to be and then treat that as established fact. It reminds me of the old saying, “Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.”

Fafhrd on March 7, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Might I suggest the free online Constitution 101 course by Hillsdale college for Mr. Moultisas and other dumb lefties.

tommer74 on March 7, 2012 at 7:01 PM

This convention establishes the sovereign who is speaking – the final arbiter of the legitimacy of the government – as such, it did indeed fulfill it’s purpose and it did indeed outrage the courts of Europe.

“We the People…” ???!!?? Those vile upstarts!

ElRonaldo on March 7, 2012 at 6:59 PM

I guess that is why an absolute monarch from France decided to intervene decisively in the American Revolution.

lexhamfox on March 7, 2012 at 7:02 PM

That boy ain’t very smart is he?

Bmore on March 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I had a gym teacher way back in elementary school who used to say,”When they were passing out brains you thought they said trains, and so you missed out.” What an embarrassment — how can you possibly take anything he says seriously any more? (That’s assuming you were taking him seriously beforehand.)

Fafhrd on March 7, 2012 at 7:05 PM

*declaring loud* god can you please help us in this constitution kerfuffle, did you granted us our rights or not? *crickets*

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:07 PM

As many of you still shun Twitter, I must share with you the wit and insight of nutroots commissar Markos “Kos” Moultisas on Rick Santorum’s Super Tuesday speech:

Following widespread mockery from the right, Kos did what he always does… dig himself a deeper hole:

Some of us Luddites cannot even comprehend the logic behind twitter.

For those of us who are twitter deficient, has kos deepened the hole?

Or tried to fill it in?

Or, as his history has shown, cuss some, attempt to change the subject and ignore his ignorance?

cozmo on March 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM

In true Breitbart style, people should be re-tweeting that first one with a #readingcomprehensionfail tag after it. Make him own his idiocy.

A non-American English major could read the document for the first time and deduce that the right are pre-supposed.

If parts of Waziristan or Somalia are effectively ungoverned, then the inhabitants can have no rights, and we can carpet bomb immediately. thanks Kos!

trubble on March 7, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Good point.

BadgerHawk on March 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Kos is a blithering idiot who writes a blog for other blithering idiots. His complete lack of understanding of the Rule Of Law is not surprising in the least. He’s stupid.

holygoat on March 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Markos “Kos” Moultisas

Isn’t this a great country? Even an ignorant mouth breather like Moultisas can prosper, and he can even advertise his ignorance at the same time to the masses using the free market made available by the free market system, one of the hallmarks of our republic.

The United States is the Greatest Country in the World. Just ask Constitutional scholar extraordinaire, and resident Kos twit Moultisas.

Dr Evil on March 7, 2012 at 6:54 PM

The irony would be lost on him. He’s made himself wealthy in the very system he derides, whereas in any other system his only function would be that of “village idiot” or “stockade dummy”.

kim roy on March 7, 2012 at 7:09 PM

lexhamfox ,
thanks for the heads up.

rob verdi on March 7, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Makes Amendment 9 kind of pointless if we allowed Government to determain the rights people have.

JediSisko on March 7, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Almost as if the Founders wanted the Second Amendment to protect the First Amendment.

Just imagine if there were none…of either.

Workers paradise.

coldwarrior on March 7, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Great Line

rob verdi on March 7, 2012 at 7:11 PM

I guess that is why an absolute monarch from France decided to intervene decisively in the American Revolution.

lexhamfox on March 7, 2012 at 7:02 PM

It wasn’t for the benefit of the fledgling United States. That just happened to be a happy coincidence.

cozmo on March 7, 2012 at 7:11 PM

What else can one expect from a guy whose team chant is “Gimmie, gimmie”?

katiejane on March 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Australians have an apt term for Mr. Kos: F*ckwit.

mr.blacksheep on March 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM

He’s not wrong. Rights ultimately come from the constitution. The attribution of them to religion was little more than the founders trying to justify proposing them.
If rights were truly based on religion, then everywhere that religion was practiced would have had them enshrined.

Count to 10 on March 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM

The guy’s stuck on stupid. There’s no cure for that, so don’t waste the electrons!

microfiction on March 7, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Stuck on stupid? The moron is the very definition of the word.

Thomas More on March 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM

If rights were truly based on religion, then everywhere that religion was practiced would have had them enshrined.

Count to 10 on March 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM

And if rights came from a constitution then the old Soviet constitution would have granted those behind the Iron Curtain freedom’s they never enjoyed.

sharrukin on March 7, 2012 at 7:18 PM

It should be illegal to be that stupid

patriette on March 7, 2012 at 7:20 PM

This one’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?

alchemist19 on March 7, 2012 at 6:45 PM

He isn’t even the sharpest crayon in the toolbox. In fact, Kos is about as sharp as your average marble.

ghostwalker1 on March 7, 2012 at 7:22 PM

You should ask the Cocksacks where in the Constitution is healthcare or Wall Street or the ElectroMagnetic Spectrum. I will accept the God is not implicit, if he accepts the Government cannot do things that are not listed.

negative liberty and LONOANG….FTW

John Kettlewell on March 7, 2012 at 4:17 PM

This was from the previous thread on this post, and I thought it was worth repeating. It’s a good comeback and I’m going to use it.

YehuditTX on March 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM

He isn’t even the sharpest crayon in the toolbox. In fact, Kos is about as sharp as your average marble.

ghostwalker1 on March 7, 2012 at 7:22 PM

He did manage to make out quite well for someone not at all sharp.

He does have that.

cozmo on March 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Stuck on stupid? The moron is the very definition of the word.

Thomas More on March 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM

In fact, if you look up the word ‘stupid’ in the dictionary you will find a picture of Markos. And, if you look very closely at that picture you will see that he is holding and pointing to a picture of himself.

ghostwalker1 on March 7, 2012 at 7:26 PM

AWESOME blog post!! Bravo. More like this, please! It blows my mind how supposedly intelligent people–yes, Markos Moulitsas fits the definition–can be so very_breathtakingly_ignorant. Or perhaps it’s not “ignorant” so much as obtuse. Or dishonest.

Obama is dishonest. Here’s the story of how dishonest he is:

On February 5, 2012 Father Sammie Maletta delivered a Homily at St. John the Evangelist Parish in St. John, Indiana. This Homily addressed how President Obama is threatening our Religious Freedom and declaring war with the Catholic Church.

Please take a few moments to listen. No one sums it up quite like Father Maletta, a lawyer as well as a priest. The parish is middle class, blue collar, likely Democrat, is located in Northern Indiana.

It’s incredibly clear, direct and created a fire storm of activity – it doesn’t take long…PLEASE listen; it’s truly an amazing homily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltTd81XpDnc&feature=youtu.be

Go to http://bit.ly/zPdgpw to fight the HHS Mandate.

http://usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltTd81XpDnc&feature=youtu.be

mountainaires on March 7, 2012 at 7:27 PM

He did manage to make out quite well for someone not at all sharp.

He does have that.

cozmo on March 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM

A broken clock is right twice a day…

ghostwalker1 on March 7, 2012 at 7:28 PM

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

God. One particular God too.

AnotherOpinion on March 7, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Hillsdale College has a great online course on the Constitution, and the first few videos are up for anyone to see. They are great primers. maybe someone can tweet the URL to Markos.

It starts here, and the rest are in the righthand column on the YouTube page.

YehuditTX on March 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Its a Living Breathing Document that can be morphed,
or Politically Shape-Shifted at any Progressive whim!!

Idiot Leftys!!
(snark)

canopfor on March 7, 2012 at 6:39 PM

It’s also been raped by idiot rightys. Are you to much of an intellectual void to admit that fact chief? Any of you that support the two party system ARE the problem not the solution since you are are retarded enough to believe the lies of party honchos. The liberal/conservative BS is the biggest load of BS out there.

Your Mamma loves me on March 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM

He’s not wrong. Rights ultimately come from the constitution. The attribution of them to religion was little more than the founders trying to justify proposing them.
If rights were truly based on religion, then everywhere that religion was practiced would have had them enshrined.

Count to 10 on March 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Are you really that unfamiliar with natural philosphy? Our schools have obviously failed. How can you study the enlightenment or the American Revolution without imparting a basic understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of this era in history?

patriette on March 7, 2012 at 7:33 PM

*declaring loud* god can you please help us in this constitution kerfuffle, did you granted us our rights or not? *crickets*

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:07 PM

do any of you guys that have a personal relationship with god, ask god this question? The the little weasel is avoiding me!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:34 PM

The the little weasel is avoiding me!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:34 PM

We all try to avoid you.

sharrukin on March 7, 2012 at 7:36 PM

do any of you guys that have a personal relationship with god, ask god this question? The the little weasel is avoiding me!

What’s your point? Even if there isn’t a God, then the rights we have are inalienable. They are the natural state of humans, and can be neither granted nor taken away by a government.

El Dillo on March 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM

We all try to avoid you.

sharrukin on March 7, 2012 at 7:36 PM

I just want to clear this argument! did god gave us our right or not? lets hear it from the creator itself!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Whatcha expect? That old Constitution was written by a bunch of slave holdin’ Whiteys . . . /

BigAlSouth on March 7, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Rights ultimately come from the constitution.

Count to 10 on March 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM

It’s Constitution, and you are a moron.

Roy Rogers on March 7, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I once taught a class called Capitalism vs. Communism as a required course from the 60’s to the mid 70’s in public schools. Its purpose was to insure the students understood the differences between the two. It disappeared about the same time the socialist programs began to encroach on our education system. That was around 1974 when the feds enacted the special education laws.

Two classes that I used to teach are Economics and Government. As a conservative I tried to stay with the constitution and bring the Founding of our nation to life for my students. Even then when judges legislating from the bench were less common, it was becoming more difficult to explain some of the laws being passed in Congress and decisions by our courts that were at odds to what their text and the Constitution were saying.

I have no idea how I would teach those classes today with a straight face. How do you teach the Constitution and then justify what Obama is doing to circumvent it by inventing his own powers, and not find yourself in trouble with some liberal faculty or administrators. Of course I would damn the torpedoes and sail into giving it my best shot.

I also have taught American History and World History. American History used to be the 10th and 11th grade curriculums. The reason was students at that grade level tend to be more mature and on the edge of becoming adults who will be making decisions that affect our government. That was long ago changed in our district so that the first part of American History that includes the founding of out nation and the creation of the Constitution is taught at the eight grade level where hormons ruled their lives. There is a world of difference between the maturity of an eighth grader and an eleventh grader, and two years to forget what they were taught before the second half that includes the industrial age and the rise of socialism and communism as we have today.

The no child left behind is probably the biggest dead end in education that we have. Teachers are held accountable for the scores on the test the law mandates. District and schools are held accountable for the students’ scores, and the feds punish those who fail to achieve greater success, which inevitably is going to happen. The best defense is to teach to the test, guessing on what is going to be asked, drill, drill, and drill again on those questions and gloss over the rest. I was actually paid to determine what the questions most likely would cover. Two things really stood out. Almost nothing was on the civil rights eras. Heavy on current events which goes to reason as the socialist have made the most of our current times.

As for that long ago American history that went in one ear and out the other of the eighth graders, I was tasked with setting aside my World History lessons and teaching the basics facts they felt were needed on the founding of our nation before the mandated NCLB test. The American History teachers had no time to deviate from their drilling as they taught to the test. As predictable, my students seem to be hearing it for the first time. I had only two days to teach the mandated facts. Those facts did not mention anything relevent of the now long forgotten Constitution.

The socialist have been at this for a long time, planning, and working for the day that our nation and its Constitution is in the dust bin, replacing the Republic with a democracy of social justice or more truthful; socialistic communism.

The old Soviet Union had a great constitution. It even had the much claimed and embraced “separation of church” and state in it that ours does not have. When the socialist took over they did as Obama is doing now to subvert the constitution into irrelevance. They did not teach it in the schools. In its place they taught the socialist and communist propaganda. After a while no one, including the police and most judges, knew what rights the people had. When you don’t know your rights, or even understand it doesn’t matter if you do or don’t, you don’t ask question or protest and make trouble for yourself and your family. That is Van Jones and Obama’s America in a nut shell.

Franklyn on March 7, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I just want to clear this argument! did god gave us our right or not? lets hear it from the creator itself!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM

What is the moral difference between killing a chicken and a man?

sharrukin on March 7, 2012 at 7:45 PM

What’s your point? Even if there isn’t a God, then the rights we have are inalienable. They are the natural state of humans, and can be neither granted nor taken away by a government.

El Dillo on March 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM

ah, so, WE THE PEOPLE just gave ourselfs these rights, not god? that sounds cool! we rule!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:46 PM

If rights were truly based on religion, then everywhere that religion was practiced would have had them enshrined.

Nobody said right were based on religion. According to the founders, they’re given to us by God.

Bobbertsan on March 7, 2012 at 7:47 PM

If anyone asks you where God is in the Constitution, tell them it is in the only part of the Constitution that applies to all three branches of government, and to all state governments as well:

The oath of office.

James Madison, remarking on the irony of the religious test clause occurring in the same clause as the oath, observed, “Is not a religious test… involved in the oath itself?”

The notion central to Magna Carta first and later to the US Constitution is that governors are just as subject to the laws of God as are the governed. Our founders knew that unless governors bound themselves to uphold natural rights, those rights would not be safe. Thus they required, right there in the Constitution, that governors swear to God that they would honor the limits on their station, and uphold the Constitution.

James Buckley delivered a marvelous speech explaining the religious roots of liberty in 2006, which I posted in its entirety on my blog. I recommend it. http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=4314

philwynk on March 7, 2012 at 7:51 PM

As for Markos Moulitas…

Twits should not twitter.

coldwarrior on March 7, 2012 at 7:55 PM

What is the moral difference between killing a chicken and a man?

sharrukin on March 7, 2012 at 7:45 PM

that is a hard question, since god does not show up to give me moral guidance, maybe he left some notes? of course, the koran! or should I choose the torah? or the bible? or the rig veda? can you help me out? god left so many notes, I dont know which one to take serious!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:55 PM

god does not exist, so what is this fuss about?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Me thinks someone keeps trying to convince himself.

CW on March 7, 2012 at 7:55 PM

It’s also been raped by idiot rightys. Areyou to much of an intellectual void to admit that fact chief? Any of you that support the two party system ARE the problem not the solution since you are are retarded enough to believe the lies of party honchos. The liberal/conservative BS is the biggest load of BS out there.

Your Mamma loves me on March 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Give the olde ridicule a try once you obtain a functional knowledge of the English language, champ!

tom daschle concerned on March 7, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Me thinks someone keeps trying to convince himself.

CW on March 7, 2012 at 7:55 PM

dont you think god can clarify this stuff better than anybody? right? where is he?!?!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:59 PM

that is a hard question…

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Yeah it is. Unlike you the founders had to seriously consider the question.

sharrukin on March 7, 2012 at 8:00 PM

I always just assumed people who think like Kos did so out of extreme ignorance. This just proves it.

Metro on March 7, 2012 at 8:04 PM

god does not exist, so what is this fuss about?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:00 PM

nathor, just when I said, That boy ain’t very smart is he? Right on cue, you show up, do you really miss the point? Or are you just trying to be a contrarian.

Bmore on March 7, 2012 at 8:06 PM

dont you think god can clarify this stuff better than anybody? right? where is he?!?!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Beyond your reach.

Bmore on March 7, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Yeah it is. Unlike you the founders had to seriously consider the question.

sharrukin on March 7, 2012 at 8:00 PM

it is a important question, “What is the moral difference between killing a chicken and a man?”. I’m sure the founders lost sleepless night on this one.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Don’t feed the troll

Roy Rogers on March 7, 2012 at 8:13 PM

nathor, just when I said, That boy ain’t very smart is he? Right on cue, you show up, do you really miss the point? Or are you just trying to be a contrarian.

Bmore on March 7, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I am trying to help. did god gave us our rights or not? can we just ask him?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:15 PM

dont you think god can clarify this stuff better than anybody? right? where is he?!?!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Beyond your reach.

Bmore on March 7, 2012 at 8:08 PM

ah, so you know where he is dont you!? I bet you have a personal relationship with him! can you ask him this for me?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:17 PM

it is a important question, “What is the moral difference between killing a chicken and a man?”. I’m sure the founders lost sleepless night on this one.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:08 PM

The Soviets certainly didn’t and they decided that killing someone who was an enemy of the state was perfectly fine. In fact they killed over 20 million people. If men are just animals as materialism states then why not kill them if they are an inconvenience? A Christian won’t do it as easily because they believe that God has declared it a sin.

sharrukin on March 7, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Don’t feed the troll

Roy Rogers on March 7, 2012 at 8:13 PM

what? my satire revealed the sillyness of this whole “who gave us our rights?” dilema and now you label me as a troll? bah!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:21 PM

dont you think god can clarify this stuff better than anybody? right? where is he?!?!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:59 PM

One day you will convince yourself that there is no god. Until then good luck.

CW on March 7, 2012 at 8:21 PM

troll? bah!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Yeh you’re trolling.

CW on March 7, 2012 at 8:21 PM

MOST OF YOU SHUN TWITTER

DUH? we also shunned obama,crack,welfare,liar loans,quadraphonic stereo,Hillary,plastic snow plows,msnbc,etc. So what, we get scoured because we are selective??

rik on March 7, 2012 at 8:23 PM

nathor, just when I said, That boy ain’t very smart is he? Right on cue, you show up, do you really miss the point? Or are you just trying to be a contrarian.

Bmore on March 7, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I am trying to help. did god gave us our rights or not? can we just ask him?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:15 PM

nathor, I’m getting ready to enjoy some of my evening with my wife and my Mom. Ponder this and I promise I will check back later to see how you did. Prove to me your existence. Now you ponder that for awhile. When I come back I will tear down what ever answer you give. Hint, there is a correct answer.

Bmore on March 7, 2012 at 8:23 PM

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:00 PM

I now rehandle you god!

rik on March 7, 2012 at 8:27 PM

The Soviets certainly didn’t and they decided that killing someone who was an enemy of the state was perfectly fine. In fact they killed over 20 million people. If men are just animals as materialism states then why not kill them if they are an inconvenience? A Christian won’t do it as easily because they believe that God has declared it a sin.

sharrukin on March 7, 2012 at 8:19 PM

got it! godless people murderors! faithfull people also murderers, but not so easily!
but wait, what this have to do with our rights?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Yeh you’re trolling.

CW on March 7, 2012 at 8:21 PM

stop feeding me then, you taste bad anyway

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:29 PM

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:28 PM
They also don’t know how to spell!!

rik on March 7, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Don’t feed the troll

Roy Rogers on March 7, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Sorry.

sharrukin on March 7, 2012 at 8:34 PM

It doesn’t matter who actually gave us our rights. What matter is that the Constitution is framed in such a way that government is not the source of our rights. This is proven by the fact that the drafters believed that the rights were given by god. It doesn’t matter if they were right or not.

blink on March 7, 2012 at 8:25 PM

ok, and since god is not here to clarify exactly what those rights supposed to be, why does this matter?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3