Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Monday, August 9, 2010


Sometime in 2001, in a radio interview where he discussed how the Founding Fathers dealt with the issue of slavery while writing the Constitution, Barack Obama, explained that the "fundamental FLAW"  was that "[t]he Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers," and that the framers did not "see it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth."

The entire quote from Mr. Obama is here.

In his October 27, 2008, broadcast, Rush Limbaugh [The MAW of Mendacity] criticized Obama for saying that the Constitution reflected a "fundamental flaw," while falsely accusing Obama of saying the flaw cannot "be fixed": "How is he going to -- I asked this earlier -- how is he gonna place his hand on the Bible and swear that he, Barack Hussein Obama, will uphold the Constitution that he feels reflects the nation's fundamental flaw. Fundamental. When he talks about a fundamental flaw, he's not talking about a flaw that can be fixed. Fundamental means that this document is, from the get-go, wrong."

Mr. Obama said nothing approaching what the liar Limbaugh broadcast to his ditto heads. But aside from that predictable fact, here’s what is going on right now in the GOP:

House Minority Leader, John Boehner, thinks there is a FLAW in the Constitution and says he’s open to repealing certain parts of the 14th amendment, which apparently he believes needs to be changed, (although the Republican National Committee touts the 14th amendment as one of the GOP’s brightest “accomplishments... ,” many high-profile Republicans are now trying to appeal to their far-right base by calling for repealing parts of it. Sens. Lindsey Graham (SC), Jon Kyl (AZ).

I don’t listen to the Maw of Mendacity, so I don’t know if he has clotted his glottis over the fact that a GOP politician has actually proposed changing the Constitution because Boehner and others believe it is FLAWED--all those brown-skinned babies getting American citizenship just because they were born in USA! It’s “certainly worth considering,” intones the furiously tanned Boehner.


And that brings me to JACKDAW, an apt description of the House Minority Leader. Among its other qualities, this undersized member of the corvus family is an opportunistic feeder.

UPDATE from Politico:

“The 14th Amendment is a great legacy of the Republican party. It is a shame and an embarrassment that the GOP now wants to amend it for starkly political reasons,” McKinnon told POLITICO. “Initially Republicans rallied around the amendment to welcome more citizens to this country. Now it is being used to drive people away.”

Enacted during Reconstruction by a Republican Congress, the 14th Amendment officially overruled the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision and defined citizenship not only for newly enfranchised blacks but for all Americans.

For more than a century, it’s been interpreted by the courts to include children whose parents are not U.S. citizens, including illegal immigrants.



Bryan Fischer, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the American Family Association, wrote a blog post yesterday on the AFA's site arguing that the United States should have "no more mosques, period."

"This is for one simple reason," he writes. "Each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government."

I'll make an observation:  These social conservatives find no irony in accusing Mr. Obama of destroying America and trampling on the Constitution while at the same time suggesting something so antithetical to what our Constitution stands for that it would appear that Mr. Fischer has been sniffing his deoderant spray; or at the very least, he has lost what little mind he may have originally possessed.


dmarks said...

The repeal of the 14th amendment would cause many American citizens to be stripped of citizenship because of the crimes of their parents.

The Griper said...

that fundamental flaw that Obama speaks of is one reason why i never liked the idea of compromise in legislation. the flaw that is seen on that issue is the direct result of a compromise in order to bring a unity of thought into the Constitution and get the backing of those States needed to get it passed.

Leslie Parsley said...

Just once, I'd like to hear these quacks say, "the country has some serious problems and we need to work together to get them solved."
Dream a little dream with me.

The Griper said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Hey Griper, what happened to your comment?

(Looks under desk) Nope, not there.

(Looks in wastepaper basket) Nope, not there.

(Looks behind chair) Shucks, not there either.

Hmm, where have I heard this before?

The Griper said...

good question you asked and one i cannot answer, that i'll admit. apparently certain type of questions are not allowed. didn't think i asked it in a disrespectful way. :)

Infidel753 said...

Wow, that's really reaching. Not only does Limbaugh arbitrarily re-define "fundamental" to make Obama look bad (there's nothing inherent in the concept of a "fundamental" flaw that means it cannot be fixed, and the specific flaw Obama referred to already has been fixed, as far as the Constitution is concerned), but he's defined anyone who supports amending the Constitution as unfit to be President. That can't have been the intent of the Founders, since they themselves provided a process for amending the Constitution.

Jackdaws come in orange? Who knew?

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Griper - didn't think i asked it in a disrespectful way

I didn’t notice any disrespect either. Where did that l’il ole comment go? And who would do such a terrible thing?

Maybe someone simply got pissed off. Maybe too people trying to convert too many people to their religion, their politics, and band of corn flakes. There is a loudmouth at Staples who can’t believe the low price.

Have you called Geico yet?

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Public notice: Will the nasty person who deleted Griper's comment put it back where you found it.

Have you called Geico yet?

Arthurstone said...

"I never liked the idea of compromise in legislation..."


Nothing else needs be said.

The Griper said...

I accepted it in the same way as you are, with a sense of humor.


it is by the use of compromise that unjust laws are enacted. it just takes a little longer to enact an injustice by the use of compromise.

Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said...

Using the Constitution as a political tool is blasphemy against America. The right tried to do this with an amendment against flag burning. It stirs up over eager nuts who can't think past simpleton phrases like low taxes and less government. So they think there ought to be a law.

Hypocritical morons. No clue what they're really for. They're just against everything.

Arthurstone said...

No explanation necessary Griper.

You've made yourself perfectly clear. Abundantly clear.

You only finally wrote what has long been obvious.

But for what it's worth our nation has a history of enacting 'unjust laws' without the slightest nod to 'compromise'.

Ultimately though politics and it's resultant product of legislation *is* compromise.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Aw, let the Griper have his fondue. No compromise, yessiree!

Pardon me a moment. This just came over the newswire:

Taliban execute pregnant woman. Taliban insurgents flogged and publicly executed a pregnant Afghan widow for alleged adultery Saturday, according to reports. The woman, Sanum Gul was killed in Badghis province in western Afghanistan Saturday morning, the provincial governor's spokesman said. After being held in captivity for three days and flogged 200 times, Gul -- whose age was given as both 35 and 47 in various reports -- was shot in the head three times.

Lets see. Where were we? Oh yes, no compromise!

The Griper said...


"But for what it's worth our nation has a history of enacting 'unjust laws' without the slightest nod to 'compromise'."

true but not very true. every one of those unjust laws enacted involved compromise of some sort.

Arthurstone said...

Keep digging Griper. No quarter. No compromise.


Shaw Kenawe said...

Harold Meyerson writing in the WaPo today:

"The Republican war on the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is indeed directed at a mortal threat -- but not to the American nation. It is the threat that Latino voting poses to the Republican Party.

By proposing to revoke the citizenship of the estimated 4 million U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants -- and, presumably, the children's children and so on down the line -- Republicans are calling for more than the creation of a permanent noncitizen caste. They are endeavoring to solve what is probably their most crippling long-term political dilemma: the racial diversification of the electorate. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are trying to preserve their political prospects as a white folks' party in an increasingly multicolored land."

The Griper said...

Before i pass judgment on the question of appeal of the 14th amendment, i'll just wait until those that call for appeal declare what they propose to replace it with since it also directly deals with their office. up to now i hear too many assumptions in regards to it.

Leslie Parsley said...

Sue has a very interesting piece about what a couple of conservatives had to say about this silly proposal on Hardball:

I love this kind of idiocy. Not every immigrant is illegal. Not only is the GOP going to offend the Hispanics, they're going to offend every other ethnic group in the country.

dmarks said...

By the way, good cartoon above, Shaw. But it appears to be above the posts and might vanish. I was going to send someone a link to it, but since it is not in a post it might vanish before he saw it.

Shaw Kenawe said...


The cartoon won't vanish because I've put it in a dialog box above the posts and it will remain there until I delete it. If you want to send a link to someone to see it, just link to PE:

dmarks said...

I sent the link to the blogger at Newspaper Rock

Maybe he'll snap it up before you remove it.

Rob said...

Conservatives should stop protesting the Constitution piecemeal and organize a constitutional convention. Agenda: Rewrite Amendments 1, 2, 4, and 8. Repeal Amendments 14, 16, and 17. Add amendments to ban abortion and flag-burning. Eliminate the interstate commerce clause, judicial review, and tribal sovereignty. Add missing references to God.

Rob said...

P.S. Looks to me like the immigration cartoon has vanished!

Shaw Kenawe said...

I've imbedded it in the post, Rob. Hope you come back to see it.