Pelosi goes off along with the obnoxious left

WATCH: Unhinged Pelosi Claims Tax Bill ‘Does Violence’ To Vision Of Founding Fathers

“… it betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children.”

Daily Signal

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spewed utter nonsense on the House floor on Tuesday, hysterically claiming that the Republican’s tax plan “does violence to the vision of our Founders.”

Pelosi railed against Republican lawmakers in her speech, decrying the bill as a morally obscene “scam” designed to “install a permanent plutocracy.”

“This GOP tax scam is simply theft, monumental, brazen theft from the American middle class and from every person who aspires to reach it,” Pelosi said. “The GOP tax scam is not a vote for an investment in growth or jobs. It is a vote to install a permanent plutocracy in our nation. They’ll be cheering that later. It does violence to the vision of our Founders. It disrespects the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, who are a large part of our middle class and to whom we owe a future worthy of their sacrifice. And it betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children. It demands, it morally demands a no vote from every member of this house of the people.”

Earlier in her remarks, the pro-abortion Democrat pulled out the tried-and-true “think of the children” tactic and managed to connect it to Christmas.

“In this season, we celebrate the miraculous blessings of God,” Pelosi began. “We reflect on the wondrous joy of children and our responsibility to them. We remember our duty to live justly. And for those of us blessed to serve in this Congress, we must remember our special responsibility to govern fairly, to meet the needs of all of God’s children.”

Fred Barnes writes, of the resistance, in the Weekly Standard: “Feeble Resistance”

Still, we’ve learned a bit from the resistance. Their policy views haven’t changed much. “Democrats are for jobs, but they’re against business,” Moore says. “They’re no longer a growth party, they’re a redistribution party.”

I don’t know if I’d even say they are for jobs. But they are certainly against business. Really, they are for politics and elections in particular. That’s what they care about. A tax cut? Not so much. Nothing personal but nothing gets in the way of their obsession with politics, not even an international terrorist-crime syndicate like Hezbollah can do that.

The fact that Pelosi has to call tax cuts violent tells us something. Calling it a tax scam, or trying to make their resistance as poisonous as possible, is their gig for successful politics. Start the fundraisers against tax cuts and for impeachment. That is their entire mid-term campaign.

But rest assured, there is always that bastion of world stability called the UN. (achem) Well, they vote to condemn our decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem. So Nikki Haley gives them an ultimatum that we are watching and will remember. So for that, John Brennan rushes out on social media to condemn her message. Now having a memory is considered a “threat.”

Only to an Obama radical, remembering the damage done is a bad thing. We all could need full-frontal lobotomies to accomplish that. How can they write and glorify Obama’s legacy like a gift from on high while we are looking at the effects?

The real problem is not just Trump, to them, but all the people who voted for him. It was Nancy’s last part that took it right over the top, making resistance into a religious doctrine. ‘Save the people by opposing Trump on everything,’ is the message. She lost her credibility card by being in bed with Planned Parenthood. Now she lectures us on taking care of the children? A bit much even for my stomach.

So their rhetoric is high but their ethics and responsibility are not. They can oppose the American people who want to fix the problems, not create more of them. People wanted a wall, border enforcement and to grow America, instead of destroying and dividing it by every conceivable group. Dems want the latter.

Now if any of that seems or is offensive to you, well, you are probably right on the mark. It offends because it is meant to. All the left’s agenda drives the message of protest as the means — when elections and courts don’t yield the desired effects. From blocking roadways, to shutting down businesses, to tearing down statues, all are means to offend people. That is the point of it. They tell us that we must be made to feel uncomfortable, made to feel their ridicule. That, they say, is the motive for change.

When NFL players took a knee toward the national anthem and flag, we rightly called them out on it. We said it was offensive to the rest of the country, to the military, to the country at large. And they told us good, I’m glad you are, we want you to be. That’s why we are doing it, that is the point of protest and civil disobedience to disturb and make you feel uncomfortable. Until lots of Americans are offended then nothing changes.

So in that same spirit they carry the offensive objective into the halls of Congress. Resistance. Make no mistake, when it rolls out and hits you right in the face as outrageous and offends you, because that is their whole point. They want to inflame.

Is it any wonder then that it is almost impossible to deal with or work with them? No it isn’t and also why they are in a perpetual protest mode. They operate on the same M/O as terrorists do: to force a political objective, whether it is baking cakes, changing bathrooms, or removing statues, or removing displays, or violent protests, or defending corruption.

And if some of their policies also offend you even more when they are carried out? That’s all the better, it keeps you in the perpetually offended mode, awaiting their next demand. These are not just the collateral effects and consequences of the left, these are their very intentional means. But tax cuts are a violent attack on the founders?

Right Ring | Bullright

An egg is not a cantaloupe

Old Ground

I really was not going to say it because it is obvious to most conservatives and common knowledge, but apparently deserves repeating. Lib-progs are pushing revisions again. And again it is in the language and definitions department.

The first thing is the definition of classical liberalism. And by the way, it is not something conservatives run from or are unfamiliar with. This is old news I realize to conservatives. Yet it deserves repeating. Start with a definition

Wikipedia says:
“Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates individual liberties and limited government under the rule of law and stresses economic freedom.”

And from a white paper (National Center for Policy Analysis)

What Is Classical Liberalism?

by John C Goodman

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it’s the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

Let me skip and offer another excerpt:

“The Collectivist Notion of Rights”

It is worth noting that all forms of collectivism in the 20th century rejected this classical notion of rights and all asserted in their own way that need is a claim. For the communists, the needs of the class (proletariat) were a claim against every individual. For the Nazis, the needs of the race were a claim. For fascists (Italian-style) and for the architects of the welfare state, the needs of society as a whole were a claim. Since in all these systems the state is the personification of the class, the race, society as a whole, etc., all these ideologies imply that, to one degree or another, individuals have an obligation to live for the state.

Despite the fact that 20th century collectivists opposed the classical liberal concept of rights, very rarely did they attack the notion of "rights" as such. Instead, they often tried to redefine the concept of "right" in a way that virtually eviscerated any meaningful notion of liberty. For example, in his 1944 State of the Union Address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for a "second Bill of Rights," which included the following:

·The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
·The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
·The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
·The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
·The right of every family to a decent home.
·The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
·The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
·The right to a good education.
Note that these rights are very different from the rights Locke, Jefferson and the Founding Fathers had in mind.

PDF here

So you can see a huge difference between an idea of limited government and the collectivists’ unlimited one. Basically that is the struggle we face. The founders had the idea of a limited government and understood that struggle. But the collectivists try to blur that line anytime they can. In essence, what we see today in Liberalism or progressivism is at odds with this limited approach. It is not the same thing. Though that does not stop progressives, under the guise of “Liberalism”, from trying to substitute their views for classical liberalism or the philosophy of the founders.

What brings it up?

Case in point: Alan Colmes has a new book out touting the greatness of liberals, and suggesting this progressivism today is one and the same as the classical liberalism concepts. At least this was the gist of the interview he did on it. He never used the word classical liberalism in making his brief case. He rather just lumped them together under the Liberal banner – i.e. under “thank a liberal”.

It is why I have tried to use a capital L in Liberal to denote the newer, different form. But this is not your forefather’s liberalism, in the “classical liberal” sense. (IOW, theirs is one based on positive obligations not negative ones.) Also most libertarians recognize this and often use classical liberalism correctly in explaining their views. It is the limited government approach. It is hard to mistake them for the same thing once you see the difference.

Though Liberals are busy muddying the waters to blur the lines. The progressive label came in, in the 20th century, which evolved into the Liberal label, and now they are back using the “progressive” term. To compound the ideology, it further expanded with the new wave of Liberalism from the 60’s or 70’s. It disturbs a lot of people, but that matters not to Lib-progs. The modern Left is fond of redefining words and applying their definitions. They are very adept at the process.


But what the hey, he wrote another coffee table ornament for the venomous class warfare crowd.‎