Two Examples Showing Liberals Don't Know ANYTHING About U.S. History

-By Warner Todd Huston

This week we have two prominent examples proving that liberals are ignoramuses about the Constitution and U.S. history. One incident wholly misunderstood by the left was uttered by the redoubtable Sarah Palin and the other by Christine O’Donnell.

First up Sarah.

In Nevada Sarah Palin kicked off a new tour to spur conservatives and Republicans to the polls just ahead of the midterm elections. During one of her speeches Palin said that conservatives shouldn’t “party like it’s 1773” just yet. We need to keep our shoulder to the wheel and get to the polls first, she warned.

The idiots of the left went wild with Palin’s 1773 date. It proved that Palin was an idiot, they said. Why, the only famous date in our early history is 1776, they chortled. Palin is obviously too stupid to know we became a nation in 1776 they guffawed.

A string of Twitter posts and TV reports streamed from these unschooled leftists attacking Palin for her obvious stupidity.

Of course, these leftist idiots proved themselves illiterate enough not to know that Palin wasn’t referencing the 1776 birth of the nation. Palin was at a Tea Party rally and was referencing the Boston Tea Party… you know, the one that occurred in 1773? Yeah, remember that one? The second example of the stupidity and historical illiteracy of the left occurred during the debate in Delaware when Christine O’Donnell persisted in asking opponent Chris Coons where in the Constitution it mentions this so-called “separation of church and state”?

The left again went wild saying that O’Donnell is too stupid to know that this separation of church and state is in the First Amendment. The fact is, however, there is no mention whatsoever of a “separation of church and state” in the U.S. Constitution.

In fact the focus on the separation issue is somewhat a historical. The supposed “wall of separation” is not in the First Amendment. It is only mentioned in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 and appears no where else in our founding documents. In fact it doesn’t show up again in our history until the 1940s.

The First Amendment does not employ this separation claim as it is popularly understood in today’s parlance. All the First Amendment says is that Congress cannot make a law establishing a national religion. It says precisely nothing about observing religious practices in government. In fact, this supposed separation issue did not become a national issue until a 1940s era Supreme Court ruling that set that ball rolling.

The reality of the Founder’s intent for the roles of government and religion were far more nuanced and complicated than modern religion banners pretend. Unfortunately, they are presenting an incorrect picture of history and Constitutional law that is damaging the system that the Founders created and materially altering our culture for the worse.

But, once again we see the extreme left ignorant of American history by attacking Christine O’Donnell for what they imagine in their ignorance is her stupid reply to Coons’s misstatement of the issue during the debate.

What we see here is that the left hates our history and traditions so much that they refuse to even learn the truth.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • If you're going to call a group of people idiots you should check to make sure you're not completely wrong about the thing you're attacking them on before you do so.

    For instance you should not rest your claim on a precise quote appearing in the bill of rights when the existence of the precise quote was not declared. Nor for that matter should you pretend that Christine O'Donnell when confronted with the precise language of the specific amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" didn't repeat her incredulity that such specific phrasing did exist in the first amendment.

    From there however you then go on to make several claims of your own. Now seeing how you've yourself opened the door for name-calling I see no reason to restrict my own language - You're a freaking moron.

    First off - when discussing the Constitution one does not have to use the exact phrase in the Constitution to describe what the Constitution has to say. For instance, you simpering git, the phrases "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" don't exist in the Constitution either - and yet I can't tell you the number of times I have to listen to idiots like you on the right whine about them. That educated people - and naturally I'm not going to including a moron like you in that category - would find a simple and accurate phrase to use when describing a part of the Constitution is not surprising in the least. Nor is your glaring ignorance of the long history establishing the separation of church and state in not only Jefferson's letter (which only an idiot like you would attempt to diminish) but also in the courts.

    James Madison (Oh - do you remember him you idiot?) wrote to Robert Walsh in 1819 in which he explicitly declared:
    "The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State."

    Or as Madison wrote to John Livingston in 1822.

    "Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together"

    Or as he wrote to the Baptist churches of North Carolina in 1811:

    "Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself."

    In fact Madison, in his detached memoranda, makes a clear declaration, using the exact phrase

  • "Liberalism" is the reason why dumb asses like Palin and O'Donnell have been allowed to live outside the kitchen.

Leave a comment