Open Wing-Nut Friday: Jim Moran, Clarence Dupnik and Leland Yee

Time for our Wing Nut of the Week awards.

It is with some embarrassment that I must admit that state senator Leland Yee is from California. We need another wing nut like Cuba needs sugar.

For those of you who have not heard of Yee, he is the latest humorless, self-hating, liberal xenophobe to label a white guy racist for doing a good imitation of Mandarin. The white guy in question being Rush Limbaugh.

Where is Sidney Toler when we really need him?

Yee’s consternation stems from Limbaugh’s January 19 broadcast in which the radio icon complained that Chinese leader Hu Jintao was speaking without translation during a joint press conference with President Obama.

Read the full story at The Daily Caller:

“Normally, you’d have somebody translate every couple of words,” Limbaugh explained, “but Hu Jintao was just going ‘ching cha, ching chow cho cha, chan cha ching, chee ba ba ba, hon chong hee, ee kah ah ahh! Che, cheech eh! Jing ja, bo ba, ya ya, cha che cheech che! Cha gee! Doohhh, kit bah le bah! Bah, cheech cho bah!’”

“Nobody was translating,” Limbaugh concluded, “but that’s as close as I can get.”

Of course Limbaugh stepped over the line, because everyone knows that the only racial group not off limits for ridicule, rude jokes, racial humor or extermination for simply existing is the white race.

Add one octogenarian sheriff from Pima County Arizona and you have what is known in the biz as “legs.”

Yep, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is on board and launching a full scale investigation into a fax received by Yee from an alleged Limbaugh fan, after Yee went public calling for Limbaugh to apologize and flog himself with a cat-o’-nine-tails while crawling up the Via Dolorosa.

Coincidentally, Yee is a San Francisco mayoral hopeful. Surprise, surprise!

The last I looked San Francisco wasn’t in Arizona, but Dumbnik is allowed a twilight moment, now and then.

But for the grand prize in our Wing Nut of the Week Award—drum roll, please—New York Rep. Jim Moran!

Gotta love this guy.

When a United States congressman can go before Alhurra—that’s George W. Bush’s brilliant brainchild, “Radio Free Islam,” for the uninformed—and blame the November 2010 Republican landslide on racism, we have serious grounds for involuntary commitment.

Quoth congressman Jim Moran:

“It [the Republican successes in the 2010 elections] happened for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. It happened because the Southern states, the slaveholding states, didn’t want to see a president who was opposed to slavery.

“In this case, I believe, a lot of people in the United States don’t want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is liberal, who wants to spend money and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society….”

Nuff said.

Goodnight and Good Ruck.

The Nonexistent Inalienable Right to Happiness

Gay Protesters in California (ABC News)

Editor’s Note: Many of my posts are now on Associated Content. Please do me a big, big favor and click on a few of them.

On the constitutional right of gays to marry, get pregnant and own a four-bedroom home with a pool and two-car garage in Rancho Cucamonga. Well of course they have those rights, just like you and I do. Which is not at all.

They have those rights just as every Mexican within walking distance of Nogales, Arizona has the right to amble in, drop a baby and collect welfare checks as the parent of an American citizen for the next 30 years. Not at all. They have those rights the way citizens of South Central Los Angeles have the right to burn down their neighborhood because some PCP-blasted moron got a well-deserved butt kicking by the LAPD.

The right to gay marriage, as argued by turncoat conservative Ted Olson and conveyed by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in overturning the will of the people of California, is an attempt to achieve a right that does not exist in the U.S. Constitution.

Whenever liberals talk about the right of gays to marry and adopt—that is, procreate West Hollywood style—and live just like everybody else (get out your handkerchiefs, this promises tears), stems from their understanding of the “equal protection clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.

We all know that the Fourteenth Amendment assures the rights of citizenship to African Americans, but it never should have been made law in the first place. The rights of blacks or any other person legally born within the confines of the United States or anyone naturalized under the laws of this country were already protected under the Constitution. A constitutional amendment wasn’t required here; the court merely needed to reverse its deplorable Dred Scott Decision, a blatantly racist ruling handed down in 1857.

President Andrew Johnson could have issued an executive order, much as Lincoln issued the emancipation Proclamation, to enforce that former slaves were granted their constitutional rights. The Racist Democrats would have contested it in the courts, but it would have held with congressional backing.

The Constitution, as written and ratified, states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [My emphasis]

The Fourteenth Amendment was a noble but misguided attempt to restate what the Constitution already guaranteed. In fact, Fourteen actually specifically excluded an entire people group, while presuming to grant citizenship to another; those groups being respectively, American Indians and African Americans. (Native Americans were excluded from citizenship rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.)

I am not a lawyer, and there are certainly other reasons for the Fourteenth Amendment, but citizenship—for men at least—was not one of them. Citizenship was implied and understood from the very first line of the original document. The fact that the Framers failed to follow through and grant freedom to the slaves was irrelevant to the sacred document they penned. It guaranteed their citizenship.

Gay marriage, as argued by the former Solicitor General of the United States in California last week, does not exist anywhere in the U.S. Constitution; it does not exist under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because marriage itself is not guaranteed as a right under the constitution.

Regardless of what law school Olson attended, or how learned in the laws of this country he supposes himself, the right for gays to marry cannot be shown under the Constitution, because a right to marriage is not in the document.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right, a matter of historical tradition, administered by the states under our Constitution. In some states first cousins can marry—this will explain New York—but in most states they cannot. In some states, with parental consent, fourteen and even twelve year old children can marry—this will explain Massachusetts—in most they cannot.

For all of time immemorial, marriage has been the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law. In all of history no other definition has been applied. To convey upon a deviant population legitimacy by granting them a right not guaranteed in the Constitution—no matter how politically correct—is an insult to the memory every African American who was beaten, enslaved and murdered at the hands of others.

It is an insult to civil rights.

Pink-slipping Washington

The U.S. Department of Labor Building, Washington, D.C.

The late novelist and historian Shelby Foote once said something to the effect that, before the Civil War, we said, “The United States are …” and afterward we said, “The United States is … ”

Today if someone merely brings up the subject of states rights he can count on the left branding him a paranoid-rightwing-gun-wielding-racist nutcase. Interesting observations coming from the party that institutionalized slavery and picked up guns to defend it. The party that has advocated the murder of 40 million unborn babies.

But Foote was right. The Civil War signaled the end of states rights, as we then knew them, and the beginning of government encroachment into the minutia of our daily lives.

The size of our government is a primary cause of every ill that troubles our society today. We have allowed the bureaucrats we elect to run amok, creating monolithic departments such as Energy, and Health, and Agriculture, without ever questioning the necessity of those entities. Every year they grow and consume taxpayer dollars like the money-eating machines they are and no one can stop them.

Tell me why we need a Department of Labor? In 25 words or less, tell me. Energy? Tell me why the seventh largest economy in the world, the State of California, should have one dime of Texas money to bail it out of the mess its legislators created? Why is there a Public Broadcasting System or a National Endowment for the Arts? Why should our tax dollars finance them? Your individual state has a labor department and an education department. Why should the government have any say so in the matter?

I know it sounds peevish to declare our rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. So many departments, agencies and bureaucracies have been put in place over the years that we just shake our heads and accept that they must be required. They are in very few cases required. We need a Department of Defense. We need a State Department, and we need a Justice Department, with a pared down mandate.

Ronald Reagan attempted to close the Department of Education in 1982, but was prevented from doing so by – you guessed it – the Democratic controlled Congress. But Reagan recognized the dangers of Washington’s bloated bureaucracies.

It can be strongly argued that George Bush’s creation of the Department of Homeland Security was a waste. Dozens of agencies in our government have the capability required to do the job. Roll a few heads and they’ll communicate with each other!

Well, my purpose here is not to pick and choose wasteful government programs, but merely to point out that they are enormous, and that it is our fault. It is within our power to stop the waist, not only with our votes, but with our vociferous demands. Individual rights are powerful tools in reducing the size of government, but we have to step up to assert those rights.

As few as 100,000 letters could end a department or bureau in Washington. The minute your congressmen and senators know their jobs are on the line, believe me, they will cut costs.