Friday, September 27, 2013

Aqua Fresh Ad


Res Ipsa Loquitor

Because Liberals can just make shit up

Liars, Racists,  and Other Democrats                  

"If you're trying to change minds and influence people it's probably not a
good idea to say that virtually all elected Democrats are liars, but what the hell.  TRKOF&S

An email sent to students by a University of Maryland official that cites the Trayvon Martin shooting as evidence "it is legal to hunt down and kill American children in Florida" is being blasted as the latest evidence of a left-wing bias on campus.

The email, from William Dorland, director of the school's Honors College, starts by welcoming students back to campus, but then quickly veers into politics.

Res Ipsa LoquitorShould you wish to contact the University of Maryland:

University of Maryland Honors College
Anne Arundel Hall 
University of Maryland 
College Park, MD 20742 
301.405.6723 (fax) 

La Plata Hall
University of Maryland 
College Park, MD 20742 

or William Dorland directly:


(via Tea Party Command Center)

    Ralph Gizzip



Res Ipsa Loquitor


Dear patron of our humble website,

The only hope then is secession, not from the United States, but from Maryland. Even though a new state would not be able to avoid the mandate of uniform apportionment, it would not matter. The ten counties (Harford and the Eastern Shore) would be of one mind on many issues, including respect of property. If this is not a sufficient reason to secede, then what is?

Bye, Bye Maryland!
Before you take the time to read the following essay, please note that the first few paragraphs concern federal law suits and the issue of constitutionality.  While interesting to masochists like myself, these paragraphs are not necessary to read and understand the purpose of this essay, though, they will give you an undeniable advantage over any liberal Democrat from the Baltimore-Washington corridor when discussing the topic of the tyranny of Maryland’s Government.  Those wishing to skip my Constitutional soliloquy, please start reading at paragraph number 5.

I happened upon this treatise, and as also happens from time to time I found it epiphanic.  While nominally discussing the plight of Marylanders under the heavy boot of state Democrats—quite disproportionately, and illegally as it turns out— the whoseits and whatsits are applicable to everybody. I am told that constitutional law is not taught in any of the state's law schools, so I am already one-up on Maryland's liberal mountebanks  in that regard.  Here below are a few snippets.  I'll put the entire article into the Defining Articles library for easy future reference.

One of the most overlooked and misunderstood aspects of the United States Constitution are Sections 2 and 3 of Article I; these set out the guidelines for selecting members to the United States Senate and House of Representatives.  Ever since the infamous court cases of Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), most Americans, who have any interest in government and politics, have come to the mistaken belief that Founding Fathers of our country intended for the legislative leaders of this country to be apportioned with mathematical scrutiny in adherence to the motto, “One Man, One Vote.”  In practical terms this means that every Congressional District must contain the same number of citizens, as well as the Legislative Districts in each State having a uniform number of citizens.

 The Chief Justice during these two erroneous court decisions was Earl Warren who, like so many Justices of the Supreme Court in the past half century, must have slept his way through law school when the professors were teaching Constitutional Law.  Either that, or they were not taught that historical context is vital to understanding the Founders’ intentions.  Where did the Warren Court get their authority?  Apparently, the 14th Amendment.  With all due respect to those it was trying to help, viz. blacks, this is the most poorly written and abused Amendment in American history.  The Warren Court decided in Baker v. Carr that the “Equal Protection Clause” demanded that states apportion their Congressional Districts uniformly.  Interesting, is it not, that while States are allegedly commanded by the Constitution to apportion their Congressional Districts in said manner, the Federal Government was allowed to maintain the policy that all States, no matter their size, were permitted two senators.  Hypocrisy?  Or was it a terrible or deliberate misreading of a section of an Amendment whose spirit was to protect blacks?  The answer is: Yes!  To Both
second, the mere thought that the letter of the 14th Amendment implies a revision of Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution is a ridiculous premise, ipso facto; likewise, the thought that the spirit of the 14th Amendment was to promote anything other than the fair treatment of blacks is ludicrous as well.  Certainly, if it could be clearly proven that individual States were intentionally disenfranchising blacks with insidious congressional districting, meant to take away their voice in government, perhaps there would be an argument.  But if that is the case, not only would such geographical districting be very difficult to achieve, how would those ends be any different from the gerrymandering for other unethical reasons that have existed since the 1800s?  Or, why was the Senate left untouched?  One could argue that majority white States that are small in population (e.g. Wyoming) get the same number of senators as large, multi-ethnic, urban states (e.g. New York).  At the very least, racism aside, the 14th Amendment was never meant to be used in any apportionment case based solely on population discrepancies between districts. [FULL]