Magna Carta Is 800 Years Old Today

A_Chronicle_of_England_-_Page_226_-_John_Signs_the_Great_Charter - Copy Today marks a truly monumental anniversary: 800 years ago, at Runnymede Meadow, England, King John signed  Magna Carta, June 15, 1215: [emphasis added to quotes]

Magna Carta established for the first time the principle that everybody, including the king, was subject to the law.

The Magna Carta was an inspirational document for those who wrote the U.S. Constitution. The great Daniel Hannan, someone we’ve admired for a long time for his unabashed love of freedom, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

The American Revolutionaries weren’t rejecting their identity as Englishmen; they were asserting it. As they saw it, George III was violating the “ancient constitution” just as King John and the Stuarts had done. It was therefore not just their right but their duty to resist, in the words of the delegates to the first Continental Congress in 1774, “as Englishmen our ancestors in like cases have usually done.” Nowhere, at this stage, do we find the slightest hint that the patriots were fighting for universal rights. On the contrary, they were very clear that they were fighting for the privileges bestowed on them by Magna Carta. I recount these facts to make an important, if unfashionable, point. The rights we now take for granted—freedom of speech, religion, assembly and so on—are not the natural condition of an advanced society. They were developed overwhelmingly in the language in which you are reading these words. When we call them universal rights, we are being polite. Suppose World War II or the Cold War had ended differently: There would have been nothing universal about them then. If they are universal rights today, it is because of a series of military victories by the English-speaking peoples. … Think of the world as it stood in 1939. Constitutional liberty was more or less confined to the Anglosphere. Everywhere else, authoritarianism was on the rise. Our system, uniquely, elevated the individual over the state, the rules over the rulers. When the 18th-century statesman Pitt the Elder described Magna Carta as England’s Bible, he was making a profound point. It is, so to speak, the Torah of the English-speaking peoples: the text that sets us apart while at the same time speaking truths to the rest of mankind.

Hannan shared the rather amazing fact that the American Bar Association (ABA) erected the very first monument at Runnymede in 1957! The ABA pointed out:

The fundamental concepts of liberty that had their beginnings in Magna Carta were transplanted to the American colonies where they were accepted, refined, and embedded in the instruments of government as well as the thinking of the American people. Magna Carta provided the basis for the idea of a higher law, one that could not be altered either by executive mandate or legislative acts. This concept, embraced by the leaders of the American Revolution, is embedded in the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution.  Throughout American history, the rights associated with Magna Carta have been regarded as among the most important guarantees of freedom and fairness.

The article by Hannan was eye-opening in the sense that I’d never thought of the Magna Carta (or the Constitution, for that matter) as, for want of a better word, Anglo-specific. But, of course, Hannan is correct. Such systems of law are specific to English-speaking countries–the Anglosphere, as he calls it. Non-English-speaking countries, for the most part, elevate the state or the royal family or authoritarian dictators or the collective above the individual. It’s an entirely different way of thinking, as hinted at by the ABA. Currently our country is led by a person who did not grow up in the USA. Obama did not even grow up in an English-speaking country. He spent his formative years in Indonesia which, at the time, was ruled by a dictator, Sukarno, whom Obama admired to the extent of reenacting his speeches and expressing his own desire to be president (of Indonesia, apparently). Obama’s stepfather/adoptive father, an Indonesian, was a military officer in that government as well as someone related to its royal family. While in Indonesia, Obama spoke the local language and learned to think about government as Indonesians did. His mother had to force him to study hard to learn English, which she taught him at home, so that he would know the language by the time he was sent to Hawaii to live with her parents, when he was about 10. Reading between the lines, therefore, English was not Obama’s first language. Linguistic determinism is

the idea that language and its structures limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought processes such as categorization, memory, and perception. The term implies that people of different languages have different thought processes.

Thus the danger inherent in electing to high office someone who may not be a natural born citizen, but most especially someone whose formative years were spent out of touch with the American way of thinking--especially thinking about individual freedom and the source of the law of the land–which is the People. Hannan elucidates:

The idea of the law coming up from the people, rather than down from the government, is a peculiar feature of the Anglosphere. Common law is an anomaly, a beautiful, miraculous anomaly. In the rest of the world, laws are written down from first principles and then applied to specific disputes, but the common law grows like a coral, case by case, each judgment serving as the starting point for the next dispute. In consequence, it is an ally of freedom rather than an instrument of state control. It implicitly assumes residual rights. And indeed, Magna Carta conceives rights in negative terms, as guarantees against state coercion.

Obama famously groused about the fact that the U.S. Constitution is also a charter of negative rights. Obama said,

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.  And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.  It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and [sic] Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

Nothing is as telling as this early quote from Obama. No “constitutional law scholar” would argue that the Supreme Court (not the People, via amendment) should “break free from the essential constraints” placed in the Constitution by the Founders, by using their alleged power of interpretation. Nobody who thinks as someone who truly understands and honors the uniqueness and the genius of the Constitution of the United States would gripe that the Constitution does not specify what the government must do “on your behalf.” Americans who understand the language and the reasoning of the Constitution (and Magna Carta) also understand that the government derives its power from the People (not from the Supreme Court) and that its power consists solely of ensuring that our unalienable individual rights are preserved (not bestowed); and then the government’s job is to get out of our way, not to “do” something on our behalf, much less redistribute wealth or ensure “political and economic justice” (in other words, the progressive dreams of “social justice” and “income equality” through communism, socialism, Marxism, collectivism, or whatever “ism” you want to call it). Obama’s griping betrays a Third-World way of thinking, something that is wholly foreign to the People of the United States of America. At least, it used to be. Obama is doing his utmost best to “fundamentally transform” the USA, as is evident in, among other actions, his attempt to extra-constitutionally “legalize” millions of illegal aliens from outside the Anglosphere. Obama’s putative father was a Kenyan national who despised the British and their colonial system. When Obama moved into the Oval Office, a bust of Winston Churchill was removed and sent back to England. If he dislikes the English so much, then would it be surprising to learn that he might transfer that dislike to the U.S. system of government, which owes much to the English Magna Carta? Obama, and others, like to argue that we are not a Christian nation. Would he similarly argue that we are not an Anglo nation? If so, he would be wrong. Our roots are in England, whether Obama likes it or not. No matter the national origin of our personal ancestors, We the People speak a common language that shapes our thinking: English. At least, we used to. And perhaps that’s another reason why Obama is intent upon importing and/or legalizing as many non-English-speaking people, who won’t assimilate, as possible. It helps in his quest to “fundamentally transform” our Republic. Between linguistic determinism and the influence of a father who was an avowed anti-colonialist, is it any wonder that Obama holds no particular love for the U.S. Constitution? Of course, on this 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, Obama can be counted upon to give lip service to that document and its history, including documents inspired by it, such as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. However, it will be just that–lip service. He won’t mean it. Actions speak far louder than words but, sometimes, in Obama’s case, even words give him away.


76 responses to “Magna Carta Is 800 Years Old Today

  1. Reblogged this on hocuspocus13 and commented:
    jinxx ♣ xoxo

    • Thanks to everyone who liked my post. This must be an all-time record for me. 🙂

      • Loved it too Miri!

        • Yes, before the Magna Carter, the king was granted his sovereignty by god with rights to do his will to the people, i.e. you’ve heard of “divine rights of the king”, with the POPE’s blessings of course. This was the first real body of work of it’s kind to wrestle the king of his soul sovereign rights over everyone else and make him susceptible to many of the same laws as everyone else(at least in theory at the time). That is why the constitution is such a valuable body of work….specifically calling to the people of the new world, that they are granted certain divine rights given by God, unlike one king and as the words in the constitution support this new individual freedom and how to keep it; we are each sovereign, the most important aspect reiterated and protecting it over and over in it’s words. This is why , when the supreme court does it’s own will on the constitution and practically legislates or over interprets or perverts laws that thwart our individual sovereignty, it is so dangerous.

          • Indeed it is. Magna Carta was a huge shift in thinking, wasn’t it? That all the people are endowed by God wit unalienable rights, not that some “king” is authorized by God to rule over all. Of course, today we have a person who’s trying his best to reinstate the idea of one person ruling over all.

      • Its truly Magna. Timely and Sentient.

  2. ‘Great’ Article, Miri. I hope you keep it up for days on end.
    Fundamental Truth Matters!

    • TY, Papoose. I try to keep it up, so long as anybody is out there, I will!

      • You’re the best!
        “I will stand with the muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

        Yes, we know. We can see that.

        • I saw an error in my original post and corrected it: Lolo was Barry’s ADOPTIVE father, not just his stepfather.

          • Yep. but “adoption” doesn’t have the same meaning to him as it does legally to the rest of society. They blurred that one at the onset. Sr. should be referred as his biological father under ordinary circumstances.

            One does not assume a stepfather’s surname. Therein, lies the LIE.

  3. Does no good to put all the blame on Obama.

    Obama is simply carrying out his instructions from those who truly wield the power. He is also simply building upon the programs from his “white” predecessors, like William Clinton, George Walker Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, etc.

    What is going on in the united states today, is the systematic destruction of the entirety of “white” culture, while at the same time, completely ignoring what the advancements made for humanity and the world, that were intended to help mankind – not subjugate it.

    Another contention:

    The Constitution and the Magna Carta did NOT create the rights that we recognize as unalienable. Even our nation’s oroginal Signers (of the Declaration of Independence) recognized these rights as “endowed by their (our) Creator”, by whichever God(s), Goddess(es), or whatever higher power we may aspire to mean as the Creator. No! We were NOT to be purely a “Christian Nation”. Thomas Jefferson even was even elated at the fact of the “Constitutional Convention” supporting true religious freedom It is mankind, as individuals and as a society, that recognize the Natural Rights and seek protection of them from the overreach of power by any government or institution of man. The Constitution and the Magna Carta were simply “compacts”. Just as any compact, contract, agreement, etc. the “rules” and “bylaws” are usually set within as conditions that make these agreements binding upon all parties involved. If one party to an agreement breaks one or more of those conditions, then you have a “breach of contract/agreement”, and then a remedy – if one is also included within the agreement/contract.

    A piece of paper does create rights. It creates privileges (and responsibilities) for certain parties to that paper. These rights are Natural Rights that exist on the basis of our willingness to fight for them and protect them.

    • And as CITIZenS we get to enjoy these rights that are natural and binding in our territory, and respect this binding compact for the good of our nation.So illegal aliens with an ‘attitude’ needn’t apply.

  4. Freckles, red hair, blue eyes, brogue; checking in for my reparations?

    • alfy commented about that, too, not long ago. It’s good to remember the FORGOTTEN. And forgotten they must have been because I was never taught about these WHITE SLAVES in the Caribbean when I was in school. From What A Hoot’s link:

      “… The Irish slave trade began when James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies.

      By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

      Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

      From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade.

      Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

      During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.

      Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

      Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

      As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

      African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (£50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than £5 Sterling). If a planter whipped, branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

      The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce.

      Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish mothers, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their children and would remain in servitude.

      In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls (many as young as 12) with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

      This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company. …”

      Some of us reading this may be descendants of these slaves, especially anyone with Irish roots in Virginia or New England, which might be many of us.

    • Great Point!

      • this is pretty good too…… White slavery as a cause of the American Civil War

        It is interesting to note that one of the causes of the American Civil War (also known, perhaps more correctly, as the War Between the States) was the threat of slavery to the White working class in the North of the USA.

        Lawrence R. Tenzer and A.D. Powell have produced research into this little-known subject.

        “The institution of slavery had existed in every one of the Northern states throughout the colonial period and such slavery was not limited to black slavery. White political prisoners and petty criminals from Britain were sold and brought to the colonies as slaves. …During the 1850s, the South’s plan to nationalize slavery was merely to reintroduce it in the North where it had previously existed just 50 to 75 years earlier. With so many white partus slaves in the South to begin with, the idea of expanding slavery to include white laborers in the North moved slavery from a matter of color to a matter of class. Southern politicians frequently pointed out that the slavery in Greece and Rome was based on social status, not on color. They also called attention to the fact that the slavery in the Bible was not Negro slavery.

        …Political materials for the presidential campaign of 1856 include references to the literal enslavement of white people and illustrate the extent to which the idea had developed.

        …The famous Richmond Enquirer reference about slavery not depending on “difference of complexion” and the laws of the slave states justifying the holding of white men in bondage was cited along with this quote from a leading South Carolina newspaper: “Slavery is the natural and normal condition of the labouring man, whether WHITE or black.”

        …All of the talk during the campaign of 1856 about the South enslaving Northern whites took on profound meaning after the Dred Scott decision allowed slavery into the territories. Another Dred Scott decision would allow slavery into the free states of the North. In either case, free white labor would have to compete with slave labor and could not survive because the average daily wage of little more than a dollar would become 10¢ or 25¢. White laborers who fell into poverty could be sold into slavery for debt. As “The New ‘Democratic’ Doctrine” said, “All that the Northern white laborer requires is somebody to sell him when he falls into poverty.” In his book, A Journey in the Back Country, Frederick Law Olmsted asserted, “Nothing in fact but the enslavement of labor at the North, could in the nature of things, give that security…to the capitalists of labor at the South.” In a footnote, Olmsted quoted the Richmond Enquirer: “While it is far more obvious that negroes should be slaves than whites, …the principle of slavery is itself right, and does not depend upon difference of complexion.”

        A series of speeches and dialogues which included references to white slavery took place in the Senate and in the House of Representatives in 1860 and give a sense for what Northern members of Congress wanted to express on the eve of the Civil War. Congressmen Henry Waldron of Michigan, Israel Washburn, Jr. of Maine, William Windom of Minnesota, and Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin and Senators Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson of Massachusetts all mention George Fitzhugh by name. His quote from Sociology for the South pertaining to “slavery, black or white” and the Richmond Enquirer quote about slavery not depending on “difference of complexion” were repeated time and again, showing the concern Northern politicians had regarding the enslavement of white laborers.

        … In 1859 Lincoln referred to Southern political power “trying to show that slavery existed in the Bible times by Divine ordinance….whenever you establish that Slavery was right by the Bible, it will occur that that Slavery was the Slavery of the white man – of men without reference to color.” Lincoln’s own campaign newspaper, the Rail Splitter, spoke of white slavery. An article entitled “Capital Should Own Labor” asked, “Whatever may be your opinion of Negro Slavery, do you think White Men should be made Slaves?” The same edition included this excerpt from a speech by Senator Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio: “Capital should own labor – referring not merely to the labor of the colored man, but to that of the white man as well!” A front-page article reminded readers, “It is not long since the Richmond Examiner, a leading Southern organ of the Democracy, said that the natural condition of the laboring classes of whatever color was slavery.” Many articles in Lincoln’s paper discussed the in-surmountable problem free labor would have in competing with slave labor, and the specter of white slavery was always present.

        … When one truly understands that the politics of slavery had no regard for color, it becomes clear that free laborers in the North and others fought to abolish slavery, not out of altruism, but in order to insure freedom for themselves and their loved ones. Slavery black or white answers a major question that has puzzled historians of the American Civil War as to why Northern whites would fight to free blacks they believed to be an inferior race. Slavery black or white also begs the question as to whether or not the Civil War would have occurred if the existence of white slaves had not brought home to Northern citizens the great danger that slavery posed to their free society. The authors do not claim that white slavery was the only cause of the Civil War, but it was certainly an important cause which has been overlooked in academic literature.”[91]

        • You know what that sounds like, alfy? The current DemoncRAT plan for us all. SLAVERY. Enslave the white man, too, so what’s not to like, from an Obama perspective? I’m only half joking.

          This is excellent research, alfy. Thanks for finding and sharing it. More history that we didn’t know and aren’t being taught but which SHOULD BE KNOWN by all.

          I could have predicted that some, especially progressives, would say this removes any credit Northern whites might get for fighting the Civil War because they did it out of self-interest and not altruism, to free blacks.

          One could as easily argue that they did it for the economic reasons that others have posited: The North couldn’t compete against the South, which used slave labor. In which case, there were two alternatives to make a fairer system: Everybody has slaves or nobody does.

          Certainly, having NOBODY as a slave is more consistent with our Constitution and our values than having all laborers as slaves.

          It’s very “progressive” in the current sense of the word (supporting Sanger, euthanasia, abortion, communism) to choose the “all slavery” alternative than to choose FREEDOM for all. So much easier to CONTROL everyone, the means of production, and become rulers over the masses.

          If this were an issue today, I can guess where Barry would fall: All slaves, because it gets back at the evil white man and also because it’s only “fair” that we all equally suffer (except for himself, his family, his cronies, his minions).

          • yes, Miri, there were many economic reasons, some of course , which related to slavery also. THe rich merchants shipping the south’s cotton , the invention of the cotton gin and cheap labor in the south due to slave labor all contributed to the war as did taxes imposed to merchants and so on. But certainly the fear of Northern white slavery rang true as a reason to fight the southern rural states.
            Funny, you say “If this were and issue today”! Ha, ha, ha!!!
            Actually , I think I may be able to find an article about the industrial goings on leading up to civil war, when I get the time.
            Im always reminded of Frederick Douglas and his writings on his sad state of slavery. His own story is remarkable……but, did you know that his second wife was as lilly white as could be. Seems his hatred was toward SLAVERY and not RACE!

            • Glad to hear it. If only people would get back to the ideals of the Civil Rights Movement–content of character and all that. Instead, we have this division and separatism and hatred. We’re ALL AMERICANS. Or we should be. If we’re not, then, of course, we’re doomed as “a people,” which is what so many want to happen. The entire world, probably. Even our allies probably, in their hearts, feel a lot of Schadenfreude about us.

              There are always so many factors involved in any situation, slavery and the Civil War included. But it’s so easy for people to just set up a false dichotomy or use a sound bite to simplify everything. Dolezal’s situation is fascinating because there are so many factors at play. Wow, but she does remind me of Barry. I have been wrong from the beginning about how blacks would relate to him. Way back when, I thought they’d see him as we do. First of all, as a privileged guy not at all like most American blacks. Then as half WHITE and, to boot, an AFRICAN-descended person, not one who’s descended from American blacks and/or slaves, meaning NOT “one of them.” But I was wrong. I was going by what I’d seen in college with regard to how American blacks regarded the foreign black students from Haiti, elsewhere in the Caribbean, as well as from Africa. In a nutshell, they didn’t like them. In fact, they seemed to dislike them more than they did whites. So in my naivete, I thought Barry would be rejected. How wrong I was. Then I thought that once they understand what and who he really is, perhaps even learning he’s not of African descent AT ALL, or at least that the parents he claimed aren’t his real parents, they would reject him then. This Dolezal case proves that I’m probably wrong on that supposition, too. Of course, there’s the Democrat Derangement Syndrome at work, too. Didn’t people used to say that Democrats would elect a dog so long as he ran on their ticket? Well, Hillary’s going to be proof of that. The MOST CORRUPT woman in the history of American politics and people are actually backing her. I’m amazed at the sheer number of people of my acquaintance, well-educated people, who are solidly behind her. It certainly diminishes my opinion of their intelligence. Let me tell you.

  5. Reblogged this on Grandtrines.

  6. And the World is upside down. 😯

  7. Great, foxy!
    ~ ~ ~
    Does anybody truly believe there is no “cure” for cancer? I happen to believe they could eradicate it on Day One of discovery. Its impossible to believe otherwise with all the things they can ‘create’ and ‘manipulate’ using human cells. They gave it away (for me anyway) they day I read about their boasting they could take the mitochondria from 2 women’s genes to thwart inherent disease in a human embryo… among ALL the other things “they” can do. I think its big business and they cannot afford to “cure” it. Plus, it would save human being’s lives and prevent suffering. I think they are lying. 3 Parents, yeah, but no ‘cure’ for wayward cells…

    just spouting off as usual…

    • Plus, the New World Orderers want FEWER of us.

      • yep. That’s right. It would be a life saver.

        Don’t eat this! Don’t eat that! But nary a word about eating all “their” engineered slop… remember when milk soured and bread went stale in a few days? Cancer is big business.


    “U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks used the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta as an opportunity to rail against the Obama administration.

    In a statement released Monday morning, Brooks, R-Huntsville, said the Obama administration has “willfully undermined” the historical English document and, subsequently, the U.S. Constitution – which was, in part, inspired by the Magna Carta.

    The Magna Carta was drafted in 1215 by England’s King John as an effort to avoid civil war. That effort ultimately failed but the document was subsequently reissued and is considered one of the original documents declaring freedom.

    “It saddens me greatly that on this, the 800th anniversary of a document that formed the basis of our American system of government, some of those very principles set forth in the Magna Carta and later in our Constitution are being willfully undermined by this administration,” Brooks said in his statement. “The actions against the rule of law by President Obama, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, top officials in the IRS, and others, remind us that to maintain a free Republic, we must remain vigilant in our fight against tyranny.

    “When the President unilaterally suspends established immigration laws, is that unlike King John’s arbitrary and tyrannical application of law? When the President unilaterally changed Obamacare, is that unlike King John’s capricious rejection of the rule of law? When the administration targeted taxpayers based on their conservative political beliefs, is that unlike King John’s use of royal institutions to harass his enemies and barons? When the administration blatantly ignored a court order to halt the issuance of work authorizations for illegal immigrants, and issued thousands anyway, is that unlike King John’s exemption from the rule of law?” …”

    Of course, we didn’t even have to check to see what party Rep. Brooks belongs to. The DemoncRATS, no doubt, have NO LOVE for the Magna Carta. It’s telling that the NY Times marked the anniversary by ordering us to “stop revering” the Magna Carta. They only know how to TEAR DOWN. Another case in point: This liberal dude actually uses the anniversary to campaign AGAINST the Citizens United decision and for a Constitutional Amendment saying corporations don’t have the right of free speech. One of Hillary’s platform issues. Of course, somehow lost in the text will no doubt be the parallel ruling that unions ALSO have free speech rights. It’s only the wealthy CONSERVATIVE corporate voices that Soros et al with to silence.


    ” … But why should a piece of parchment, sealed in a faraway place nearly a millennium ago, be of such interest across the Atlantic?

    “Magna Carta is extremely important to Americans, who learn about it in grade school,” says Stephen Zack, a civil trial lawyer in Miami and chairman of the American Bar Association Magna Carta Anniversary Committee. “It is still codified in jury instructions. When American judges talk about the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, it is Magna Carta they are borrowing from. Our Supreme Court justices have said how crucial Magna Carta is to American law, and we can trace our constitution rights back to Magna Carta.

    “Whenever there’s an attack on the rule of law throughout the world, you realise how vital Magna Carta is. Before it, the king could do what he wanted to. There are places where that’s still the case with some world leaders; it shows how vital Magna Carta is.” …”

    Sadly, going by the number of police officers who are punished without even a semblance of due process, the “presumption of innocence and burden of proof” is quickly being eroded in the USA.


    “Exactly 800 years after the signing of the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215, the church-state question is still very much front-page news.

    That’s because the left’s ongoing hostility toward religious freedom and its pursuit of a radically secular agenda keeps bumping up against principled opposition. If those pesky religious types would just go away, the left could get on with building a heaven on earth, where “enlightened” ruling elites manage the masses.

    But resistance continues. Cases in point are the Catholic and Protestant defiance of the Obamacare abortifacient mandate, and this past week’s promise of civil disobedience by dozens of conservative religious leaders against any Supreme Court ruling “which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman.”

    As the signers of the Open Letter to the Supreme Court remind the justices, who will shortly rule in Obergefell v. Hodges, “Any judicial opinion which purports to redefine marriage will constitute an unjust law, as Martin Luther King, Jr. described such laws in his letter from the Birmingham Jail.”

    But where did the idea of “unjust” laws, liberty and limitations on the state arise? …”

    We know.


    “The NAACP official who today resigned in the face of evidence that she masqueraded as black once sued Howard University for denying her teaching posts and a scholarship because she was a white woman, The Smoking Gun has learned. …”

    You know, they probably DID discriminate against her which probably helps to explain her transformation. In the same way that light-skinned blacks used to “pass” for economic reasons, Ms. Dolezal may have done so for not only economic but also for career reasons. Her interest was African art and culture, but (iirc) she wasn’t getting as much traction as a white woman (inauthentic) as she obviously later did as a “black” woman.

    I know several whites who attended “historically black” colleges after they, too, were FORCED to integrate and not discriminate when admitting students. They ALL, to a one, could tell stories of teachers, counselors, as well as other students blatantly discriminating against them on account of their race (white). It was illegal and INSTITUTIONALIZED, but it existed. I have no doubt that Howard does the same. Judge Zoe Bush dismissed her case and made her pay Howard’s costs. DC court. I’m sure she got a FAIR hearing there.

  12. just heard RD “sued” ^^^ on the radio & also blacks have been
    standing firm that’s SHE’S COOL .. JUSTIFY COLOR as SHE LIED !
    Black guy on phone-in just stated that “whites”…crackers…?
    have been Stealing .. “their” colored music for ever a in KENNY G?
    “we” must pay $$ homage? using THEIR STYLE? 2 sam cook! etc.
    O’ When will IT STOP? angry ? ..BUT still STEAL the WHITE MANs
    Shoes – Clothes & so much MORE as they BUST IN .. 4 FREE!!!!
    double talk ? mouths rattle out crap… as they share with the same !

    • I wonder if, in their heart of hearts, they KNOW the similar truth about Barry and they love him so much that nothing will ever change their opinion of him? He ought to be feeling very comfortable right now. If whites owe blacks reparations for using “their” style, then when will blacks repay the Irish for inventing tap dancing? 🙂

    • It’s not exactly true that a judge found “no basis” for her claims. The statute of limitations had run out on at least her claim that the art professors discriminated against her by removing her works from an exhibit in favor of works by blacks. The judge, I believe, is black herself; appointed by Clinton. DC courts, where, let’s fact it, blacks rule.

      Isn’t it very interesting how the reporter writes about the “narratives people create about their own lives?” This is SO OBAMAISH.

      It’s kind of funny how open the writer seems to be about HER “quirky” idiosyncrasies. They have NO sympathy for what they call “hypocrisy” amongst conservatives. Dolezal was just imagining her future! What if a conservative had done this? We already know the answer.

      We have Todd Akin excoriated for idiotic, poorly phrased remarks about women and rape, career ruining remarks, but Bernie Sanders saying all men want to rape and all women want to be raped? A-OK. He gets to run for president! Hillary Clinton is corrupt? Fine. Bill rapes? Fine. Barney’s “boyfriend” runs a prostitution ring out of their apartment? Fine. Warren pretends she’s a Native American? Fine. Some Republican plays footsie in a public john? Some creep accuses him of trying to solicit homosexual sex because he has a “wide stance?” FEDERAL CASE! Hastert anonymously accused long after a statute of limitations is up and with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER? HANG HIM.

      Total understanding and sympathy for a radical progressive race baiter who’s “quirky” and perhaps deluded by being “enamored” of the wonderfulness of black people, as “artists” often are (says who?). And yet, there’s NO SYMPATHY whatsoever for cops who work daily under pressure that most of us can only imagine and who MIGHT, just might, sometimes lose their cool when under threat of losing their lives? I am so sick of this milieu in which we must live.

    • Does this guy need to lose HIS job? An associate professor of sculpture and coordinator of Howard’s sculpture program, said,

      ‘White’ people who have inherited a privileged place in society seemingly have just two choices: stay ignorant, accept and continue to justify the delusion that America is and always has been great and democratic; or do some research and then feel the heavy guilt and shame upon discovering the ugly truth about the systemic unfairnesses that their ancestors perpetuated.

      “Neither of these are healthy, and I suspect that this isn’t the last time we will see another white person chose to switch sides.””

      SO he stereotypes. He lumps ALL “white people” into the same category and then proceeds to BLAME THEM and assign ALL OF THEM “HEAVY GUILT” and “SHAME” for what he perceives as the “systemic unfairnesses” that “THEIR ancestors perpetuated.” Whose ancestors? EVERY WHITE PERSON’S ANCESTORS? Every WHITE person shares the heavy guilt and shame? EVERY ONE? How about Obama? Does he only get half the blame and shame? How about himself. Dollars to doughnuts he has white blood himself. Is HE EQUALLY SHAMEFUL AND GUILTY?

      Does this man consider himself to be Christian? (Keeping in mind the possibility he’s atheist or perhaps Muslim.) If so, then what happened to the tradition that the SINS OF THE FATHER are not visited upon the children? Even leaving Christian tradition out of it, it’s legal tradition in most of the world that a child is not responsible for his ancestors’ actions.

      Is he himself responsible for and guilty of ANY CRIME his own ancestors committed? How about the black people and Native Americans who owned slaves? How about all the whites whose ancestors arrived here after slavery was abolished OR arrived here and set about immediately seeing to it that slavery here was abolished? How about all the Poles and Irish, among others, who were discriminated against when they arrived? Who couldn’t get jobs? Who had to change their names in order to try to get jobs? How about all the IRISH SLAVES, perhaps even owned by HISPANIC overlords and/or blacks in the Caribbean?

      So we have seen blacks looting, stealing, burning in Ferguson and Baltimore. Are ALL BLACKS, then, carrying the “heavy guilt” and “shame” of those crimes? How about all the murders committed DISPROPORTIONATELY by blacks in this country? Are ALL BLACKS, then, carrying the “heavy guilt” and “shame” of those murders?

      So is this man racist himself? HE PROFILES ALL WHITES and blames them and shames them and tries to make them GUILTY for the crimes of a few others who may have (and may not have) shared their SKIN COLOR and nothing else. This is the very definition of RACISM! Does he need to have a job at a PUBLICLY FUNDED UNIVERSITY? We don’t need to be paying our tax dollars to further racism, especially if THIS is what he teaches his students.

  13. Spokane NAACP
    11 hrs ·
    Dear Executive Committee and NAACP Members,
    It is a true honor to serve in the racial and social justice movement here in Spokane and across the nation. Many issues face us now that drive at the theme of urgency. Police brutality, biased curriculum in schools, economic disenfranchisement, health inequities, and a lack of pro-justice political representation are among the concerns at the forefront of the current administration of the Spokane NAACP. And yet, the dialogue has unexpectedly shifted internationally to my personal identity in the context of defining race and ethnicity.
    I have waited in deference while others expressed their feelings, beliefs, confusions and even conclusions – absent the full story. I am consistently committed to empowering marginalized voices and believe that many individuals have been heard in the last hours and days that would not otherwise have had a platform to weigh in on this important discussion. Additionally, I have always deferred to the state and national NAACP leadership and offer my sincere gratitude for their unwavering support of my leadership through this unexpected firestorm.
    While challenging the construct of race is at the core of evolving human consciousness, we can NOT afford to lose sight of the five Game Changers (Criminal Justice & Public Safety, Health & Healthcare, Education, Economic Sustainability, and Voting Rights & Political Representation) that affect millions, often with a life or death outcome. The movement is larger than a moment in time or a single person’s story, and I hope that everyone offers their robust support of the Journey for Justice campaign that the NAACP launches today!
    I am delighted that so many organizations and individuals have supported and collaborated with the Spokane NAACP under my leadership to grow this branch into one of the healthiest in the nation in 5 short months. In the eye of this current storm, I can see that a separation of family and organizational outcomes is in the best interest of the NAACP.
    It is with complete allegiance to the cause of racial and social justice and the NAACP that I step aside from the Presidency and pass the baton to my Vice President, Naima Quarles-Burnley. It is my hope that by securing a beautiful office for the organization in the heart of downtown, bringing the local branch into financial compliance, catalyzing committees to do strategic work in the five Game Changer issues, launching community forums, putting the membership on a fast climb, and helping many individuals find the legal, financial and practical support needed to fight race-based discrimination, I have positioned the Spokane NAACP to buttress this transition.
    Please know I will never stop fighting for human rights and will do everything in my power to help and assist, whether it means stepping up or stepping down, because this is not about me. It’s about justice. This is not me quitting; this is a continuum. It’s about moving the cause of human rights and the Black Liberation Movement along the continuum from Resistance to Chattel Slavery to Abolition to Defiance of Jim Crow to the building of Black Wall Street to the Civil Rights and Black Power Movement to the ‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ movement and into a future of self-determination and empowerment.
    With much love and a commitment to always fight for what is right and good in this world,
    Rachel Dolezal

  14. ~ NAACP ~ 5 hrs

    NAACP Statement on the Resignation of …. ‪#‎ Rachel Dolezal‬

    The NAACP is not concerned with the racial identity of our leadership but the institutional integrity of our advocacy. Our focus must be on issues not individuals. Ms. Rachel Dolezal has decided to resign to ensure that the Spokane branch remains focused on fighting for civil and human rights. This resignation today comes amidst the real work of the NAACP and the real challenges to our democracy.

    At a civic moment, when we mark our civic calendar with a criminal justice tragedy every few days including a children’s birthday party with police and pool; at a moment when the civic sacrament called the vote is desecrated by voter disenfranchisement; at a moment where rising income inequality and declining social mobility leave American workers stranded outside the middle class; and at a moment when our world class economy is undermined by third class schools for forgotten students; the NAACP announced today the long schedule for America’s Journey for Justice. This historic 860 mile march demands a disciplined focus not on any individual among us but the issues that affect us all. We are calling on Americans of every hue and heritage, of every racial background and of every political party and those with no party affiliation, and those of every generation to make history and make change by marching on America’s Journey for Justice. – Cornell William Brooks, NAACP President/CEO

    • Controversial claims: On his website,, …ha
      Chokal-Ingam shows side-by-side qualifications and pictures of himself
      as an Indian-American man (left) and a black man (right).
      He doesn’t specify if he went through the same application process as an Indian-American man as he did as a black man.

      Though his website,, shows side-by-side qualifications
      and pictures of Chokal-Ingam as an Indian-American man (left) and a black man (right), he doesn’t specify if he went through the same application process as an Inidan-American man as he did a black man

    • Oh, yeah. Remember that one?

  15. if ALL whites…say they R….BLACK…. WTPOTUS…. can DIP in their

    POT …of ..GOLDEN …HAND – OUTS !!! ha …let’s DO IT!

    • Black privilege now. Why else would she want to “pass”? She knows. New immigrants know. It’s “shameful” to be white.

  16. It seems relevant to this day of celebrating the freedom given to individuals by The Magna Carta to ask how does the Pope, issusing a religious doctrine, affect the future of Global Warming and the search for a scientifically truthful answer?
    I suspect that the Left, who basically don’t have the time of day for anything to do with religion, will suddenly rally round a new champion and use the concept of sin against everyone who doesn’t belive.
    I think that if we spend 100 Trillion somethings, to rush the creation of a new energy technology – or kill off 90% of the earth’s population as some other new religion types advocate, that a far bigger offense would be committed.
    Call it genocide, call it monstrous waste, call it foregoing the necessary ability to colonize space, call it what you will. What if the advocates of global warming alarmism are just wrong?
    They well might be, ya know, and I am not convinced that the Pope has any more insight into this problem than anyone else.

    • Ha, ha , Dave, you might be right on all counts Dave and like Foxylady’s post….with people like Gore as scientist and the rest of those she posted, along with the ‘pope’, a sin against nature will on qualify if it’s a sin against the earth or the sun,or moon; which of course the UN already has a prayer for- to -mother earth and any other perverted gods and goddesses that exist for the future of the new WORLD!

    • They think they’re going to use religion, especially Catholicism, to get everyone on board with their New World Order and Agenda 21. The thing is, we all know that the Pope isn’t a scientist. (Does he even research and write his own papers? I think his staff does.)

      We also know that this Pope was steeped in Marxism and liberation theology. A Pope is NOT infallible except on RELIGIOUS ISSUES, of which global warming is NOT one. They were wrong on Galileo. They’re wrong on this one, too.

      The left already rallies around him because he’s so in sync with their Marxism and they know they can perhaps use this to fool gullible religious people into turning their way or voting their way, if the Pope gives them permission or encourages them to do so. Funny how they suddenly embrace religion so long as they can use it (like mohammed) to further their tyrannical causes.

  17. Try to wrap your head around this one:

    h/t FOTM

    • unmitigated gall

      a dead fetus has no voice. doomed to die. no right to live. no right to life.
      no right to be a future pro life activist. inhumane extermination. snuffed out garbage by its own pro choice activist.

      • Guess this mom is starting the guilt trip early. She can show the full-grown fetus who’s popped out this photo and make the child grovel to thank her for not aborting “it” when it was still just a lump of tissue.

  18. h/t CTH

    Will Trump or any of the others take a cue from Whittle? Right about 7:20 is fabulous. What do you think Whittle believes when he says “literally anybody in the planet can be president?” He didn’t say anybody in the USA. He said the planet.

  19. TRUMP…. TRUMP …. TRUMP!!!!! …I’m in HEAVEN 4 sure

  20. wi163175 OLYA Smishova • 8 minutes ago

    TRUMP COULDN’T BE AS BAD AS THE FRAUD we now call POTUS!! Besides, he’d be the “right” ‘god’, not the false “Allah” ‘god’ that lives in our White House and expects us to worship him. And perhaps I need to remind you that “self assurance” in a POTUS is FAR BETTER than being a LIAR, which the “anointed one” plainly has been for his entire administration!!!!!

    • At least he’s accomplished something on his own in his life.

      • only thing is he says Oprah would make a great vice president. What is he drinking?

        • OKRA Said She would NOT ….like the JOB… of A 2nd FIDDLE…
          BUTT’ IF she WAS the … 1.. then SHE would NOT invite MOOCH
          2 HER WHITE HOUSE!
          TRUMP will control the DEBATES…4 he Knows What of he SPEAKS!
          after that ….he might back OUT.. they say when he MUST show his worth? A MAN & HIS MONEY! … I care NOT if he had TRILLIONS
          someone who can RIGHT this SHIP! his comments on abortion & more was years ago ..WE change ..Time change that is proven by others!
          “GO DONALD”… with ..the …. “FUNNY HAIR” … at least HE OWNS IT!


    That is disturbing on so many levels. Tell me why a Pope would have on stage with the rollout of this global warming encyclical a man who believes there are TOO MANY HUMAN BEINGS ON THIS EARTH? What to do; what to do? Do we want to know the “final solution?”

    Oh, can’t you just wait for that global “DEMOCRACY” where EVERYBODY gets to vote? What will the billions in Africa vote for, do you think? How’s about the Chinese? Bone up on your Mandarin, folks. Something wicked this way cometh.

    • As for the Pope’s statement cited here:

      “We have grown up thinking that we were her [Earth’s] owners and dominators ..”

      Well, maybe that’s because we ARE:

      Genesis 1:26
      Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

      Genesis 1:28
      And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

      These people WORSHIP the EARTH and not its Creator.

      That’s not to say that human beings should destroy God’s Creation, but this Pope is sounding too much like a fool and a tool, captured by the Marxists in the POLITICAL systems of the world. A Pope is not a politician; he’s supposed to be a theologian. When he opines about “science”, of which obviously most Popes know little, this is not divinely inspired. It’s his opinion, and an uneducated one at that. These are trying times for Catholics. Calling women who have lots of children “rabbits” is more than insulting and certainly not how any priest I EVER KNEW would speak to ANY WOMAN, much less one who was fulfilling God’s desire to “be fruitful and multiply.” INSTEAD OF ABORTING. What’s next? Will this Pope sanction abortion? He already won’t judge homosexual behavior.

    • Why he became “Pope FRANCIS” I don’t know…that’s the Franciscan Order. Just don’t forget he’s of the Jesuit Order which was kicked out at one time in history only to be reinstated around Napoleon’s time. There’s something about those Jesuit’s, I tell ya……

      • There’s a LOT about those Jesuits. Obama is going full tilt now. Gun control? Inciting racial division? New World Order? Check, check, check.

        Is this incident another Sandy Hook, only with black churchgoers since the kindergarteners didn’t do the trick? Already we’re told the shooter was alone, weight 120 pounds, and reloaded FIVE TIMES! Now tell me how many people were in the church, how many full grown men he killed, and what all the victims were doing while he reloaded. Will we see photos? Autopsies? Already the hearsay begins, too. I so want to just opt out of reading about, watching stories about, and commenting about this latest incident. I wonder how many OTHERS were murdered yesterday who will not be remembered, much less mentioned by Obama and Lynch? Some victims, of course, are more valuable as human beings than others, apparently. We’ve come full circle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s