And Kelly Ayotte was one of the few Repubs to just vote this Obama judge to the bench? - Granite Grok

And Kelly Ayotte was one of the few Repubs to just vote this Obama judge to the bench?

Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Happiness was originally was Property; the NH Constitution says it more clearly:

[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.

And what does now US District Court Judge, thanks to Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)Wilhelmina Marie Wright hold on the Right to Personal Property?  Right out of the Critical Race Theory (that EVERYTHING, knowable and unknowable, always proves racism):

The practice of American racism is based on two principles: the sanctity of property and the belief in the hierarchy of races. The first of these principles is firmly protected by the words and action of the Constitution; the second is proscribed by the words of the instrument, but not by its effect. History shows that when these two principles are juxtaposed (which happens constantly), property rights are given absolute priority.

If they are in the Constitution, then they should be sancrocent, right?  There are no adjectives within the Constitution that say that Property has differing values based on race, religion, nationality or any other “thing” that seems de rigor today.  Property is property, no matter who holds it.  But because her first instinct is RACISM!, how will she perceive the Right of Property and how will this affect her jurisprudence (or has, as she was a MN Supreme Court Justice)?  Can she be even handled?  Given the above and given the below (yes, I know, only a subset of what is an entire body of work), is this possible with that permanent outlook?  And why would Kelly Ayotte give her consent if so?

“Modern America has publicly rejected the notion that it is okay to advocate racial supremacy, that is, to argue that the life, liberty, and property of whites are worth more than the life, liberty, and property of blacks. The liberal conception we face today is, however, equally damaging and little discussed: that property is worth more than life or liberty.

Well, ma’am, if this is a Liberal idea, and you seem to be in that camp, maybe the finger should be pointed back at yourself (after all, Liberal Progressivism knows no color boundary.  Which comes to one of my points – it is not the skin color that is wrong, it is that the Progressive ideas are wrong.  And too often, in service of the Progressive end point, what was exalted as a virtue (let anyone earn the property that they can) is now twisted in service of something awful.  And this, too, is part of the Progressive mantra of getting rid of traditional mores (aka, “Just like that openly self-identified Communist, former Obama assistant Van Jones, who said “top down, bottom up, inside out”.)

Also, in my reading of the Declaration and the NH Constitution, it appears that Property IS Liberty for if one is denied to earn, purchase, sell, or keep  property, your Liberty has been taken from you – and it has happened to all races.

The fact that whites own the vast majority of what Americans define as property does not usually enter this argument, and it therefore appears non-racist.”

Gotta love that intimation that it “appear” non-racist, with that lingering thought of “well, it IS”. Owning property has nothing to do with racism in today’s America.  Sure, in the South, pre-Civil War (and to a much lesser degree, during Reconstruction and the Jim Crow eras but REMEMBER – those were GOVERNMENT SPONSORED racism)  but today?  How many more laws and regulations are needed?  Or to banish her ever present “hierarchy of race”, must we all undergo re-education?

Frankly, as I have said for years, I don’t care if you are white, black, yellow, red, brown, or green with purple polkadots, I agree with MLK that it is the content on one’s character that counts because ugly goes way deeper than skin.  And the fact that she seems to believe that Americans are racist all the time does not bode well, but I digress.

So in all cases and times, that which our Founding Fathers knew to be true, that the Right to Property was Freedom itself; once earned, the Government should not take it away from private individuals.  They saw it, as the NH Constitution says, a Natural Right – one that predated the Constitutions and is only enumerated by them and not positively granted to anyone by their words.  Else, our property, obtained by our time and talent, is not our own.  And when it is not our own, it must necessarily belong to The State, for there is no other that can possess it.

Certaintly, Progressives that last part to be true; while our Constitutions are constructed by Negative Rights (e.g., the Government cannot tread into certain areas of our lives), Progressive Socialists demand that to make their Positive Rights to work, they institute the underlying philosophy that others rightly have a claim on that property.  So we have seen, for over 100 years, the incremental attack on private property under the premise of “The Common Good”

Sidenote: Another Progressive on the Right to Private Property

Kerrie Diers (Exec. Dir. of the Nashua (New Hampshire) Regional Planning Commission) doesn’t care much that your land gets in the way of her planning (for your own good as in “WHY do our perceptions of the needs of the Collective have to give way to what Individuals own?”):

  • “Private Property Rights get in the way of good planning“
  • “Private Property Rights won’t let us have the discussions“

What Wilhelmina Marie-Wright is saying is intimating that Property is the tool of Racism and thus casting it as Right that should be abolished.  No, not quite in those words but when I read the above, it is clear that this Progressive is saying one of the Progressive “tells”: You don’t need that.

But she goes further – I translate her words into “You shouldn’t have it in the first place (because RACISM)”.  ALL and anything that leads to racism should be taken away from anyone….but of course, as we know from Eric Holder’s DOJ leadership, that retaliation against whites cannot be racist because whites are the oppressors.

I feel both bad for her and others of her ilk that think this way about “Modern America” – they have nothing but racism in their outlook.  And that means bad things in relationship to ANYone’s Constitutional Rights.

So, is this the kind of Jurist that Kelly Ayotte approves of, eh?  Former Attorney General of NH who was supposed to defend our laws and our Constitution.  Again:

[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.

Kelly Ayotte’s consent of Wright let’s us all know her stand on Property rights and that she put someone on the Federal bench that automatically believes us all racists.  As a reminder, here is her “conservative” ranking by Conservative Review:

Kelly Ayotte CR standing on 2016-01-20

Other conservative rankings tend to agree with this assessment.

And the actual vote (yet another reason to ask “Really, what are those DC Republicans doing TO US?  This is the reward for giving them majorities??”.  The overall vote, tablular:

Kelly Ayotte vote on Wilhilema Marie Wright 1

 

 

 

 

 

And her vote in particular:

Kelly Ayotte vote on Wilhilema Marie Wright 2

So once again, we see a Republican, “our” Republican, fail in any way possible, in stopping Obama’s agenda (and yes, she promised to do exactly that).  This radical will be on the bench for years, perhaps decades, in the future.  She will be pushing Obama’s agenda long after he is gone – how can that be at all construed as “stopping Obama”?

Or once again, are we seeing the outcome of falling for the words “We can’t let the Democrat win and push their agenda forward” with our votes only to see this phrase in force:

“Who needs Democrats to push the Democrat agenda?”

In this case, we know what the answer turned to be.

None.

>