Two Million March Against Obamismo

NY Slimes called it "Thousands...

WaPo called it Tens of Thousands...


... but it took a respected British paper to call it what it was: Millions!

Up to two million people marched to the U.S. Capitol today, carrying signs with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" as they protested the president's health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.

The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency.

People were chanting "enough, enough" and "We the People." Others yelled "You lie, you lie!" and "Pelosi has to go," referring to California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

This quote was typical:

Like countless others at the rally, Joan Wright, 78, of Ocean Pines, Md., sounded angry. "I'm not taking this crap anymore," said Wright, who came by bus to Washington with 150 like-minded residents of Maryland's Eastern Shore.

"I don't like the health-care [plan]. I don't like the czars. And I don't like the elitists telling us what we should do or eat."(Source: Daily Mail)

Matt Welch, Editor in Chief of Reason Magazine was there and gives us his libertarian impressions:

Big crowd. Do not believe any description that says "thousands." If there weren't at least a healthy six figures there, I will permanently revoke my head-counting license.

Of the people I ended up talking to, the general vibe was that they were conservative, and then either Republican, formerly Republican, or independent.

Every single one had unkind words to say about George W. Bush's spending and governing record, though none had protested him. None expressed trust in Republicans, and most preferred a "throw-all-the-bums-out" strategy.

All but one did not care about Obama's birth certificate controversy, and those I asked thought it was foolish to bring guns to political gatherings.

How do we know everybody behaved themselves? Because if there had been one swastika or racist comment, it would be plastered wall-to-wall, 24/7 by Obama's state-run media lapdogs at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC...

What a fun loving crowd! Unlike the angry, drug addled rabble on the left that protests anything their agitation leaders with bullhorns tell them to.

Notice how the US state-controlled media has really played this down? I guess protest is not authentic when done by people with jobs who pay their own way, bathe regularly and don't throw feces or burn flags.

Here's a CNN report I found on Breitbart TV. The reporter lady can barely be heard over the crowd shouting "Tell the truth!" and "Glenn Beck!"

Constitutional Vandalism

Congress tramples the constitution by giving the District of Columbia a congressional seat. George Will aptly calls such actions constitutional vandalism

Will writes in his WaPo column:

The D.C. House Voting Rights Act will give the District a full voting member in the House of Representatives. The problem is, or should be, that although the Constitution has provisions that allow various interpretations, the following is not one of those provisions:

The House shall be composed of members chosen "by the people of the several states."

But the District is not a state. It is (as the Constitution says in Article I, Section 8) "the seat of the government of the United States." That is why, in 1978, the District's advocates sent to the states a constitutional amendment requiring that "for purposes of representation" the district would be "treated as though it were a state." Only 16 states ratified it, 22 short of the required number.

So the District's advocates decided that an amendment is unnecessary -- a statute will suffice because the Constitution empowers Congress "to exercise exclusive legislation" over the District. They argue that this power can be used to, in effect, amend the Constitution by nullifying Article I, Section 2's requirement that House members come from "the several states."

This argument, that Congress's legislative power trumps the Constitution, means that Congress could establish religion, abridge freedom of speech and of the press, and abolish the right of peaceful assembly in the District.

And, of course, Congress next could give the District two senators. Which probably is the main objective of the Democrats who are most of the supporters of this end run around the Constitution.

Steve Chapman puts an interesting twist on the subject in his Reason Magazine article:

The rationale is that the Constitution, which provides for the capital, gives Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District." Therefore, it may do just about anything it pleases, including give the District a vote in the House.

But the argument proves too much. The same provision gives the national legislature "like authority over all places purchased ... for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings."

If Congress can give the District a voting representative, it may give voting representatives to Fort Hood, the White Sands Missile Range and the Rock Island Arsenal. Which, obviously, it may not.

Both Will and Chapman further explain that DC's predicament was not an oversight: The founders meant to leave the district with no senators or congressmen. If someone doesn't like that, then they need to pass a constitutional amendment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020402841.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/131884.html