OH, PLEASE.

I've been a little remiss in allowing some of Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's ridiculousnesses to go unopposed. A little? OK, I've been completely negligent. It's time to stand ground and not let the man think he can say what he wants and get away with it.

One such comment came yesterday at Sarah Palin's expense. You might recall she made the following comment about Al Qaeda during her acceptance speech:

Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America -- he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?"

Well, lo and behold, Mr. Obama picked up on this and, after mocking our 'inability' to catch terrorists (which is patently untrue, if you've been reading the news for the last 5 years), he launched into a tirade about, of all things, the Constitution:

"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism, it’s because that’s who we are," Obama said as the crowd rose to its feet, applauding. "That’s what we’re protecting. Don’t mock the Constitution! Don’t make fun of it! Don’t suggest that it’s un-American to abide by what the founding fathers set up! It’s worked pretty well for over 200 years!

"These people!" Obama said.

Seriously, Obama wants to go there?

Let's put aside the idea (for now at least) that Obama's more concerned about the rights of terrorists and child rapists than law-abiding citizens

If he's so defensive about the constitution, why not put his rhetoric to the tests and ask how he feels about strict constructionists being appointed to the judiciary?
What? You mean the Constitution isn't that important any more, Mr. Obama?

Didn't you say something like this:

appreciate the temptation on the part of Justice Scalia and others to assume our democracy should be treated as fixed and
unwavering; the fundamentalist faith that if the original understanding of the Constitution is followed without question or deviation, and if we remain true to the rules that the Founders set forth, as they intended, then we will be rewarded and all good will flow.

You mean people who believe the Constitution is a fixed document is "fundamentalist"?

Well it's worked this well for 200 years... why are you so insistent on finding the activist judges who are more than willing to change it to suit YOUR needs?