Work From Home

 

My sainted mother had a great expression that should apply to all Republicans and Conservatives out there now that the election is over: “Make sure you are right and then go right ahead.”

 

What she meat by “go right ahead” is that you should not compromise your principles and values in anything that you do when you have made sure that those principles and values are morally right. And make no mistake, the principles and values of conservatism are morally right, based as they are on Judeo-Christian precepts.

 

Let’s understand the meaning of this election though. The political, social, and moral consequences of it may be felt for a generation if Obama is not stymied for the next four years. Here is Jeffrey T. Kuhner, writing in The Washington Times on November 8, in an article entitled Obama’s America: Path is clear for socialism’s triumph:

 

“President Obama has succeeded in transforming America. The constitutional republic is dead. A socialist empire has been born. This is the true meaning — and historical significance — of Tuesday’s election.

 

“From the outset of his presidency, Mr. Obama vowed to be a “transformative” leader. His re-election shows that he has achieved his primary goal: erecting a European social democracy.

 

“By any objective measure, Mr. Obama’s first term has been a colossal failure. His signature legislative achievements — the economic stimulus and Obamacare — are unpopular. Unemployment has remained chronically high. Economic growth is sputtering. The recovery is anemic. Inflation is rising. He has presided over multiple, consecutive trillion-dollar-plus budget deficits. He has amassed more than $5 trillion in debt. The national debt is more than $16 trillion — a staggering amount that threatens our economic security. We are sliding toward Greece and impending bankruptcy. Yet the electorate rewarded him with another term.

 

“Why? The answer is simple and ominous: because more than half the population — 50 percent plus one — is dependent upon government benefits. For the past four years, the Obama administration has created a Franco-German welfare state whose sole purpose is to forge a majority political coalition wedded to the Democratic Party. The stimulus; the health care overhaul; the redirecting of financial resources to the inner cities; the explosion in the number of Americans on food stamps and welfare; the massive spending increases in public education, infrastructure and agriculture; the green-energy boondoggles; the bailouts of the auto industry; the contraceptive mandate; the federal funding of abortion; support for homosexual “marriage”; and pushing amnesty for illegal aliens — all of these measures directly bought off key liberal constituencies, such as unions, public-sector workers, environmentalists, blacks, Hispanics, feminists and the homosexual community.

 

“In short, America has been fractured into two nations: the tax producers and the tax consumers, the givers and the takers, those who generate wealth and those who exploit it. Mr. Obama has peeled off the larger chunk. The productive classes are being harnessed into subsidizing the nonproductive elements. Statism and sex trump entrepreneurship and self-reliance.

 

“Contrary to myth, liberalism is not a political ideology but a pseudo-religion — or rather, it is a substitute for traditional religion. It is driven by emotion, symbolism, irrationality and blind, intense faith. Its holy trinity is race, class and gender. Its church is the Democratic Party. And its savior —its secular messiah —is Mr. Obama. He has fostered a cult of personality common among leftist revolutionaries. Despite blatant failures, he is not held accountable by his supporters. Like Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is never blamed by his ideological followers for any mistakes or misdeeds. It is always someone else’s fault — especially former President George W. Bush‘s. Obama-ites have one ever-present boogeyman: Mr. Bush. He is the American left’s devil.

 

“Moreover, this explains Mr. Obama’s strategy — playing the race card, relentlessly attacking ‘millionaires and billionaires’ and making phony claims of a GOP ‘war on women.’ The only real war is the Democrats’ ceaseless assault upon traditional America. Mr. Obama is practicing the old politics of divide and conquer. His aim is to splinter and polarize society in the ruthless pursuit of power.

 

“The path is clear for Mr. Obama’s complete transformation of America. He has admitted that the key to his re-election was the huge Hispanic turnout. He plans to repay the favor by pushing amnesty for nearly 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants. The New York Times reports that Mr. Obama considers ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ to be his first priority in a second term. The reason is obvious: Granting amnesty would permanently shift the electoral map in favor of the Democrats. Pivotal states with large illegal populations, such as Texas, Arizona, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, would become deep blue. It would ensure national one-party Democratic rule for generations.

 

“The last line of defense is the Republican-controlled House. The Senate remains firmly in Democratic hands. Mr. Obama will reshape the Supreme Court as he fills inevitable upcoming vacancies. The establishment media is his lapdog. Hollywood backs him. The popular culture idolizes him. Almost every major institution is falling under his influence. The president has shown nothing but contempt for the Constitution. He is remaking America in his own image. Can Republicans stop him? If not, there will be no return from Obama’s America.”

 

Jeffrey T. Kuhner gave us a sobering dose of tough love because he is correct about the Republican-controlled House being the “last line of defense.” And that means not compromising our principles and values. Here are some “if, then” statements every Republican representative in the House should have with him or her whenever a vote comes to the floor:

 

  • If the bill increases the deficit or the debt,      then there is no compromise, and the vote is “No!”

 

  • If the bill weakens Israel      in its war against Iran      and Islamists, then there is no compromise, and the vote is “No!”

 

  • If the bill weakens our strategic missile      defense, then there is no compromise, and the vote is “No!”

 

  • If the bill erodes our sovereignty as a nation      (hint: any UN-approved treaty), then there is no compromise, and the vote      is “No!”

 

  • If the bill goes against the Constitution for      whatever reason, then there is no compromise, and the vote is “No!”

 

  • If the bill reduces our ability to become energy      independent, then there is no compromise, and the vote is “No!”

 

  • If the bill increases taxes, then there is no      compromise, and the vote is “No!”

 

  • If the bill tries to cease or delay investigations      into fraud or criminality (hint: Fast and Furious, Benghazi), then there is no compromise,      and the vote is “No!”

 

  • If the bill promotes or finances organizations      like the Muslim Brotherhood and its parent organizations (e.g., Hamas,      Hezbollah), then there is no compromise, and the vote is “No!”

 

  • If the bill reduces our ability to conduct      counter-terrorism efforts, then there is no compromise, and the vote is      “No!”

 

  • If the bill reduces our military preparedness or      capability, then there is no compromise, and the vote is “No!”

 

  • If the bill increases Obamacare in any way, then      there is no compromise, and the vote is “No!”

 

  • If the bill has anything to do with a carbon tax      or “cap and trade,” then there is no compromise, and the vote is “No!”

 

I’m sure there are other “if, then” statements that you could come up with to help our Republican legislators. However, you get the idea. If the bill compromises our values of limited government, a strong defense, and respect for individual freedom in any way, then the representative must not vote for it. It’s a moral imperative, and it’s that simple.

 

The House Republicans are America’s only hope against the evils of a socialist state being forced upon America by obsessed, moral-equivalent, idiotic ideologues who are praying at the altar of that state. Until the Republicans can regroup and regain power, they must carry the banner of individual freedom and responsibility, an uncompromisingly strong defense of our nation and civilization, and a belief in limited government.

 

Already, Speaker of the House John Boehner is talking about deals on taxes and “bipartisanship.” Here’s another crucial “if, then” statement: If the bill says anything about “bipartisanship” in it, then say “No!” immediately because that term always means that the Democrats are putting one over on you.

 

Here’s hoping that the Republicans don’t cave. They should always have my mom’s mantra of moral courage repeating in their thoughts before voting. We live and hope for the party of “No!” to reign until a real change back to the real America we know and admire can be achieved. That achievement would not only get my mom’s blessing but the blessings of a beleaguered nation.

Views: 1555

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Edward M. Plitt on November 12, 2012 at 4:33pm

When you are right, you are always on firm ground, and when your decisions are based on what is good for the country you are on firm ground. The Democrats have wasted enough money, that it is obvious that no more money should be given any of them. The Government should be made smaller and spending cut significantly. I don't mean cut its growth. I mean cut the dollars, and the programs that are duplications or are unnecessary.

 

Comment by Dwight M. Schmitz on November 12, 2012 at 3:29pm

Morry - A lot of food for thought in your posting (and, no, I am NOT making light of your food reference in your posting). :-)

I’ve started writing and rewriting this several times and I’m still not comfortable that I’m expressing myself adequately, but neither of us has forever, either.

Basically, adherence to and recognition of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and thereby the integrity of our society, depends primarily, if not solely, on education, both formal and informal.

The founders recognized that the exceptionalism and decency of a country lies fundamentally in the hands of the people, hence the beginning of the constitution “We The People...” and they sought to provide the guidelines and framework to maximize the freedoms and liberties of the people and to minimize the influence of government on those freedoms and liberties.

At the same time, they also recognized that successful execution of the those freedoms and liberties was dependent upon the principles and integrity of the people, both individually and collectively.

But man is fallible and susceptible to the trappings of greed and power and they knew that, which is why they formed three branches of government, each with the authority and ability to maintain checks and balances over the other two.

As we have stated earlier, the supreme court early last century basically declared itself to be the ultimate authority on the constitution. While I don’t believe they are, we have had several generations that have been taught that they are and have, therefore, come to believe that. The legislature has the authority to reign in an out of control judiciary, but  if several generations have regarded the supreme court as the final word on the constitution, if constitutional questions arise, everyone, including the legislative and executive branches, defers to the supreme court and regards their rulings as the ultimate wisdom on the constitution.

FDR, one of the keystones of bigger government (not sure if keystone is the right word but you understand what I mean), warned against public employees unionizing. That warning went unheeded and as a result we recently saw in Wisconsin and Chicago, primarily from the teachers, the effect of ignoring that warning.

FDR’s warning will not be taught to students, because that would mean that teachers would have to tell their students they, the teachers, are wrong. So that is a lesson from history that will go ignored by the teachers and unknown by the students. In effect, it doesn’t exist.

Congress has the authority to reign in an out of control judiciary, but after several generations of the implication that the supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of law, the notion that they are not and congress has the authority to contravene is lost and, therefore, effectively, does not exist.

If one branch of government usurps power and it’s actions go unchallenged, then checks and balances effectively do not exist.

Children are being taught that “it’s all about me,” “I’m special simply because I exist” or “I have my rights” (even though few of them probably know just what their rights are), so the integrity, principles and decency that a successful society requires, as envisioned by the founders and embodied in the constitution, effectively become meaningless.

All this (and this is just touching the surface) put together effectively renders the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as simply the quaint musings of a bygone era, because no one is being taught about either and why they were written the way they were.

Most children will not voluntarily take on extra study on their own and most parents, not having been taught about the founding of their own country, will not deem it important enough to insist that their children pursue some knowledge of the importance and applicability of the Declaration and the Constitution.

Personally, I would like to see the Constitution taught in late elementary or middle school and the Federalist Papers taught in high school. But I’m not holding my breath.

As I said earlier, I’m sure I haven’t expressed myself with comfortable clarity, but I’m offering the above for consideration.

Comment by Dwight M. Schmitz on November 12, 2012 at 11:01am

Morry - thanks for taking the time for your post. I believe we are in essential agreement but I have a couple of things that might need clarification. Give me a little while to digest your posting and I'll be back later. Thanks again!

Comment by Lee on November 12, 2012 at 9:50am

I thought it best not to respond to a troll.  It just gives them ammo to keep going.  I was not sure how to report this person but it was horrible.  There were actually two that I could count.

Comment by Vern Shotwell on November 12, 2012 at 6:54am

The troll has left us. This one took his baggage with him!

When you find a troll, guys, please send a report, including where to find an occurrence. One of our janitorial staff will stop by!

Comment by Morry Markovitz on November 12, 2012 at 1:35am

Comment to Dwight:

Actually, it is RIGHT for everyone to "interpret" the Constitution in his own way, and the Founding Fathers would have fought against anyone who said differently.  The Founders were SIMULTANEOUSLY principled men and realists.  (This does NOT necessarily mean they'd compromise principle for "practical" reasons.   Remember, a principle is a GENERAL TRUTH and "true" means "corresponding to reality."   So . . . being principled MEANS being reality-oriented and accepting reality as the source of truth.)  

What I meant by my 1st sentence (before the parenthetical elaboration) is easily understood if you think about the moral justification for the Nuremberg trials.   And -- if you think about the most fundamental characteristic of our form of government (that the SOVEREIGN individual is the ultimate source of rights which he contractually delegates to gov't) -- then that too clarifies what I mean.

The Framers knew that -- just as a signed contract is only as good as the character of its signers -- a Constitution is only as good as the character and values of the citizens who are under its governance.   You can argue all day against murder or anarchy and be 100% right, but if your neighbors are wanton murderers or your geographical area experience an overwhelming invasion of barbarians, then the correctness of your views as compared to theirs may not have much effect on your chances of survival.

All knowledge is contextual (this is NOT relativism but the precise opposite!!).   Few people are capable of really rigorous reasoning.   Few people are able to be perfectly objective in any argument or dispute or interpretation of an event or a document, or . . . etc . . .    And per the Framers, EACH SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.    Few of them will understand every word of it or their logical implications in a way that's fully consistent with what the Framers intended.   But all of us err and none of us is perfect.   A minor,  unintentional error can be corrected if the person is open-minded, and the more of our citizens who DO make the effort to udnerstand what our nation's underlying principles really are, and why it's so important not to compromise them, the more likely we are to remain a civilized nation of prosperous, peaceful people who respect each other and display good will toward each other.   The principles of the Constitution may well be very obviously clear to an intelligent person who reads the document carefully and has a background of having read the Declaration and/or the Federalist papers and/or other personal writings of the Constitution's authors.   So the issue of national survival as intended by the Founders will boil down to how widespread amongst the population is the correct understanding of (and recognition of the importance of) the Constitution.  If you and I were the only 2 remaining who correctly (ie, as was intended by its authors) understood it, and the other 300 million-plus interpreted more closely to way Obama does, then that'd be that.  The original USA would be history, and would have ceased to exist except in name only.   

You probably know that there is NO SUCH THING as an "unconstitutional law" passed by congress -- that phrase is an oxymoron.   If it's unconstitutional, it's not a law but a usurpation of a power it doesn't have, by congress.   The constitution is what authorizes and delimits congress's power, so an act by them in passing a "law" which is not authorized by the constitution is the attempt to extend their power beyond what's authorized by the constitution, and it is not a valid law.  Who judges whether or not they've done so in any particular case?  ANSWER:  EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS RESPONSIBLE TO JUDGE FOR HIMSELF.   WE as individuals are the ultimate authority.  The country is made up of us individuals, each of us is an integral part of WHAT THE VERY NATION ITSELF IS, and each of us is responsible for that part of the nation, namely himself.  The MORAL principle underlyng this is the very one used to justify the harsh sentencing at the Nuremberg trials, of men who simply "followed orders" by obeying the laws which their gov't was enforcing under the Nazis.   But many of those laws were immoral violations of human rights generally accepted by all civilized societies, and violations more specifically even of the German constitution itself.    We, the Allies, had "moral standing" to convict these men NOT because we were the victors of the war (that's what stood us in a place where we had the PRACTICAL power to enforce our viewpoint, but as for the MORAL standing to act as we did . . .) because the presiding judge, a US citizen, lived in a nation where indeed, INDIVIDUALS were responsible for their own behavior, regardless of what "authority" told them it was OK to do something evil, or "constitutional" to something they as individuals deemed unconstitutional. 

We are a nation of men equal under the law.   Those who work for the gov't are OUR hirelings.   Keep in mind this applies to much more than merely the boss/employee financial arrangement.   It means each of us is one of the citizens who formed this partnership, and delegated the right to some of the actions we had authority to perform via our natural rights, to certain others of our EQUAL UNDER THE LAW citizens.   Supreme Court justices have no more "final" right to "put paid' to a disagreement about constitutionality than you or your neighbor or your lawyer or launderer or cobbler or cleaning woman.    The Supreme Court justices are just hired because, presumably, we've set up a process that is likely to choose intelligent, wise, experienced, knowledgable men for those positions, so we go about our personal business and let them give their opinions which most of the time will be reasonably acceptable to all (presumably) because they will (presumably) make the right decision most of the time.   But they are NOT omniscient, infallible gods.    If you or I disagree with a decision of theirs, then JUST AS IS THE CASE WHEN WE DISAGREE WITH A LAW CONGRESS PASSES, you and I would be strongly urged by the Framers NOT to consider that law or that ruling applicable, because you and I deem it to be anti-Constitutional.    It is then my and your  choice whether or not to obey that edict or usurpation -- ie, whether it's cutting our own noses off to spite our faces to fight it, or whether it's important enough in our own lives to fight tooth and nail against it.  There's the practical reality coming into play.   There may be no doubt in your or my mind that we're right and they're wrong.   But are you willing to go to jail, for instance, wrongly placed there (in your judgment) by superior forces who feel they're enforcing a law YOU and I deem to be a usurpation?   Whether you or I decide to fight this to the death as a matter of principle depends on how egregious the usurpation is, and how serious we individually judge it to be.   If we decide to flout that non-law, we do so KNOWING that we may have to accept a jail term or a large fine or whatever the usurpation calls for, should we disobey it.   If we decide to let it go and not contest it further than the expression of our opinion on it, then we must also accept responsibility for that decision.   If in deciding to live by this wrong "law" we wind up complicit in the murder of fellow innocent citizens, then by our choice we have accepted responsibility for a future charge of accessory to murder, and in that case, perhaps you and I would fight it tooth and nail, as a few in Nazi Germany did -- many of whom lost their lives, themselves being murdered for that choice.   If all that's involved is that we may be forced to permit a search of our automobiles without a warrant should we happen to live where, one day, there is a crime committed, then we may be willing to accept the possibility of that consequence of our decision as preferable to the potential consequences of an all out fight against that usurpation.  Both of us feel that we understand correctly what the Constitution's principles mean and how they apply in that case, and we both feel the Congress, or the Court, has made an error, whether intentionally or not.   But we have to choose whether or not to obey that non-law.   And one other thing which may affect our choice is knowing how our fellow countrymen feel on the issue.   If we know that we are the only two in the nation who hold the opinion we share, then it's foolhardy to fight it.   We're better off to start thinking about leaving the country, or educating it.    If on the other hand, we know that a vast majority share our view, we may decide to fight that law or ruling more openly.    If we know a small but intelligent and/or powerful minority agree with us, we may form an ad hoc group to fight it by persuasion of the public to our view, or in a more extreme case, to fight the usurpation with resistance force against any attempt to enforce it on a member of our minority group.   


All this is intended to kinda-sorta "round out" your correct observation that the Supreme Court is nowhere "officially" or constitutionally declared to be the "final authority."   The Framers were so obviously too intelligent to set up such a body.    That would be dictatorial.  That would give some men SPECIAL rights under the law rather than equal ones.    That would imbue 9 men with the power to DETERMINE the law as they saw fit and be somehow deemed CORRECT -- ie, to say "it's true because WE say so!!" and to enshrine that methodology in our legal system.    That would be obviously antithetical to at least a few of our basic understandings of the nature of our form of government, of its very fundamental nature.   Yes, we need some institution to exert ITS power as a check/balance against other branches of gov't, and so this could be argued as a proper way to think of the Supreme Court INSOFAR AS ITS POWER OVER OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.    But it would not be correct to think of it that way in general, as an absolute, as if our "government of laws and not of men" included 9 men who determine the law -- a self-contradiction.    

At the bottom line, what will be, will be.    The Constitution is written so clearly that most of the legalistic sophistry over it is really disgusting, in my book.  The meaning of its plain language is clear to most intelligent laymen.    The principles upon which our very form of government and the very nature of its major institutions and their very purpose in fulfilling the very functions of what the founders explained a proper government to be, are an added very clear context in which to "interpret" the plain language of the constitution should any fine points be subject to dispute.   At the least, these considerations should serve to limit the extent of any such dispute because no one should go so far as to think the constitution meant something that contradicted the Declaration or the founders' vision and descriptions of the nature of a proper government, or the nature of the relationship of the citizens to their government.      But also at bottom line, all of this, the entire endeavor, the purpose of the great experiment of the USA, was to improve the lot and the lives of human beings, to secure their freedom and their right to seek their own happiness.    And if most of the people in a society which occupies the same geographical area enjoy the prospect of selling their souls for a mess of pottage, then what will be, will be.  The Founders' work will slip into oblivion.   IE, ultimately, one consequence of each man being a sovereign individual under and in the law, is that the law will only continue to fulfill its intended purpose while these sovereign rulers want that kind of law.

A man has the right to make mistakes.  Groups of men, be they large or small have the right to make mistakes.    What they don't have is the right to expect that they can escape the consequences of their mistakes.    The Founders gave the colonists a wonderful gift.   The colonists received the fruit of the Founders' wisdom, and it was very valuable wisdom.    But the Constitution they were given was not expected to be taken as holy gospel.   The framers themselves made allowance for changes to it, and their discussions of future possible events went so far as to include bloody revolutions against whatever government might exist over the US at some future time.   Just as the Supreme Court was not intended to be considered THE authority, whose judgment was the arbiter of truth, superior to that of any other citizen's, so is the Constitution not intended to be a kind of holy absolute arbiter of truth and wisdom and correctness.  The Constitution is "merely" a proposed recipe for implementing the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence.    The latter is the ideal meal we wish to spend our lives enjoying.   The former is the best recipe the Founders could devise which promised to produce and deliver that meal to us.   This is not to "put down' the Constitution.  We revere it because it was such an outstandingly wonderful and brilliant and clever and thoroughly thought out recipe which anticipated so many concerns with logical precision and appropriate alterations for various obstacles which might arise during the preparation of that meal.   But the only REASON to love the Constitution, is that we love the Declaration, and because the Constitution is so brilliant in its seeming near-perfection at delivering that beloved content of the Declaration to us.   You might say that the Declaration sanctions our desire to be free to hunt the food we need to survive and to make ourselves strong enough to fend off enemies, while the Constitution is our trusty rifle, enabling us to achieve both of these legally approved and morally valid desires.    If we don't keep that gun, or the constitution, well maintained or if we don't respect the requirements for its own continued good functioning, then we will pay a heavy price.

What the constitution does is set the rules of functioning for the federal government, which is properly regarded as a creation of the states, which themselves -- if they are proper governments -- are properly regarded as creations of the individual citizens of each state.    This is both simple and profound.    There will always be those who can twist words, and at times they may get the upperhand, and at those times things will not go well for most citizens, or not as well as they ought to go, and as they could be going.   So I'm 100% with you when you assign blame to the educational system.  When you think about it, if you agree with the gist of the foregoing, it's almost a direct logical implication that federal gov't's involvement in education ought to be absolutely prohibited.   The very concern which motivated the desire for a Constitution in the first place was the fear that the government might become too powerful and usurp more of the people's (and/or states') rights than they wished to delegate to their new federal gov't.   IE, the framers -- and the states and many of the people -- knew that once an institution is brought into existence, it becomes self-concerned, and will potentially be a magnet for power-seekers, and will develop an interest in preserving itself as contrasted with its only intended motive, which is to preserve the rights of those who created it for that purpose.    IE, government is a "necessary evil" with potential to put its own interests as an institution above that of those whose interests it as born to serve.   That potential clash between the interests of the people and the very government they created for specific limited purposes, is a fact which is important for the citizenry to understand if they are to avoid any  unwanted changes in the nature of the gov't they created.    Placing the education of their children in the hands of that government is almost an invitation to the very thing their Constitution was created to avoid, for obvious reasons.    It has been a terrible mistake from the beginning.   It actually increases the threats to the populace which the Constitution was created to reduce or minimize.    It places in the government's hands a powerful tool for ensuring its own preservation by influencing the minds and beliefs of the very people who will be determining its role and status in the future.   If we consider the motivation for having a constitution in the first place, and if we then carried that same motivation with us when we created an educational system, we'd have no choice but to conclude that education belongs as far from government and as close to the "private sector" as possible.  

 

Comment by Dwight M. Schmitz on November 11, 2012 at 10:58pm

Jim - I haven't taken any pol-sci courses, but I know from experience that the arrogance and brainwashing, and I mean that seriously, in public education has been going on for decades. We pulled our children out of public schools while they were young, after we engaged in a minor "war" with them, and we haven't looked back since. It was the best thing we could have done for our children. Several years later, for reasons I need not go in to here, we re-engaged in that "war." I am of the very firm belief that, if we do truly care about our children's future, then the best thing we could do for them is either completely overhaul the public school system in this country or make school choice wide open.


The constitution is the last word on the constitution. The supreme court declared itself the ultimate authority on the constitution in the 1940s, but nowhere in the constitution does it say that the supreme court has ultimate interpretation of the constitution, it merely says that the supreme court is the court of last resort. A fine distinction, I know, but my point is that anyone can interpret the constitution any way they want and make it say anything they want, without regard to what the intent was when it was written. That is the fault of our educational system. Almost every word in the constitution was carefully thought out, but without a basis in history, the constitution can be twisted into saying anything a good lawyer wants it to say.

Comment by Terri Donohue on November 11, 2012 at 10:20pm

Thanks Dwight.  

Comment by Jim Delaney on November 11, 2012 at 10:16pm

Radioman,

I've been seriously studying the Constitution for 9 years now. Learned more about the Constitution than I did as a starry-eyed Pol. Sci. major in college where, by the way, I was brainwashed and misguided. Liberal claptrap is even more epidemic now.

Political compromise is fine so long as we are all reading off the same sheet of music, that being the Constitution. Nothing else is relevant, important, except, of course, the Bible.

Compromising with an alien ideology is irresponsible and will lead to the total destruction of our way of life. I will not compromise my principles, and I will not ask others to do so it.

We all need to get back to foundational principles and jettison insidious and destructive political party talking points, both left and right. The only thing which should unite us is our love of and faithfulness to constitutional governance. All the rest is hogwash, terrible distractions. 

My burning issue with the left, and many on the right, is that they've either deliberately abandoned our foundational principles in purusit of political agends, or are willfully ingnorant of them. That said, they are enemies of freedom. Unioin at any price and compromise with the enemy within or without is totally unacceptable and I will resist such appeasement at every turn.

True, committed patriots don't parrot talking heads or talking points from whatever quarter. They do their homework, rely on commonsense and decency, and they righteously and fearlessly fight back to protect their liberty against anyone who would dare encroach on those liberties.

So, peace at any price, compromise no matter the risk to foundational principles, and union-at-any-price are the provinces of fools and scoundrels, certainly not thoughtful patriots.

 

Comment by Dwight M. Schmitz on November 11, 2012 at 10:00pm

Terri, I am familiar with the quote you are searching for. There is disagreement as to who actually said it, but it is generally attributed to either Alexander Tytler (a 1700s Scottish lawyer and historian) or Alexis de Toqueville (a French historian from the early 1800s). In either case, the observation goes something to the effect that the great democracies of history last about 200 years. They begin their decline when the electorate (the people) begin to realize that they can vote themselves "largess from the public treasury." In other words, they learn that they can vote into office politicians who promise to give them "free stuff." Where are we now? A little over two hundred years old and we have a government handing out other people's earnings like candy on Halloween. We don't care where the money comes from (confiscated from others) just as long as we get our free stuff (obamaphone, gas in my car, pay my mortgage, etc.).

Tea Party Nation is a social network

Whole Body Research

Young Living Essential Oils

 






© 2014   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service