Saturday, December 24, 2011
Anti-Americanism of Progressives
Let us remain free from excessive government!
This progressive liberal idea that we should tax the rich and let others go free is just about as un-American as I could think of today.
America was founded on a number of key principles, including: 1) individual freedoms to make one's way; 2) equality of opportunity to get ahead; 3) upward mobility to reach as high as your talent and energy can take you; 4) a free market within which to work; and 5) a voice and vote to participate in our government.
We do not need the voices of fear, of envy, of intimidation, or of resentment to hinder our way of life, our desires for a better life, or our freedoms to get there without government interference, without excessive taxation, and without government handouts.
This progressive liberal idea that we should tax the rich and let others go free is just about as un-American as I could think of today.
America was founded on a number of key principles, including: 1) individual freedoms to make one's way; 2) equality of opportunity to get ahead; 3) upward mobility to reach as high as your talent and energy can take you; 4) a free market within which to work; and 5) a voice and vote to participate in our government.
We do not need the voices of fear, of envy, of intimidation, or of resentment to hinder our way of life, our desires for a better life, or our freedoms to get there without government interference, without excessive taxation, and without government handouts.
Labels: Conservatism, Constitution, Progressivism
Friday, December 23, 2011
The Sufferings of Non-Christians
I wonder.
It must be terrible for non-Christians to labor under the massive load of Christian symbolism that surrounds one in the cities and suburbs, and piques one in the rural areas of America, especially on Sundays when they all trek to church.
Just who would feel that way? Off the cuff, I’d say it would be atheists, secular humanists, agnostics, Muslims, a-religious, neo-Nazis, and perhaps some of the vanishingly small sects of perhaps 15 other religions, such as listed in the census and make up the odd 20% or so of non-Christians.
I suppose they feel affronted and depressed that they do not have the majority power that Christians have and practice all the time, but they do have their own places of worship unhindered for the most part and their very own symbols marking the spot. But they are not satisfied with that. No, they must attack the Christians and their symbolism as if the very existence of Christian symbols threatens to stifle all of the odd religions and cause dissention in their ranks, especially in their children. No more prayer in schools, they demand, and succeed.
Wasn’t this Christian dominance in the US well known from way back, such that if they didn’t like it, there was ample opportunity to select another nation where their particular religion was coddled? No, they chose to stay here, because of our freedoms, security and our scale of living. Now they want to change things around to suit themselves, and tear down anything Christian they can get leverage on.
By doing so, they are creating a growing and potentially severe backlash that puts them in a very unfavorable light in our Christian culture and way of life. Can an employer that sees the damage done to his religion honestly trust, hire and promote such destructive people if he knows their deeds? I don’t know, but it surely could be an unwritten factor. Open bias of that sort is against the law, of course, of course.
One cannot attack a religion without such a backlash, however, and many, if not most, Christians, even divided into many sects as they are, see it as a concerted attack on their religion, and they see the levers being used as mistakes of interpretation that need to be corrected somehow, but not very clearly just yet. They marvel at the Supreme Court decisions that favor the odd religions, and grudgingly obey for the nonce, storing each affront to their sensibilities up for future use. We should appoint better justices to the court they say, and more conservatives to the legislatures and to the highet posts in the land.
Why, they ask, isn’t the status quo satisfactory to all? Are we not sufficiently secular now? Why create such challenges to our society when they are really not needed at all? What do they gain by such attacks? What do they lose? Have any of these people felt the bias against them? Have they felt the ceiling to their ambitions looming up because of their positions? Did they have to seek out positions that favored their rather stark differing thoughts and actions, such as self employment? Why are they being so divisive? Isn't it so that the Perfect is the enemy of the Good?
I wonder.
It must be terrible for non-Christians to labor under the massive load of Christian symbolism that surrounds one in the cities and suburbs, and piques one in the rural areas of America, especially on Sundays when they all trek to church.
Just who would feel that way? Off the cuff, I’d say it would be atheists, secular humanists, agnostics, Muslims, a-religious, neo-Nazis, and perhaps some of the vanishingly small sects of perhaps 15 other religions, such as listed in the census and make up the odd 20% or so of non-Christians.
I suppose they feel affronted and depressed that they do not have the majority power that Christians have and practice all the time, but they do have their own places of worship unhindered for the most part and their very own symbols marking the spot. But they are not satisfied with that. No, they must attack the Christians and their symbolism as if the very existence of Christian symbols threatens to stifle all of the odd religions and cause dissention in their ranks, especially in their children. No more prayer in schools, they demand, and succeed.
Wasn’t this Christian dominance in the US well known from way back, such that if they didn’t like it, there was ample opportunity to select another nation where their particular religion was coddled? No, they chose to stay here, because of our freedoms, security and our scale of living. Now they want to change things around to suit themselves, and tear down anything Christian they can get leverage on.
By doing so, they are creating a growing and potentially severe backlash that puts them in a very unfavorable light in our Christian culture and way of life. Can an employer that sees the damage done to his religion honestly trust, hire and promote such destructive people if he knows their deeds? I don’t know, but it surely could be an unwritten factor. Open bias of that sort is against the law, of course, of course.
One cannot attack a religion without such a backlash, however, and many, if not most, Christians, even divided into many sects as they are, see it as a concerted attack on their religion, and they see the levers being used as mistakes of interpretation that need to be corrected somehow, but not very clearly just yet. They marvel at the Supreme Court decisions that favor the odd religions, and grudgingly obey for the nonce, storing each affront to their sensibilities up for future use. We should appoint better justices to the court they say, and more conservatives to the legislatures and to the highet posts in the land.
Why, they ask, isn’t the status quo satisfactory to all? Are we not sufficiently secular now? Why create such challenges to our society when they are really not needed at all? What do they gain by such attacks? What do they lose? Have any of these people felt the bias against them? Have they felt the ceiling to their ambitions looming up because of their positions? Did they have to seek out positions that favored their rather stark differing thoughts and actions, such as self employment? Why are they being so divisive? Isn't it so that the Perfect is the enemy of the Good?
I wonder.
Labels: Christianity, Church versus State, Conservatism, Constitution, Democracy
Monday, October 17, 2011
My Beliefs:
Here are some essential basics of my belief system (as of 10/17/11)
-Theism, and adherence to the commandments of God: Belief in love, faith, hope and charity. Worship as and where one desires. Religious freedom.
-Insistence on moral certainty as derived from the commandments of God and His natural laws, rights, duties, morals and mores.
-Traditions as the compiled wisdom of past generations, which are not to be changed suddenly or lightly, without long and hard reflection on the consequences – both intended and unintended.
-Federal, constitutional, and republican form of government, including the carefully derived checks and balances between the various parts as given by the Constitution. Close adherence to the Constitution is a mandate. Belief in subsidiarity, which places problem solving as near to the individuals concerned as possible.
-A mankind that can be good or evil, and cannot be trusted to “do the right thing” without laws, regulations, and ordinances, and especially their daily enforcement.
-A mankind that has not progressed in any essential mental, moral, or spiritual way since the beginning of civilization, and cannot be forced, cajoled, or shamed into any real progress either, at least for the next millennium or two. Man is sinful.
-Responsible citizenship, honorable duty to country, and sincere patriotism for the nation.
-Freedom in all of its forms: worship, speech, association, assembly, movement, and ownership (property rights). Exceptions are in order here as well: pornography should not be accessible by underage children; treason and sedition must be punished; slander and libel must be punished; and liars must be shunned, if not prosecuted, especially liars in government. Organizations that advocate the overthrow of the nation must be destroyed.
-The right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, subject to the restraints of common sense, good citizenship and the law. To this end, the legal right to abortion (murder) must be terminated.
-The family and the institution of marriage between a man and a woman as the basic building block of society. Family unity should be supported wherever possible. Honoring one’s ancestors is an important factor in keeping family unity intact. Same-sex marriage must be prohibited.
-Equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. Redistribution of wealth for its own sake is an abomination. We must, however, care for the ill, disabled, and destitute using charity (by that name), and we must support people to regain their footing in society.
-Limited government, and limited growth in government sufficient to cope with the rise in population, and the complexity of modern life, and not growth in power, budget or personnel to further centralize the government. Reestablisment of effective state's rights is a necessity, as is the abolition of unfunded mandates.
-Traditional education, unfettered with the modern experimentation that has proven to be ineffectual, and funding mostly dedicated to teachers and pupils, not overhead “education experts” and unneeded administrators. The curriculum through high school should be pared down to reading, writing, English, arithmetic, civics, history of America, American literature, world literature, science, mathematics, geography, world history, and foreign languages, together with courses in trades as needed. The track system should be reinstalled to allow for students to proceed more closely to their natural pace of learning. Testing should be continued, with essay questions taking a more predominant role. The Federal Department of Education must be abolished.
-The university systems of so-called “academic freedom” and tenure need to be thrown out in favor of professors and administrators with a balanced view and desire to teach effectively and in an unbiased manner. Teach the students how to think, not how to recite the Communist or Humanist Manifesto. Reduce the budgets of Universities so that citizens can attend without incurring lifelong debt for themselves or their families.
-English is the primary language in America. Immigrants must learn and demonstrate proficiency in English to become citizens.
-Ultimate sovereignty of the US, its borders, and its institutions, is not to be diluted by world authority or by illegal immigrants or workers. The idea that nation-states are phasing out is wrong.
-The failure of the UN, or any such organization of nations to perform world government. The UN should be marginalized to its effective elements. There is an insufficient number of moral nations to effect world government on a democratic basis.
-Security for the US, both internally and externally. For this purpose we need strong, well-disciplined, coordinated federal, state and local police forces. We need National Guard forces in each state.
-The armed forces of the US should be well-equipped, and large enough to fight 2½ wars simultaneously while maintaining the defenses of the nation at home. Weapons research, development and production should allow for replacement and modernization throughout the forces in a timely manner. We should continue to seek peace through strength.
-Capitalism, and free trade throughout the world, but not collectivism ever! Free markets with reasonable regulation to prevent abuses.
-Proactive pursuit of freedom and democracy for all, but carefully limited in overseas commitments.
-Fighting terrorism wherever it arises. Subduing by force and eventually pacifying the remainder of Islamic Fundamentalists within the US is important to the reduction of terrorism.
National service of two years by all before the age of 35 is imperative, and can be satisfied through support to local, state or federal service organizations or the military.
-Voluntary association of free, democratic nations to promote peace, free trade, and the well-being of their citizens, as well as to promote their common defense, instead of reliance on the UN.
-Financial prudence and a strong thrust to balance the budget are imperative, as well as to materially reduce the natonal debt. A halt on costly legislation should be established until such time as our debt is under control.
Here are some essential basics of my belief system (as of 10/17/11)
-Theism, and adherence to the commandments of God: Belief in love, faith, hope and charity. Worship as and where one desires. Religious freedom.
-Insistence on moral certainty as derived from the commandments of God and His natural laws, rights, duties, morals and mores.
-Traditions as the compiled wisdom of past generations, which are not to be changed suddenly or lightly, without long and hard reflection on the consequences – both intended and unintended.
-Federal, constitutional, and republican form of government, including the carefully derived checks and balances between the various parts as given by the Constitution. Close adherence to the Constitution is a mandate. Belief in subsidiarity, which places problem solving as near to the individuals concerned as possible.
-A mankind that can be good or evil, and cannot be trusted to “do the right thing” without laws, regulations, and ordinances, and especially their daily enforcement.
-A mankind that has not progressed in any essential mental, moral, or spiritual way since the beginning of civilization, and cannot be forced, cajoled, or shamed into any real progress either, at least for the next millennium or two. Man is sinful.
-Responsible citizenship, honorable duty to country, and sincere patriotism for the nation.
-Freedom in all of its forms: worship, speech, association, assembly, movement, and ownership (property rights). Exceptions are in order here as well: pornography should not be accessible by underage children; treason and sedition must be punished; slander and libel must be punished; and liars must be shunned, if not prosecuted, especially liars in government. Organizations that advocate the overthrow of the nation must be destroyed.
-The right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, subject to the restraints of common sense, good citizenship and the law. To this end, the legal right to abortion (murder) must be terminated.
-The family and the institution of marriage between a man and a woman as the basic building block of society. Family unity should be supported wherever possible. Honoring one’s ancestors is an important factor in keeping family unity intact. Same-sex marriage must be prohibited.
-Equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. Redistribution of wealth for its own sake is an abomination. We must, however, care for the ill, disabled, and destitute using charity (by that name), and we must support people to regain their footing in society.
-Limited government, and limited growth in government sufficient to cope with the rise in population, and the complexity of modern life, and not growth in power, budget or personnel to further centralize the government. Reestablisment of effective state's rights is a necessity, as is the abolition of unfunded mandates.
-Traditional education, unfettered with the modern experimentation that has proven to be ineffectual, and funding mostly dedicated to teachers and pupils, not overhead “education experts” and unneeded administrators. The curriculum through high school should be pared down to reading, writing, English, arithmetic, civics, history of America, American literature, world literature, science, mathematics, geography, world history, and foreign languages, together with courses in trades as needed. The track system should be reinstalled to allow for students to proceed more closely to their natural pace of learning. Testing should be continued, with essay questions taking a more predominant role. The Federal Department of Education must be abolished.
-The university systems of so-called “academic freedom” and tenure need to be thrown out in favor of professors and administrators with a balanced view and desire to teach effectively and in an unbiased manner. Teach the students how to think, not how to recite the Communist or Humanist Manifesto. Reduce the budgets of Universities so that citizens can attend without incurring lifelong debt for themselves or their families.
-English is the primary language in America. Immigrants must learn and demonstrate proficiency in English to become citizens.
-Ultimate sovereignty of the US, its borders, and its institutions, is not to be diluted by world authority or by illegal immigrants or workers. The idea that nation-states are phasing out is wrong.
-The failure of the UN, or any such organization of nations to perform world government. The UN should be marginalized to its effective elements. There is an insufficient number of moral nations to effect world government on a democratic basis.
-Security for the US, both internally and externally. For this purpose we need strong, well-disciplined, coordinated federal, state and local police forces. We need National Guard forces in each state.
-The armed forces of the US should be well-equipped, and large enough to fight 2½ wars simultaneously while maintaining the defenses of the nation at home. Weapons research, development and production should allow for replacement and modernization throughout the forces in a timely manner. We should continue to seek peace through strength.
-Capitalism, and free trade throughout the world, but not collectivism ever! Free markets with reasonable regulation to prevent abuses.
-Proactive pursuit of freedom and democracy for all, but carefully limited in overseas commitments.
-Fighting terrorism wherever it arises. Subduing by force and eventually pacifying the remainder of Islamic Fundamentalists within the US is important to the reduction of terrorism.
National service of two years by all before the age of 35 is imperative, and can be satisfied through support to local, state or federal service organizations or the military.
-Voluntary association of free, democratic nations to promote peace, free trade, and the well-being of their citizens, as well as to promote their common defense, instead of reliance on the UN.
-Financial prudence and a strong thrust to balance the budget are imperative, as well as to materially reduce the natonal debt. A halt on costly legislation should be established until such time as our debt is under control.
Labels: Citizenship, Constitution, Democracy, Jihad, Natural Law, Republican
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Government is Expanding Beyond Comprehension
Our Current Government Versus the Constitution
It might be rather difficult to measure the distance we have crept from the fresh new Constitution and its original intent and compromises to the current position our laws and practices are in today. The first push/pull was undoubtedly centralized versus distributed power, and centralization has won out in practice. It continues to do so, with the office of the president leading the way. From a purist point of view, we have expanded the scope of our laws well beyond the Constitution and civil laws envisioned in the beginning, most often due to pressures to meet a stream of new needs discovered that the Constitution neither covered nor thought to cover, and with the willing collusion of all three branches of the federal government to cater to these needs, ostensibly of the people, and, of course, for the good of the nation.
Books have been written about the role of the Supreme Court in deviating, in interpreting, and in legislating from the bench to achieve some functional goal not possible to achieve in any other manner. Seizing the decision powers of an autocratic leader by the Presidents has also been a continuing drumbeat pushing us ever further away from a strict adherence to the Constitution. Whole governmental departments, with their missions, functions, budgets, and staffing have been invented through legislation to meet these new needs and functions, and this process is even accelerating today. Earmarks fit into this creep also! I have often pointed out that currently there are over 1,177 separate organizational entities in the government with budget lines, staffing and all the trappings of bureaucracy. In fact they tend to stumble over each other in their zeal to approve or disapprove actions brought before them. Try to obtain approval for a new nuclear power plant and you will be dealing with an entrenched bureaucracy of 23 or so different organizations at last report.
The maze grows yearly, and even Reagan could only kill or rework some hundred of these entities, and it seems that he was about the last to try. We have grown many monster bureaucracies since his time, and Obama has created hundreds more yet to fully surface. To say that this gaggle has become unmanageable and unaffordable is to bring the wrath of entrenched congressmen, lobbyists, and advocacy groups down on your head, as well as the party or parties that stood behind the legislation in the first place.
Why don't we commission an independent group to take on the decade-long task of streamlining this governmental gaggle, much as BRAC did for military bases? It would be a many-year task, and it would spawn quite a few Constitutional amendments as it went along, I suppose, but the commission would end up paying for itself ten, twenty or more times over I'd guess, to the benefit of our bottom line. (Avoiding a Constitutional convention would be a prime objective here, since the scope of such a convention cannot be controlled, and we just might end up worse that we began!)
It might be rather difficult to measure the distance we have crept from the fresh new Constitution and its original intent and compromises to the current position our laws and practices are in today. The first push/pull was undoubtedly centralized versus distributed power, and centralization has won out in practice. It continues to do so, with the office of the president leading the way. From a purist point of view, we have expanded the scope of our laws well beyond the Constitution and civil laws envisioned in the beginning, most often due to pressures to meet a stream of new needs discovered that the Constitution neither covered nor thought to cover, and with the willing collusion of all three branches of the federal government to cater to these needs, ostensibly of the people, and, of course, for the good of the nation.
Books have been written about the role of the Supreme Court in deviating, in interpreting, and in legislating from the bench to achieve some functional goal not possible to achieve in any other manner. Seizing the decision powers of an autocratic leader by the Presidents has also been a continuing drumbeat pushing us ever further away from a strict adherence to the Constitution. Whole governmental departments, with their missions, functions, budgets, and staffing have been invented through legislation to meet these new needs and functions, and this process is even accelerating today. Earmarks fit into this creep also! I have often pointed out that currently there are over 1,177 separate organizational entities in the government with budget lines, staffing and all the trappings of bureaucracy. In fact they tend to stumble over each other in their zeal to approve or disapprove actions brought before them. Try to obtain approval for a new nuclear power plant and you will be dealing with an entrenched bureaucracy of 23 or so different organizations at last report.
The maze grows yearly, and even Reagan could only kill or rework some hundred of these entities, and it seems that he was about the last to try. We have grown many monster bureaucracies since his time, and Obama has created hundreds more yet to fully surface. To say that this gaggle has become unmanageable and unaffordable is to bring the wrath of entrenched congressmen, lobbyists, and advocacy groups down on your head, as well as the party or parties that stood behind the legislation in the first place.
Why don't we commission an independent group to take on the decade-long task of streamlining this governmental gaggle, much as BRAC did for military bases? It would be a many-year task, and it would spawn quite a few Constitutional amendments as it went along, I suppose, but the commission would end up paying for itself ten, twenty or more times over I'd guess, to the benefit of our bottom line. (Avoiding a Constitutional convention would be a prime objective here, since the scope of such a convention cannot be controlled, and we just might end up worse that we began!)
Labels: Bureaucracy, Congress, Constitution, Government, Supreme Court, The President
Monday, April 18, 2011
Preserving and Improving America
Conservatives are in the business of preserving and improving any and all worthwhile aspects of the American way of life as they perceive it.
This includes, among many factors:
1. A nation of laws: the Constitution, civil or positive laws, customs and rules.
2. Freedom and Liberty for all citizens, including strong property rights, and the right to own and use guns, as well as freedoms of speech, travel, association, and religion.
3. The free market system, yet with adequate active regulation that effectively prevents fraud and abuse.
4. Maintaining the full and complete sovereignty of the US, and not ceding any aspect of sovereignty whatsoever to an international body, especially not the UN.
5. Natural rights, natural laws, and natural duties.
6. Financial rectitude and budgetary common sense. We support adequate control of spending and borrowing, and orderly and effective reduction of the national debt over time.
7. Charity (that many call welfare) for the needy, the ill, and the destitute.
8. A strong defensive capability for both homeland protection and foreign wars if and when necessary. We believe in just war.
9. Preserving social institutions, customs, and traditions of the nation against the onslaught of progressive changes that would harm a majority of the people.
10. Education of all citizens that succeeds in preparing them to be good and creative citizens in our republic, but not fostering a costly Federal bureaucratic educational superstructure and unions. We need to revert to the tried and true subjects and texts, and the unbiased teachers of yesterday.
11. Moral rectitude and belief in the Golden Rule.
12. The use of science to make life better for all, and to improve our knowledge in all directions.
13. Belief in the nation, patriotism.
14. Outreach to troubled nations.
15. Being a staunch ally to those that we make common cause with by either treaty or simple agreement.
16. Unwavering, implacable enemy of those that would damage or destroy the US or our real friends.
17. The idea of being successful at all that we undertake, be it: social, political, economic, military, environmental, or religious.
18. The exceptionalism of the American experiment in governance: the Constitution of the United States of America as a nonpareil system of thought.
19. The custom of admitting immigrants by a legal process and assimilating them within a generation or so is proper. The necessity is clear for deportation of illegal immigrants and not amnesty.
20. Minimal taxation necessary for running the government, but not for redistribution of wealth per se. Fair taxation is the goal, while progressive schemes are not acceptable. The goal is to let each citizen keep as much of his earnings as possible.
21. Identification of elements that need changes over time, either by expansion or by collapse, and working carefully to institute them using both the legal procedures of the Constitution, and the legislature, and the judiciary and the administration, as the Constitution envisions it to take place.
22. Understanding that Islam is not compatible with our freedoms and liberty, that its jihadist element is an existential threat to the US and way of life, and hence Islam has no standing as a non-threatening religion under our Constitution.
23. Belief that public unions should not be allowed in government at all, and that unions whose actions imperil the citizenry, such as preventing dairy supplies from entering a city, not manning aircraft controller positions, or impeding the defense of the nation, should be completely barred from such actions. In other words, life and survival come before the demands of a union.
24. We feel that there are proper subjects that can be promoted by government seed money under careful supervision, and, eventually, partial or full withdrawal by the government from the arena. Space is an example.
25. Social problems must be addressed properly, including abortion, and same sex marriage. Perhaps a national referendum is in order to ascertain whether the majority of voters favor or disfavor these issues, with legislative action to follow in accord with the wishes of the voters.
26. It is unfortunate that we do not have a free press or a free media. The ideal of the media being a major counter-balance to ensure effective government has been largely destroyed by a virtually complete bias on their part in favor of Leftist positions and Leftist candidates. This is an extremely unhealthy situation for our republic.
April 18, 2011
Labels: Conservatism, Constitution, Fiscal Responsibility, Flat Tax, National Debt, Natural Law, Natural Rights, Will of the People
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Our Poor Old Tattered Constitution
The Constitution is good for centuries!
There is an idea current that the Constitution is outdated. That is pure malarky. Properly interpreted and maintained the Constitution is good for a few more centuries. Certainly it needs some clarification, for instance, such as in the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment, which have clarified some major aspects of the Amendment. All to the good. But more needs to be done, such as to strengthen the takings clause in favor of the owner rather than the government and developers. There should be a resurgence of States Rights as well, to place problems nearer to their source and immediate governance: think abortion, which has no basis in the Constitution (it may also not have a basis in State Constitutions either, but so be it). And it goes on and on…
Labels: Constitution
Monday, February 15, 2010
Truly Annoying Things-- II
The Next Set of Annoying and Hateful Things
Number five in my list of truly annoying things is overzealous environmentalism. This includes attempting to save a few bugs from extinction by preventing homeowners from saving their houses from erosion, and the entire scam of Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW. From the small bugs to the sweeping impact of supposed fixes demanded by AGW proponents such as Al Gore, this is the most egregious con job on the public since eugenics.
The moral degeneration of our society is the next (or sixth) hateful thing. From teen pregnancies to abortions, to unfaithful husbands to hookups, and to the blatant TV and PC porn shows, we have become hedonistic and nihilistic. This trend has been wildly supported by leftists that appear to want our society to fall apart.
In seventh place is the almost total disregard for the provisions of our Constitution on the part of the Congresses and the Presidents, both current and past. We are in a Post-Constitutional period where any idea can be turned into law without regard to its constitutionality. This will lead us into chaos sooner or later. The abdication of our courts of their duty to preserve and protect, and to interpret and define the Constitution in favor of judicial activism is a prime cause for this situation.
The eighth place goes to the two political parties for their disregard of their duties to the public in favor of party confrontations, ideological stances that destroy bipartisanship and meaningful compromise, and the ever-widening gap between the left and the right as to the directions of the nation. It is the far left that has wrecked our government and economy, moved away from constitutionality, and will undoubtedly wreck the military and diplomatic posture of the nation in due time.
These eight annoying and hateful situations can only be corrected by our citizens electing to office at every level very qualified conservatives that know where to steer the ship, and to keep a wary eye on them while they are in office.
Labels: Constitution, Environmentalism, Moral Degeneration, politics
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
My Government II
There is a long list of liberal legislators that would not survive in my government, headed by Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Waxman, and Feinstein, How they got elected speaks to the lack of smarts in their home constituencies, corruption in the voting process, or the inability of their voters to connect the dots correctly. These people propose anti-American and anti-constitutional solutions to national problems, and should never be allowed inside the Capitol building again, even as visitors.
Labels: Conservatism, Constitution, Democrats, Liberalism, Pelosi, Reid
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Our Changing Constitution
The Constitution: Structure Survives, Does its Functions?
The constitutional structure of our government has endured since 1787. All of its basic parts are still there for all to see. But, today, this government functions in quite different ways than was conceived by the founders. Indeed, the familiar structure and residual functioning of the Constitution provides a cover for all manner of blatant subversions of the original intent of the Fathers.
Point: Virtually every piece of legislation passed into law since 1900 has no basis in the Constitution.
Point: Judicial activists interpret the legal issues and legislation put before it in a manner that violates the intent of the Constitution. The Courts practice “New law for a new day”.
Point: The Presidents have amassed far-reaching powers that were never intended to be vested in that office. War and Emergency powers represent a specific example, as do Executive Orders, and Signing Statements.
Point: The phrase …”provide for the general welfare” in the Constitution has been used as an open door for any social engineering whatsoever dreamed up by the triumvirate in power—Congress, President, and Courts.
Point: The government has expropriated over 65% to 70% of its revenue per year for entitlements, and the percentage is growing each year. Most, of not all, of these entitlements are beyond Constitutional validation.
Point: Congress attaches earmarks to bills that amount to billions of dollars for the home districts of congressmen. These earmarks have no relation to the bill’s content; the bill is merely a carrier for this largess that is not voted upon specifically and openly by the people’s representatives.
Point: Perhaps the most visible social engineering by activist Judges was the Brown versus Board anti-discrimination decision, followed by the Bussing decision to reach racial balance in the schools.
These and dozens of other cases in point seem to indicate that we have almost divorced ourselves officially from the original intent of the Constitution, and are now flying on the whims of the five-man majority on the Supreme Court, the party in power today and the parties of the future, under the cover of the familiar structure of the Constitution. The Constitutionality of a law and the many precedents in law are no longer yardsticks, it seems.
When does this affect each of us directly and horribly?
References:
Constitutional Chaos, by Andrew Nepolitano, 2004
Men in Black, by Mark R. Levin, 2005
Who Killed the Constitution, by Thomas E. Woods and Kevin Gutzman, 2008.
Labels: Constitution, Corruption, Earmarks, Government Handouts, Supreme Court
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Let Us Revere Our Constitution
Are we growing away from the Constitution?
It would be rather difficult for me to contrast and compare the relative simplicity, degrees of freedom, and morality of America in 1800, 1900 and 2000, but the social, political, commercial and technological changes are most certainly there for all to see.
Perhaps one of the most telling shifts in the public mind in those 200 years is the attitude towards natural law as it is codified in our Constitution. The great respect formerly paid to the thrust of the Founders to create a God-fearing Republic of the Center between the tyranny of the Left and the anarchy of the Right has deteriorated considerably. Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin would be appalled at the state we have gotten ourselves into as of the end of 2009, I believe. As would Hamilton and Jay, to add a significant Federalist duo. As one person said, parties have become irrelevant, since both of them are forcing us down the wrong path---away from natural law and all that that implies. I think it was Judge Andy Nepolitano that voiced that thought, although several others have signed up to it. The thesis I have seen emerge recently is that our Constitution and the thinking behind it is just as relevant today as it was in 1800 or 1900: it is the diverse people and the less than knowledgeable governing bodies that have moved us away from the original ideas that have made us a great nation; thus, that is at the root of our problems. Yes, we now have a huge and diverse population, but, in itself, that should not change our commitment to the Constitution and the principles behind it, nor should it alter its relevancy in 2010.
What I see is the enormous difficulty in returning the populace to the ideas and directions of the Constitution and its natural law basis, and, as well, the total rejection I and many others have to performing some kind of "loose, legal, non-natural accommodation" to the steadfast natural law principles we originally had, in order to satisfy this or that growing modern constituency that couldn't care less about the Constitution. That is because these various constituencies have not been taught properly about the Constitution in our schools and homes, have been taught to reject it in large measure, or have been brought up in totally different nations and are not even close to understanding the under-girding principles of our nation. Nor do many truly sign up to our laws as being now superior in effect to their own prior laws or lack thereof.
There needs to be a book on this subject!
Labels: American Culture, Citizenship USA, Constitution, Government
