View Full Version : Why Conservatives Love the Founders
BrainStorm
05-16-2010, 00:59
Why Conservatives Love the Founders (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/why_conservatives_love_the_fou.html)
A Salon writer wonders (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/05/11/constitution_fetish/index.html), "What's the conservative fetish with the Founding Fathers?"
It's because we read history, my sadly ignorant friend. So did the Founders.
History is full of Obamas, and the people who idolized such power-hungry self-glorifying narcissists. The Founders understood human history in their very bones, because they read history from the Bible to the Roman Empire, Europe's bloody and tyrannical history, and the Americas. If you want to understand Obama, just look at any idolized hero in Latin America: Chavez, Fidel, Bolivar, Juan Person. Look at European monarchs. Look at Napoleon.
They are all the famous Man on Horseback, the hero of the hour who instantly turns into a tyrant. Even today Latin America is bedeviled by its own Obamas, who all demand to be idolized and worshipped. Obamas are a dime a dozen.
The Founders knew about abuse of power by arrogant and ignorant narcissists, over and over again in human history. They read it in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. They read it in the Book of Kings, where you can find out all about Saddam Hussein, because the politics of the Middle East hasn't changed much. They saw it in the Middle East of their day, which was full of clan tyrannies and immense cruelty. Arab slavers were still raiding Britain when the Founders proclaimed the Declaration of Independence.
They read it in Plutarch's Lives of the Ceasars. They read it in the history of Athens, torn between bloody factions, and constantly raising new Obamas to power.
You see, all you Salonistas, the Founders were profoundly educated people. They were passionate believers in the Enlightenment. They understood the role of free speech, free thought, free political debate, and free trade. They saw the benefits of freedom in their own lives.
The Founders knew about slavery in the South, and they were deeply ashamed of it. But unlike contemporary liberals, who are massively ignorant of everything but their navels, they also knew that slavery was the norm in the British Royal Navy, for example, which recruited its sailors by force, using press gangs in London and other port cities. The British Navy also kidnapped American sailors.
The Royal Navy abolished the African slave trade. But common British sailors were whipped to work every day. They slept in 28 inches of space, almost as bad as African slaves, and were kept in bondage (deserters were hanged), and drug-addicted on daily grog and beer. The Founders knew about slavery in Biblical times, and among Russia's serfs. They knew about slavery in France and the German states, where violence was used routinely to keep peasants tied to the land. The Founders also knew about the mental slavery that comes from indoctrination, which is why they loved liberty, including liberty of faith.
The Founders understood that liberty had to come in stages. Only tyrants claim to create instant paradise. Practical statesmen work step by step. They created the intellectual and legal framework for the liberation of the slaves. When Abraham Lincoln came along, Americans were willing to fight a terrible war to free the slaves, even if more than half a million people had to die. Read the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and you can see the real campaign for human liberty, not the fantasy version liberals entertain today. Liberty is bought very dearly, in blood and suffering. (And it was Christian Abolitionists who created the campaign to liberate the slaves.)
America's wars of liberation were real, not frauds like the Marxist ones. We brought liberty to Europe in World War I, in World War II, and in the Cold War. We brought liberty to American slaves in the Civil War. No other nation in history can claim anything close to that.
The Founders created the first land of liberty in human history. To be sure, they learned a great deal from British political thinkers like John Locke and Edmund Burke, and from the classical writers. They demanded for themselves the rights that were (theoretically) granted to Englishmen of their time. Meanwhile the French Revolution led to massive bloodshed and twenty years of bloody war to conquer Europe. Napoleon was another Obama idol.
Read your history, my friends. Real history, not the Leftist propaganda version.
America gave the first great opportunity in human history to start afresh. The Founders used that opportunity to create the greatest political foundation in history -- because they understood that human nature hasn't changed, and that there would be those (like Obama) who were so power-oriented that they would try to lord it over all Americans. The Constitution was carefully designed to stop and balance human power mongers, like Obama. It has done so for two hundred years, and today it is the Marxist Left that is mounting a great assault on the US Constitution. But Marx never changed human nature.
The Left seems to believe the Karl Marx found a better way than the American Founders did. But look at the works of Marxism: The Soviets, Maoism, Pol Pot. One hundred million human beings killed by Marxist regimes in the 20th century alone. Look at North Korea, my sadly ignorant friends. Look at Robert Mugabe and his ilk. Look at the Nazis and their close affinity for Marxist totalitarians.
Karl Marx was just a throwback to all the slave-taking empires in history. Marx was born in Prussia, and idolized the chief propaganda philosopher of Prussia for his own "philosophy." (That was Friedrich Hegel.) Marx wanted a militaristic state, run by an elite of Marx followers, who would indoctrinate all the workers to march in lockstep to the Central Commander. Is that what you want? It's what Obama is creating for the United States today.
Read a little history, my poor friend, and you will see Obamas everywhere you look. Lenin was an Obama (and the Obama campaign deliberately used Lenin imagery for its propaganda). Stalin was an Obama. Mussolini was an Obama. Napoleon was an Obama. Putin is an Obama. Ahmadinejad is an Obama. Saddam was an Obama.
America never had a rock star president until the Obama campaign. George Washington made very sure no one would suspect him of being an Obama. Lincoln never claimed to be an Obama. None of our presidents have paraded themselves as Obamas -- not until Obama came along and brought the psychology of self-glorifying narcissism to these shores. And the Left snapped to and saluted Obama, worshipped at his feet of clay in that ancient and corrupt way that humans have known for millenia.
Are rock stars your idea of an American president? If so, please go back to school and read a little history.
Russian president Medvedev this last week said it out loud (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7119887.ece), to the deaf, dumb and blind Leftists of the world:
"President Medvedev has issued a stinging repudiation of the Soviet Union, condemning it as a totalitarian state that had deprived Russians of their basic rights. He also condemned Joseph Stalin's record of repression before Victory Day celebrations on Sunday marking the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, an event that many elderly Russians attribute to the leadership of the Soviet dictator.
... "Stalin committed mass crimes against the people. And despite the fact that he worked a lot, despite the fact that under his leadership the country achieved successes, what was done to his own people cannot be forgiven."...
Conservatives love the Founders because we read history. We know that you don't read history. Obama doesn't know history.
That's why you liberals scare us.
Brainstorm, that was quite an intersting article. It reminded me of conversations I have had with a few young people lately. One I had recently with a young black female friend of mine was similar. She had an avatar of Che' Guevara on her facebook page. I asked her if she was aware of what that represented. This was her response:
"I actually studied a great deal regarding Che Guevara starting when I was around 12. What really sticks with me is that despite his choices early on, both political and personal associations, he ultimately chose to fight and stand against what he believed was just regarding issues occuring in various cultures. Even when that meant turning on a man he considered a dear friend at one point, what he believed proved to be more powerful. I found a long time ago that despite what my associations may be, what I believe in should not go ignored. That's why I really have an affinity for his life and works. I feel that although people have various political affiliations and religious beliefs, they are still individuals in the end. A lot of the thngs that I have encounted in life have prompted me to always research and understand because it makes me feel more aware to acquire knowledge from all aspects."
I reminded her of others who had the convictions to fight for what they believed and who were nothing more than racists and murderers, including Idi Amin Dada, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. and asked her if they were as worthy of her praise and admiration as Che. She made no response after that and quickly changed her avatar.
I did a little search on Che and was surprised, not that I should have been, to find that there was little mention of his more racist and radical quotes in most sources. More sources quoted his more generic Marxist paradise type sayings. History is not being taught as factually as it once was.
olhamada
05-16-2010, 09:50
Powerful and true. Thanks for posting this.
Thr problem is, I fear, that true liberty is dead in America. And none of our leaders are willing do do anything to save it lest they be labelled "racist", "intolerant", "warmonger", etc....
As a nation, we are no longer Eagles, we are Ostriches.
Utah Bob
05-16-2010, 13:44
Brainstorm, that was quite an intersting article. It reminded me of conversations I have had with a few young people lately. One I had recently with a young black female friend of mine was similar. She had an avatar of Che' Guevara on her facebook page. I asked her if she was aware of what that represented. This was her response:
"I actually studied a great deal regarding Che Guevara starting when I was around 12. What really sticks with me is that despite his choices early on, both political and personal associations, he ultimately chose to fight and stand against what he believed was just regarding issues occuring in various cultures. Even when that meant turning on a man he considered a dear friend at one point, what he believed proved to be more powerful. I found a long time ago that despite what my associations may be, what I believe in should not go ignored. That's why I really have an affinity for his life and works. I feel that although people have various political affiliations and religious beliefs, they are still individuals in the end. A lot of the thngs that I have encounted in life have prompted me to always research and understand because it makes me feel more aware to acquire knowledge from all aspects."
I reminded her of others who had the convictions to fight for what they believed and who were nothing more than racists and murderers, including Idi Amin Dada, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. and asked her if they were as worthy of her praise and admiration as Che. She made no response after that and quickly changed her avatar.
I did a little search on Che and was surprised, not that I should have been, to find that there was little mention of his more racist and radical quotes in most sources. More sources quoted his more generic Marxist paradise type sayings. History is not being taught as factually as it once was.
True. Most sources that deal with ol Doc Guevara simply ignore his well documented dark side.:mad:
"....print the legend"
LongWire
05-16-2010, 13:56
Powerful and true. Thanks for posting this.
Thr problem is, I fear, that true liberty is dead in America. And none of our leaders are willing do do anything to save it lest they be labelled "racist", "intolerant", "warmonger", etc....
As a nation, we are no longer Eagles, we are Ostriches.
As a nation maybe..........I work with Eagles, Let the Eagles stand and the rest.........Taste's like Chicken!!!!!!
The Founders knew about slavery in the South, and they were deeply ashamed of it. But unlike contemporary liberals, who are massively ignorant of everything but their navels, they also knew that slavery was the norm in the British Royal Navy, for example, which recruited its sailors by force, using press gangs in London and other port cities. The British Navy also kidnapped American sailors.
The Royal Navy abolished the African slave trade. But common British sailors were whipped to work every day. They slept in 28 inches of space, almost as bad as African slaves, and were kept in bondage (deserters were hanged), and drug-addicted on daily grog and beer. The Founders knew about slavery in Biblical times, and among Russia's serfs. They knew about slavery in France and the German states, where violence was used routinely to keep peasants tied to the land. The Founders also knew about the mental slavery that comes from indoctrination, which is why they loved liberty, including liberty of faith.
The Founders understood that liberty had to come in stages. Only tyrants claim to create instant paradise. Practical statesmen work step by step. They created the intellectual and legal framework for the liberation of the slaves. When Abraham Lincoln came along, Americans were willing to fight a terrible war to free the slaves, even if more than half a million people had to die. Read the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and you can see the real campaign for human liberty, not the fantasy version liberals entertain today. Liberty is bought very dearly, in blood and suffering. (And it was Christian Abolitionists who created the campaign to liberate the slaves.)Bluntly, these comments are rubbish. (And by "rubbish," I mean bullshit.) Mr. Lewis's reading of history appears not to include numerous works published over the past three or four decades.
While many talk of the Federalist Papers there was the Anti-Federalist Papers.
Don't see a lot of "staging" the way in this debate.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/federalist/anti27.htm
BrainStorm
05-16-2010, 14:43
While many talk of the Federalist Papers there was the Anti-Federalist Papers.
Don't see a lot of "staging" the way in this debate.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/federalist/anti27.htm
Because?
History is written by the winners.
What do you think?
BrainStorm
05-16-2010, 14:46
Bluntly, these comments are rubbish. (And by "rubbish," I mean bullshit.) Mr. Lewis's reading of history appears not to include numerous works published over the past three or four decades.
Without characterizing things one way or the other, a question remains in my mind. How is the stuff published in the last 3-4 decades overcome the material published contemporaneously with our founding?
Without characterizing things one way or the other, a question remains in my mind. How is the stuff published in the last 3-4 decades overcome the material published contemporaneously with our founding?
You just blew off what I posted and then ask Sigaba to explain his answer?
You wish to rest on what our founding fathers had to say? All of them? Or just the ones you agree with?
BrainStorm
05-16-2010, 15:51
You just blew off what I posted and then ask Sigaba to explain his answer?
You wish to rest on what our founding fathers had to say? All of them? Or just the ones you agree with?
I apologize for "blowing you off" on the subject. That was not my intent.
I actually read the material you linked to. It's not simplistic to say that the arguments have to be thought about deeply as there is not a clear dichotomy.
I grew up as a minority in a rural community. I was frequently beaten on the school bus while in grade school until a neighbor (a high school girl) had me sit with her. I was threatened with DEATH as a teenager as part of my minority status and threatened to be expelled from school by the principal for the same reason. I was marginally less insecure when the boy who threatened to kill me went to prison when convicted of killing someone else. I never felt really safe until I moved somewhere where there were more folks like me, even though we were still a minority.
Just because I am not black, does not mean I don't have some small understanding of the consequences of prejudice. If you saw who visits my home, who I have hired when I owned my own small business and who's homes I am invited to visit, any suggestion that I am insensitive to race issues would be risible. Perhaps my wordsmithing does not permit that to come through. I'll have to work on that.
ZonieDiver
05-16-2010, 15:57
Powerful and true. Thanks for posting this.
Thr problem is, I fear, that true liberty is dead in America. And none of our leaders are willing do do anything to save it lest they be labelled "racist", "intolerant", "warmonger", etc....
As a nation, we are no longer Eagles, we are Ostriches.
A few eagles, many ostriches, and more than a few vultures - who take every opportunity to "pick the carcass clean"!
Trying to lump all the Founders into one mold doesnt work. They were still human and had many different interests and reasons for doing what they did. I think you can say one thing that would be true about all of them, and that all politicians today are lacking.
They were all literally willing to put their necks on the line for what they believed in.
Olive Oyl
05-17-2010, 00:49
It reminded me of conversations I have had with a few young people lately. ...
I did a little search on Che and was surprised, not that I should have been, to find that there was little mention of his more racist and radical quotes in most sources. More sources quoted his more generic Marxist paradise type sayings. History is not being taught as factually as it once was.
I may not be able to contribute much to these forums, but to chime in, as a "young person" myself, your concerns are frighteningly legitimate. So few of my contemporaries can actually stand to hear opinions of politics, domestic and other, but especially domestic, that differ from their own. Others are immediately negatively labeled, and even more unfortunate, the two opposing sides are never able to have an intelligent discussion of the facts.
The good news: in my limited time working for the government, I have already begun discovering other like-minded and young individuals who understand the shaky nature and concerning direction of America's present political underbelly, innerworkings, puppets (and puppeteers), and youth (including our own generation and the one after us). In a sense, it seems some of us have found our way straight into the fires in order to put some of them out - and some of us are able to identify each other as long-distance teammates for the long haul - because some significant re-wiring and uprooting needs to take place. We are few, I have noticed, because even those fellow-generationers plagued with the degrading sense of self-entitlement that pushes them to idolize figures like Che Guevarra have come trolling into the government ranks looking for the benefits of employment without actually producing anything. Still, I take inspiration knowing that, for instance, our Founding Fathers were relatively few, and look what they achieved. We don't want it to all be for naught, either.
Separately,
Trying to lump all the Founders into one mold doesnt work. They were still human and had many different interests and reasons for doing what they did. I think you can say one thing that would be true about all of them, and that all politicians today are lacking.
They were all literally willing to put their necks on the line for what they believed in.
I agree and would add that the very facts that the Founders were so diverse, that they were able to peaceably discuss their differing opinions, and represent different interests, contributed to the context which enabled creating our nation and our nation's founding documents.
Losing that conversation is losing our strength. And our politicians do not have real conversations anymore. Sadly, this is reflective of our young people, too.
Bless you all for doing what you do.
{dismount soapbox}
Read a little history, my poor friend, and you will see Obamas everywhere you look. Lenin was an Obama (and the Obama campaign deliberately used Lenin imagery for its propaganda). Stalin was an Obama. Mussolini was an Obama. Napoleon was an Obama. Putin is an Obama. Ahmadinejad is an Obama. Saddam was an Obama.
YGBSM. :eek:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The Left see it that the Constitution is a fixed, rigid document, and that you thus have to have justices on the Supreme Court who will essentially legislate from the bench, interpreting the law as they think it should be interpreted, as opposed to how it is actually written, that justices should bring their personal feelings into the matter.
...
The Constitution is very much a living document, as the left love to say. Of course the Constitution may not be perfect and may need to change with the times, the Founders recognized this and the Founders understood they might get things wrong too.
I'm not clear, how can the Left believe both of these views? They seem contradictory to me.
Posts #16 and #18 are yet further testament to the wisdom of my father who used to remind my brothers and I that it was often better to remain quiet and thought a morosoph than to open our mouths and remove all doubt.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Trying to lump all the Founders into one mold doesnt work. They were still human and had many different interests and reasons for doing what they did. I think you can say one thing that would be true about all of them, and that all politicians today are lacking.
They were all literally willing to put their necks on the line for what they believed in.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Yep...EXACTLY.
What I mean is many on the Left have the impression that the Constitution is some rigid document that never is supposed to change, and that that is how conservatives want it to remain, so you have to have activist justices on the Court or else slavery, women not being allowed to vote, etc...would still be around.
They seem unaware that the Constitution is not meant to be rigid, but that it has a provision for being changed, and that otherwise you are supposed to adhere to what it says as best you can. If it is found something is wrong, you can amend it.
Note slavery was undone via formal amendment and women having their right to vote protected was done by formal amendment, for example.
I don’t think you are on target with the line of thought that a person on the left has the impression the constitution is rigid. Ever consider that a progressive minded individual might want to just cherry pick issues to promote an agenda?
The whole “living constitution” is a progressive idea championed by Woodrow Wilson (Need I even throw the label “Progressive”?), Oliver Wendell Holmes (a Teddy Roosevelt Supreme Court appointee…read: a progressive President’s appointee), and Louis Brandeis (a Woodrow Wilson Supreme court appointee known as a “ militant crusader for social justice”). These weren’t all of the players…but a President and a pair of progressive Supreme Court justices are one powerful group.
I don’t believe the hype that conservatives don’t want the Constitution to remain unchanged. My belief is that a conservative does not want it to be incorrectly interpreted by an ideologist. Big difference there. I don’t think you will find many conservative-minded individuals that would say there should be no amendments. That argument was settled in the 1791 with the inclusion of the bill of rights. What you will find are conservative-minded individuals that will talk about erosion of personal freedoms stemming from ideological judicial activism.
Sir, which part of my posts do you disagree with?
Maybe you should reread them.
The Left see it that the Constitution is a fixed, rigid document, and that you thus have to have justices on the Supreme Court who will essentially legislate from the bench, interpreting the law as they think it should be interpreted, as opposed to how it is actually written, that justices should bring their personal feelings into the matter. :confused:
vs
The Left thus think that conservatives and libertarians have some kind of fetish for the Constitution as it was originally written, and that's that, and that the Constitution should have NO changes of any kind, that it is just to remain this rigid document, and all amendments thus ignored.
vs
The Constitution is very much a living document, as the left love to say.
vs
If slavery had been outlawed as the Democrats would have prefered, via judicial activism, then whether or not blacks could be made into slaves again would literally reside with a few people on the Court.
vs
The main reason conservatives and libertarians love the Constitution is because it places limits on what the government can do.
vs
That Salon article actually bewilders me to a degree, I mean what does the author mean, "Why do conservatives love the Constitution?" Yeah, try having a government without a constitution, see how that would work out! That's like saying, "Why do people love freedom of religion?" (Note - GB has no codified Constitution and the former Soviet Union had a rather extensive Constitution.)
vs
The other thing is, anyone ever notice how when it comes to treatment of terrorists, the Left are always ready to adhere RIGIDLY to the Constitution!? They say the Constitution applies to non-state terrorists and we need to rigidly adhere to it. They would SCREAM if a conservative went the activist route the Left normally follow and said, "Yeah, you guys are right, technically the Constitution should apply to terrorists as well, but you know what, regarding terrorism, the Constitution is an outdated document. So we'll just decide how to apply it to terrorists." (Conservatives of course do not say this, they argue that such terrorists are not to be given Constitutional liberties).
(Note - you seem confused over the many arguments from all sides of the political spectrum related to our TBD policies in regards to transnationally applying our laws - not necessarily 'Constitutional liberties' - IAW our professed ideal of the 'rule of law'...)
vs
What I mean is many on the Left have the impression that the Constitution is some rigid document that never is supposed to change, and that that is how conservatives want it to remain, so you have to have activist justices on the Court or else slavery, women not being allowed to vote, etc...would still be around.
vs
They seem unaware that the Constitution is not meant to be rigid, but that it has a provision for being changed,...
vs
Note slavery was undone via formal amendment and women having their right to vote protected was done by formal amendment, for example.
http://senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I think maybe confusion here was just with the wording...? As said above, the idea of the rigid Constitution is the way the Left see the conservatives viewing it; the ultra-right doesn't help either when you here things like, "The income tax is un-Constitutional!" (implying you ignore the amendments and just interpret it as originally written).
The way the Left think conservatives see it is wrong however, as the amendment process is used to change the Constitution, outlawing things like slavery, protecting women's rights, and so forth.
Agreed. How you form your argument makes me wonder what you believe. I think I see where you are coming from, but I disagree. Progressives, by in large, believe the constitution is a living document that was intended, from it’s inception, to be changed….even in meaning. I am not a proponent of the "living constitution". Maybe you have your own definition of what the "living constitution" is...go google that term and read up on it. From the beginning, the Constitution has had the ability to be amended, so why did it take until the early 1900's before the "living constitution" came into existence. It is using easily explainable words to push an ideology.
The whole slavery issue you cited as an example is a pragmatic view, which is a progressive argument for the “living constitution”. In fact, the amendment process took care of the slavery issue with the 13th amendment. The 14th and 15th addressed continued issues.
A better example of the living constitution is Roe v. Wade. A simple man (such as myself) can not find that Supreme Court ruling anywhere in the Constitution. I mean the words just don’t jump out at me…neither does anything in there make me go….ohhhh, now I get it. Since it is not in the constitution, the State reserves the right to decide the matter. That is in the constitution. The words literally jump off the page at you. You have to be an academic to be able to understand how the SCOTUS decided that right to be a federal issue, and a constitutional right. To better understand where the court said the verbiage exists…they tied the “right to choose” to the 14th amendment. Read thru that amendment and decide for yourself where it even comes close.
A better example of the living constitution is Roe v. Wade. A simple man (such as myself) can not find that Supreme Court ruling anywhere in the Constitution. I mean the words just don’t jump out at me…neither does anything in there make me go….ohhhh, now I get it. Since it is not in the constitution, the State reserves the right to decide the matter. That is in the constitution. The words literally jump off the page at you. You have to be an academic to be able to understand how the SCOTUS decided that right to be a federal issue, and a constitutional right. To better understand where the court said the verbiage exists…they tied the “right to choose” to the 14th amendment. Read thru that amendment and decide for yourself where it even comes close.
Exploring Constitutional Conflicts - The Right of Privacy
The Issue: Does the Constitution protect the right of privacy? If so, what aspects of privacy receive protection?
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I agree I think with what you are saying Sir; the Progressive view of a "living Constitution," they would have likely tried to undo slavery the same as legalization of abortion, through judicial activism, as opposed to formal amendment.
Not really...slavery is just a convenient vehicle to push the progressive agenda.
"See how racist the founders were? If the constitution was not "Living" (amendable) they would all still be slaves. See how racist they were?"
I dont see any sign or symptom of progressives being pro-slavery...they just trend toward big government and collective rights vice small government and individual rights.
Richard...you are spot on with the privacy issue. I am reading Andrew Napolitanos book right now, "Lies the Government Told You", which is a pretty good review of some well known (and some not known) case law decided by the SCOTUS. Almost as depressing as a Glenn Beck dissertation on the progressive destruction of the Republic. Great reading...but terribly bothersome.
6.8SPC_DUMP
05-20-2010, 00:08
I get a lot out of reading most of the members posts here Sir - particularly when well supported dissenting view points broaden the scope of discussion - but respectfully don't believe collective rights or individual rights are of high priority to the majority of our representatives today.
I'd vote for Judge Napolitano in a heart beat.
Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes (http://www.freemeninstitute.com/judge-napolitano-kiss-freedoms-goodbye-health-care-passes.html)
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights. If this health care bill becomes law, America, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it and privacy as you have enjoyed it will cease to be.
Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will vote on a 2,000 page bill to give the federal government the power to micromanage the health care of every single American. The bill will no doubt pass. It will raise your taxes, steal your freedom, invade your privacy, and ration your health care. Even the Republicans have introduced their version of Obamacare Lite. It, too, if passed, will compel employers to provide coverage, bribe the states to change their court rules, and tell insurance companies whom to insure.
We do not have two political parties in this country, America. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties. Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms. Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.
When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me "Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone's healthcare--, he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you have it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes.
America, this is not an academic issue. If this health care bill becomes law, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, privacy as you have enjoyed it, will cease to be.
When Congress takes away our freedoms, they will be gone forever. What will you do to prevent this from happening?
Something to consider for all the 'conservative' founders fans who read History - IMO - it has always been politics as usual and will always be so. Anybody ever consider the first two amendments proposed to the US Constitution and introduced by Madison but weren't added because they weren't passed by the necessary 3/4 vote by the states? Certainly no 'we the people' altruism in these proposals.
Proposed amendments not passed with Bill of Rights
Article I – Apportionment.
After the enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Article II (ratified in 1992 as Twenty-seventh Amendment) – Congressional pay raises.
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
And so it goes...
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
BrainStorm
05-20-2010, 17:50
I wonder how many of us come out the better by being remembered for the bad ideas rejected by our associates rather than the good ones accepted by them.
I wonder how many of us have a perfect record of good ideas.
It's a sad fact that many politicians are more concerned with deals than with ideals...still.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
BrainStorm
05-20-2010, 19:16
It's a sad fact that many politicians are more concerned with deals than with ideals...still.
Here we are in violent agreement.
Furthermore, politics is not bad in and of itself, but it is done badly. When they can do things "legally" that would land the rest of us in jail, there is something terribly wrong. From the moment we decided to redistribute the "surplus" federal money collected to the states rather than reduce the collection of money, we endorsed legal bribery, not just political deal making. Worse, IIRC, this started with a Republican President. Richard Nixon.
Here we are in violent agreement.
Furthermore, politics is not bad in and of itself, but it is done badly. When they can do things "legally" that would land the rest of us in jail, there is something terribly wrong. From the moment we decided to redistribute the "surplus" federal money collected to the states rather than reduce the collection of money, we endorsed legal bribery, not just political deal making. Worse, IIRC, this started with a Republican President. Richard Nixon.
The federal government taxing individuals is just plain theft. Period. Any idea where the government got their funding prior to 1913? When you have more Government...you need more money.
The scam is...political figures love power...people love free stuff. By giving people free stuff...politicians are handed more power and control by a willing populace.
Where things get a bit scary is...It will not only take a President with constitutionalist beliefs...but a senate and house that ALL want to get things under control. It is far more likely that we will see more of the same old stuff. By in large, we will be forced to pick and choose the guy/gal that will do the least damage.
The federal government taxing individuals is just plain theft. Period. Any idea where the government got their funding prior to 1913?
Federal revenue was a key concern for Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay (the authors of the federalist Papers), and an important issue of discussion in their critique of the Articles and their defense of the Constitution. At various points, they expounded on the efficacy and fairness of consumption taxes, specifically customs duties. They insisted, however, that the federal government be granted unlimited taxing powers, including the authority to assess domestic excise taxes. Debates over "direct" vs. "indirect" taxation received considerable attention, as did the constitutional requirement for tax uniformity.
Of the 85 essays published as the Federalist Papers, Federalist numbers 12, 21, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 offer in-depth discussions on taxation.
If anyone is interested in a History of taxation in the USA, the Tax History Project offers a good perspective on it all.
1777-1815 http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/THM1777?OpenDocument
1816-1860 http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/THM1816?OpenDocument
1861-1865 http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/THM1861?OpenDocument
1866-1900 http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/THM1866?OpenDocument
1901-1932 http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/THM1901?OpenDocument
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Richard,
Ask...and you shall receive, huh? Read thru the links and saw Tarrifs and excise taxes were the bulk of federal revenue. Although, I will admit, there was an "income tax" during and immediately after the civil war.
It's still criminal, albeit legal, to drain citizens of the fruits of their labor to pay for programs for others. Sure, I have the same opportunity to enjoy some of them...but I do without most of them and am no worse for the wear.
If Social Security, welfare, medicare/medicaid, the TVA, IRS, Board of Education, ATF, and a dozen other programs and agencies just went away...what do you think would happen? Chaos like in Greece...or something else? How much would the government then need to operate?
I'd vote for Judge Napolitano in a heart beat.
I suggest you read his book. You might change your mind. Some of his views run contrary to what you might think they would. How about unrestricted use of narcotics? I have heard him on Fox....and much of his views make total sense. We have all been indoctrinated to some extent, so it is VERY difficult to look at some issues in the light of what the constitution actually says.
Think you know the right to a fair trial? Check out RICO statutes. Guilt and inncocence don't necessarily depend on a reasonable doubt...but preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) which is waaaaaaaaay easier to prove.
Anyway...the book is Lies the Government Told You...I'll wager you don't think of him the same way when you are done.
GratefulCitizen
05-21-2010, 19:01
I suggest you read his book. You might change your mind. Some of his views run contrary to what you might think they would. How about unrestricted use of narcotics? I have heard him on Fox....and much of his views make total sense. We have all been indoctrinated to some extent, so it is VERY difficult to look at some issues in the light of what the constitution actually says.
Think you know the right to a fair trial? Check out RICO statutes. Guilt and inncocence don't necessarily depend on a reasonable doubt...but preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) which is waaaaaaaaay easier to prove.
Anyway...the book is Lies the Government Told You...I'll wager you don't think of him the same way when you are done.
Have read a couple of his books.
He has some good insights.
He's made some blunders before on Fox.
Incorrectly stated that there was a "duty to retreat" in a self-defense situation.
The state where the incident happened had no such requirement.
**
Don't see unrestricted use of narcotics as a problem, so long as people are allowed to reap what they have sown.
If people insist on poisoning themselves and dying in the gutter, let them.
People should be free to make poor choices.
The war on drugs just takes money from me in order to get into a de facto bidding war with domestic drug users.
I don't use drugs.
Why should my money be used in a bidding war?
Have read a couple of his books.
He has some good insights.
He's made some blunders before on Fox.
Incorrectly stated that there was a "duty to retreat" in a self-defense situation.
The state where the incident happened had no such requirement.
**
Don't see unrestricted use of narcotics as a problem, so long as people are allowed to reap what they have sown.
If people insist on poisoning themselves and dying in the gutter, let them.
People should be free to make poor choices.
The war on drugs just takes money from me in order to get into a de facto bidding war with domestic drug users.
I don't use drugs.
Why should my money be used in a bidding war?
I'll just say that after reading his book, I see him a bit differently than before. He does make good points (sometimes downright AWESOME points), but there were definitely some WTF moments in his book. I don't want to give away the really controvercial stuff...narcotics use was not a very stunning revelation...just one that is not very "mainstream".
6.8SPC_DUMP
05-22-2010, 04:30
I suggest you read his book. You might change your mind. Some of his views run contrary to what you might think they would. How about unrestricted use of narcotics? I have heard him on Fox....and much of his views make total sense. We have all been indoctrinated to some extent, so it is VERY difficult to look at some issues in the light of what the constitution actually says.
Think you know the right to a fair trial? Check out RICO statutes. Guilt and inncocence don't necessarily depend on a reasonable doubt...but preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) which is waaaaaaaaay easier to prove.
Anyway...the book is Lies the Government Told You...I'll wager you don't think of him the same way when you are done.
You may be correct Sir.
If it turns out that he was running his election campaign on many of the exact opposite platforms of his pre-planed agenda once in office: I'd be the sucker or maybe it would be the "lesser of two evils".
That some major bills/laws are written by the lobbyists of the industry that the regulation applys to makes it hard to be happy w/ any POTUS IMHO. Allowing Bill's to cover many unrelated topics makes the whole system flawed even if our Reps bother to read them.
More people know the name of a hooker Eliot Spitzer saw than the jist of his financial regulation testimony, or that he was the #1 financial watch dog of ANY Governor at the time, via his New York State Attorney General experience. There are more than a couple people knowledgeable of the industry that doubt this story would have ever come out if this wasn't the case.
If we paid Politicians a damn good amount (w/ a damn good pension), eliminating no-bid contracts entirely, along with not letting them profit from private enterprises after they leave office: we might be happier with our representatives. And don't allow them to be pardoned if they break these rules.
They arguably have the most important and hardest non-millitary jobs in America and some want to save money on them when they are in the position to be bribed more than anyone???
Regaurding prosecution standards like RICO: a razor smart individual might wonder why stick your neck out farther than needed when talking politics, but when I was in a poli sci class parroting arguments for the Iraq war - others my age were training to GO. I had domestic obligations that factored into not enlisting, but if those who did can get blown apart for trying to help their country, what makes me any better? Particularly, if it's by your own people (not foreigners) many of whom you look up to, blindly or not.
I e-mailed a picture of my junk to the IP I use here, thinking someone was snooping, but then the SOB's indicted me on charges of kiddie porn. :D
I'm torn on drug laws but agree with GratefulCitizen aside from PCP and Meth. Someone is always going to profit from the drug trade and the only question is who and how.
I know of some extremely efficient white collar professionals who smoke pot sometimes. There have been many brilliant "functional alcoholics". Rush Limbaugh's pill popping habit would have OD'ed some people and he did his job. I'm not one of those people, but I don't consider it my business what drugs people take, I care about crimes against others. Jail time for use alone is crazy to me.
I don't think that any types of drugs should be allowed to be advertised (including the ones Dr's prescribe). Perticularly Dr.'s who make veiled insults about my parents online. ;)
Thanks for your posts on here QP Don - you have a lot to add.
ETA: I don't think I'd make a good politician.
Such is life in America the Land of Surplus - where we have a surplus of food, a surplus of manufactured goods, and a surplus of people with no experience who think they know how to run a government. :D
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
6.8SPC_DUMP
05-22-2010, 17:03
FWIW there’s plenty I don’t like about myself either. I’d improve most everything I’ve done in the past – even the successes. I’ve flat out failed at plenty and don’t take it lightly.
But regardless of what anybody thinks I trust the rare strong gut instincts to compensate for the many unknowns.
However miserably I fail here it will never be from the defeatist attitude of thinking improvements can’t possibly be made in matters of importance – in this case our countries political workings.
For someone who has accomplished a great deal in their life it’s a shame that’s the way you feel – or at least the message you are sending here.
My gut tells me it’s not how you achieved what you have or inspired others in the past.
Gluck auf and good luck.
I think it was Socrates who once said that government is the one profession where people with no knowledge of any of the issues will think they are fully qualified.
Socrates on government - yet another example of an opinion being offered by someone with no actual experience in the area of which he speaks.
For someone who has accomplished a great deal in their life it’s a shame that’s the way you feel – or at least the message you are sending here.
I think you have failed to read your own posts and have misread mine - ever watched the movie The Patriot? ;)
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Exactly.
Note: remember, the use of pink text by many in these forums denotes sarcasm/humor. ;)
Richard