Our Constitutional Protection, Going, Going, Gone?
In preface I would like to explain my definition of a few terms often misinterpreted:
The left, or far left - This relatively small, but noisy and very activist group includes mostly old Marxists, radical socialists, fascists, communists and all who are caught in the antiquated, often evil and always unworkable ideas of government as the best answer to every problem. All of this is merely the feudalism of the middle ages dressed up in new garb and with bigger units of control. They want the entire world, no exceptions. Their counterparts on the right include the extreme religious right. Both are fundamentalists and would impose their will by force if necessary. Each views everyone outside of their tiny group as being part of their opposite group. Like any group of “believers” they can be rabid and violent.
Liberal (noun) - a label generally attached to those who are to the left side of the political spectrum. A much larger segment of the public than either lunatic fringe, They are mostly civil and accept far more variation in plans and purpose than the far left. Unfortunately, they seem to be unduly influenced by the lunatic fringe of the far left. The hate rhetoric of the far left seems to be influencing them unduly. In spite of rabid protestations against the evils of religion and capitalism, most “liberals” respect religious beliefs and offer some support to capitalism. They tend to want government to solve all problems.
Liberal (verb) - free and generous, tolerant of different ideas and concepts; broad minded, democratic or republican forms of government (representative) as opposed to monarchies, aristocracies or dictatorships, favoring reform or progress.
Centrist - One who sits politically somewhere in between liberal and conservative. Sometimes they seem not to have an opinion, but vacillate from one side to the other, “as the wind blows.” They frequently will follow the polls rather than any ideology.
Conservative (noun) - a label generally attached to those who are to the right side of the political spectrum. A much larger segment of the public than either lunatic fringe, They are mostly civil and accept far more variation in plans and purpose than the far right. Unfortunately, they may be unduly influenced by the lunatic fringe of the far right. In spite of rabid protestations against the evils of atheism and socialism, most “conservatives” respect all religious beliefs and some limited government programs. They give the bulk of their support to capitalism. They tend to want problems solved by individual initiative in a free enterprise system rather than government.
Conservative (verb) - Certainly different than, but not the opposite of “liberal.” Conserving or tending to conserve things and ideas as they are. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Tending to oppose changes, to keep traditions and institutions in place. Environmentalists are those who would “conserve” the environment. In spite of being “conservative” on the environment, environmentalists tend to be in the liberal political camp.
Radical - person or action far from the norm or average in any direction. Idea, action or person vastly different from those generally or loosely accepted.
Religious right - Actually a very small minority with rather extreme views based on their religious views, usually fundamentalists. These are Christians in the Americas, Europe and often Muslims in the rest of the world. They want the entire world, no exceptions. Their counterparts on the left include the extreme atheist left. Both are fundamentalists and would impose their will by force if necessary. Each views everyone outside of their tiny group as being part of their opposite group. Like any group of “believers” they can be rabid and violent.
Political parties are not defined as they usually include pressure groups with varying agendas and opinions. While the range of the above definitions can often be found in both American political parties, Republicans tend more to be more to the right side while Democrats tend more to the left. Both lunatic fringes tend to exert more than their proper share of influence. While the far left seems virtually in control of the Democrat party. The influence of the far right on Republicans has waned considerably in recent years.
End of preface and definitions, start of essay.
Why is it so many on the left believe that any person, word or concept that doesn’t agree precisely with their “holy” and “sacrosanct” opinions is inherently passé, evil, or driven by the agenda of the evil religious right? Why is it they have the right to act on the belief that killing a baby in a mother’s womb for the mother’s convenience is acceptable while those whose beliefs are different and who believe that doing so is evil, do not have a right to act on their beliefs? Why is it they have the right to ban any and all religious symbols and words from virtually every public venue and so impose the religion of secular humanism or atheism on us as the state religion of America in direct defiance of the first amendment which strictly forbids it?
When will the left, send the ACLU to demand that all the statuary, building decorations, monuments and printed word depicting Judeo-Christian law and history that was the foundation of our nation be demolished or otherwise removed from all public places? Certainly the visage of Moses holding the ten commandments is far more damaging and offensive to the psyche of an atheist than a Christmas carol or the greeting, “Merry Christmas” is to an atheist child in a public school. These type of actions orchestrated by the left and forced on an intimidated public by the ACLU and idiotic judges certainly sound exactly like the efforts of the Taliban in Afghanistan, particularly when they blew up those Buddhist statues. If this is not the evils of dictatorship then Hitler was a benign ruler.
For 200 years our Constitution has worked to protect the people from vicious, dictatorial practices of government. That is precisely what the framers intended and it succeeded for a time. Now the Left seeks to remove those protections, not by law and representative amendment as proscribed in that Constitution, but by judicial decisions and opinions in which the people have no say whatsoever. If that is not dictatorship and denial of representative democracy then there has never been a dictator on the face of this earth.
_____________________________________________________
An example of one member of the judiciary, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who is not protecting our Constitution but seems to want to subvert it to foreign laws follows:
About those Foreign Laws by: Robert Morrison
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has come in for a knuckle-rapping from, of all people, the editorial writers of The Washington Post. That's a bit like L'Osservatore Romano criticizing the Pope.
The Post's editors found Justice Ginsburg's speech in South Africa out of line. Apparently, she not only has the wrong ideas about incorporating foreign laws into her Supreme Court opinions, she is also exporting her errors. She started off titling her speech "A Decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind." She took her title from the majestic opening lines of the Declaration of Independence, but she couldn't resist improving on Mr. Jefferson's prose. Justice Ginsburg: Surely you must know that "mankind" to the Founders included women; it meant humankind.
From that unpromising start, it got worse. Had she read a little further, she might have stumbled upon some phrases like "endowed by their Creator," "certain inalienable rights," and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." She might also have noticed that it was a declaration of independence they had approved.
Justice Ginsburg distinguished her views of constitutional interpretation with those of the "frozen in time" old fogeys like Justice Antonin Scalia. As she proudly noted, she saw the Constitution as belonging to "a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings." Who'd have thought Ginsburg would actually come out in favor of constitutional global warming?
Of course, Justice Scalia does not think the Constitution is frozen in the 18th century. He recently praised the 20th century amendment that gave women the vote. The Nineteenth Amendment was delayed some fifty years by the opposition of congressional Democrats. Would Justice Ginsburg respect it less if it had been passed in 1870? Or in 1790? Scalia told a New Hampshire audience he had to question the label "moderate" when it comes to constitutional interpretation. What is that? Halfway between what the Constitution says and what you want it to say?
Ginsburg told her South Africa audience that under her more fluid interpretation, "every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Indeed they can. By amending the Constitution. Suffragettes labored for a century to win the right to vote for women. It should not have taken so long, but by the time the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, no one questioned the right of women to vote. Nor has anyone seriously questioned it since.
Justice Ginsburg herself has argued that Roe v. Wade "short-circuited" a process of abortion law liberalization. No small part of the opposition to Roe comes from the deeply held conviction of millions that it was illegitimately thrust upon us. The Roe court overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states. The editors of The Post took Justice Ginsburg to task for her attacks on congressional critics who deplore her selective use of foreign law. The editors said it was wrong for her to charge her critics with inciting a dangerous "fringe" that threatened the lives of Supreme Court Justices.
Here's a thought, though. Maybe we should tell those would-be assassins that killing judges is morally wrong. Maybe we can persuade them by posting some Commandments in our schools and public buildings. "Thou shalt not kill" would be a good start. And we might even get Justice Ginsburg to approve. Let's tell her they came from Mount Sinai and they're foreign law.
For more on the same and similar subjects select from the following:
“Is the United States Becoming an Atheocracy?” Click Here!
“The Myth of the Separation of Church and State” Click Here!
“The Feudals - Are the Dark Ages of Medieval Times returning?” Click Here!
“Attack Dogs and Political Bitches.” Click Here!
The left, or far left - This relatively small, but noisy and very activist group includes mostly old Marxists, radical socialists, fascists, communists and all who are caught in the antiquated, often evil and always unworkable ideas of government as the best answer to every problem. All of this is merely the feudalism of the middle ages dressed up in new garb and with bigger units of control. They want the entire world, no exceptions. Their counterparts on the right include the extreme religious right. Both are fundamentalists and would impose their will by force if necessary. Each views everyone outside of their tiny group as being part of their opposite group. Like any group of “believers” they can be rabid and violent.
Liberal (noun) - a label generally attached to those who are to the left side of the political spectrum. A much larger segment of the public than either lunatic fringe, They are mostly civil and accept far more variation in plans and purpose than the far left. Unfortunately, they seem to be unduly influenced by the lunatic fringe of the far left. The hate rhetoric of the far left seems to be influencing them unduly. In spite of rabid protestations against the evils of religion and capitalism, most “liberals” respect religious beliefs and offer some support to capitalism. They tend to want government to solve all problems.
Liberal (verb) - free and generous, tolerant of different ideas and concepts; broad minded, democratic or republican forms of government (representative) as opposed to monarchies, aristocracies or dictatorships, favoring reform or progress.
Centrist - One who sits politically somewhere in between liberal and conservative. Sometimes they seem not to have an opinion, but vacillate from one side to the other, “as the wind blows.” They frequently will follow the polls rather than any ideology.
Conservative (noun) - a label generally attached to those who are to the right side of the political spectrum. A much larger segment of the public than either lunatic fringe, They are mostly civil and accept far more variation in plans and purpose than the far right. Unfortunately, they may be unduly influenced by the lunatic fringe of the far right. In spite of rabid protestations against the evils of atheism and socialism, most “conservatives” respect all religious beliefs and some limited government programs. They give the bulk of their support to capitalism. They tend to want problems solved by individual initiative in a free enterprise system rather than government.
Conservative (verb) - Certainly different than, but not the opposite of “liberal.” Conserving or tending to conserve things and ideas as they are. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Tending to oppose changes, to keep traditions and institutions in place. Environmentalists are those who would “conserve” the environment. In spite of being “conservative” on the environment, environmentalists tend to be in the liberal political camp.
Radical - person or action far from the norm or average in any direction. Idea, action or person vastly different from those generally or loosely accepted.
Religious right - Actually a very small minority with rather extreme views based on their religious views, usually fundamentalists. These are Christians in the Americas, Europe and often Muslims in the rest of the world. They want the entire world, no exceptions. Their counterparts on the left include the extreme atheist left. Both are fundamentalists and would impose their will by force if necessary. Each views everyone outside of their tiny group as being part of their opposite group. Like any group of “believers” they can be rabid and violent.
Political parties are not defined as they usually include pressure groups with varying agendas and opinions. While the range of the above definitions can often be found in both American political parties, Republicans tend more to be more to the right side while Democrats tend more to the left. Both lunatic fringes tend to exert more than their proper share of influence. While the far left seems virtually in control of the Democrat party. The influence of the far right on Republicans has waned considerably in recent years.
End of preface and definitions, start of essay.
Why is it so many on the left believe that any person, word or concept that doesn’t agree precisely with their “holy” and “sacrosanct” opinions is inherently passé, evil, or driven by the agenda of the evil religious right? Why is it they have the right to act on the belief that killing a baby in a mother’s womb for the mother’s convenience is acceptable while those whose beliefs are different and who believe that doing so is evil, do not have a right to act on their beliefs? Why is it they have the right to ban any and all religious symbols and words from virtually every public venue and so impose the religion of secular humanism or atheism on us as the state religion of America in direct defiance of the first amendment which strictly forbids it?
When will the left, send the ACLU to demand that all the statuary, building decorations, monuments and printed word depicting Judeo-Christian law and history that was the foundation of our nation be demolished or otherwise removed from all public places? Certainly the visage of Moses holding the ten commandments is far more damaging and offensive to the psyche of an atheist than a Christmas carol or the greeting, “Merry Christmas” is to an atheist child in a public school. These type of actions orchestrated by the left and forced on an intimidated public by the ACLU and idiotic judges certainly sound exactly like the efforts of the Taliban in Afghanistan, particularly when they blew up those Buddhist statues. If this is not the evils of dictatorship then Hitler was a benign ruler.
For 200 years our Constitution has worked to protect the people from vicious, dictatorial practices of government. That is precisely what the framers intended and it succeeded for a time. Now the Left seeks to remove those protections, not by law and representative amendment as proscribed in that Constitution, but by judicial decisions and opinions in which the people have no say whatsoever. If that is not dictatorship and denial of representative democracy then there has never been a dictator on the face of this earth.
_____________________________________________________
An example of one member of the judiciary, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who is not protecting our Constitution but seems to want to subvert it to foreign laws follows:
About those Foreign Laws by: Robert Morrison
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has come in for a knuckle-rapping from, of all people, the editorial writers of The Washington Post. That's a bit like L'Osservatore Romano criticizing the Pope.
The Post's editors found Justice Ginsburg's speech in South Africa out of line. Apparently, she not only has the wrong ideas about incorporating foreign laws into her Supreme Court opinions, she is also exporting her errors. She started off titling her speech "A Decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind." She took her title from the majestic opening lines of the Declaration of Independence, but she couldn't resist improving on Mr. Jefferson's prose. Justice Ginsburg: Surely you must know that "mankind" to the Founders included women; it meant humankind.
From that unpromising start, it got worse. Had she read a little further, she might have stumbled upon some phrases like "endowed by their Creator," "certain inalienable rights," and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." She might also have noticed that it was a declaration of independence they had approved.
Justice Ginsburg distinguished her views of constitutional interpretation with those of the "frozen in time" old fogeys like Justice Antonin Scalia. As she proudly noted, she saw the Constitution as belonging to "a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings." Who'd have thought Ginsburg would actually come out in favor of constitutional global warming?
Of course, Justice Scalia does not think the Constitution is frozen in the 18th century. He recently praised the 20th century amendment that gave women the vote. The Nineteenth Amendment was delayed some fifty years by the opposition of congressional Democrats. Would Justice Ginsburg respect it less if it had been passed in 1870? Or in 1790? Scalia told a New Hampshire audience he had to question the label "moderate" when it comes to constitutional interpretation. What is that? Halfway between what the Constitution says and what you want it to say?
Ginsburg told her South Africa audience that under her more fluid interpretation, "every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Indeed they can. By amending the Constitution. Suffragettes labored for a century to win the right to vote for women. It should not have taken so long, but by the time the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, no one questioned the right of women to vote. Nor has anyone seriously questioned it since.
Justice Ginsburg herself has argued that Roe v. Wade "short-circuited" a process of abortion law liberalization. No small part of the opposition to Roe comes from the deeply held conviction of millions that it was illegitimately thrust upon us. The Roe court overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states. The editors of The Post took Justice Ginsburg to task for her attacks on congressional critics who deplore her selective use of foreign law. The editors said it was wrong for her to charge her critics with inciting a dangerous "fringe" that threatened the lives of Supreme Court Justices.
Here's a thought, though. Maybe we should tell those would-be assassins that killing judges is morally wrong. Maybe we can persuade them by posting some Commandments in our schools and public buildings. "Thou shalt not kill" would be a good start. And we might even get Justice Ginsburg to approve. Let's tell her they came from Mount Sinai and they're foreign law.
For more on the same and similar subjects select from the following:
“Is the United States Becoming an Atheocracy?” Click Here!
“The Myth of the Separation of Church and State” Click Here!
“The Feudals - Are the Dark Ages of Medieval Times returning?” Click Here!
“Attack Dogs and Political Bitches.” Click Here!
posted by HoJo | 10:34 AM
|
0 comments
