Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Two from the American Thinker

Stella Paul is relatively new to American Thinker, but she is promoting her work and I want to help out by flagging Mission Accomplished: Obama gets Americans killed to Kill the Constitution in yesterday's American Thinker. Of course she is talking about both the Fast and Furious scandal, a scandal which remains unresolved, but we know the outlines of the story. Under the ATF, the regime sent thousands of guns, purchased by straw buyers, into Mexico and to drug lords, where they used them to kill hundreds of Mexicans, as well as Border Agent Brian Terry. The regime had been spouting the lie that 90% of guns in Mexico came from U.S. gun shops. When Darryl Issa's Oversight and Government Reform committee started investigating, and the facts came out, it became clear that Fast and Furious was a program designed to bully Americans into accepting more infringement of their Second Amendment rights. She is also talking about the Benghazi scandal, in which the regime lied to the American people for two weeks that four Americans were killed at our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya because of an unknown film trailer that up to that point had been seen by perhaps a dozen people.  It became clear that the regime also wanted us to give up our First Amendment rights as well, perhaps as a way to stop the lawsuits currently being raised by the Catholic Church on freedom of religion grounds.  Or just to get blogs like this one to shut up.

In fairness to the regime, the Constitution has been dying a slow death of a thousand cuts for a century or more.  As Thomas Wood noted in the book Who Killed the Constitution, we all have in some ways killed the Constitution by not paying attention, and by letting lawyers get away with high sounding phrases that mean very little, but allow them to impose their own meanings on them later.  A "Living Constitution" sounds so grand, and it is if understood in its proper context, its true.  If, after going back to look at the original intent of what was written, we find a truly unique case, then We the People have the right to amend the Constitution to remedy the situation.  But we have allowed nine men in black robes to "interpret" our Constitution into many times saying things the Founders did not intend.  In the process, they have used emanations and penumbras, and the evolving standards of society as excuses, even foreign laws.  But at heart, these are nothing more than a way to achieve the Justices' idea of what should be rather than what is.  Even worse, we have elevated precedents to the status of being greater than the Constitution itself, even wrongly decided precedents.  Worse still, the longer a precedent stands, the more reverently it is held by judges to be true, even though the Constitution itself is the oldest precedent, and had the widest approval.  The Constitution, and each of its amendments were decided by two thirds of each house of Congress, and by three fourths of the States, surely a larger number than nine men and women.

But Stella Paul's title none the less carries a great deal of truth.  This lawless regime knows nothing sacred, except raw power.

Which brings us to Daren Jonescu's piece in yesterday's American Thinker entitled Would Obama Incite Civil Unrest to Win?. It is a question I have been asking myself for months.  You can read Jonescu's article for yourself, and make up your own mind.  I believe Obama is a Marxist of some variety, ether Communist or Fascist, and Marxists have been using unrest, protests, propaganda, and lies since their founding to get their way.  They can not stand on the truth, for if we knew the truth, we would never vote for them.  They can not simply debate the issue, but they must make of their debate opponent who sees things differently the enemy.  Opposing abortion on demand as murder or not wanting to pay for contraception out of tax dollars means you must hate women.  Opposing anything Obama endorses means you are a racist.  Oppose gay marriage and you hate all gays and want to see them dead.  Insisting on having a weapon for your protection, and as a means to defend your family and property in a disaster means you are an insurrectionist.  Enough, I grow weary of this stuff.  Let's have some peace for a change.       

No comments:

Post a Comment