I came of age in the 1960s. The country was still fresh off the McCarthy Era, during which Senator Joseph McCarthy (R Wis) attempted to publicize to the American people the fact that a number of high ranking employees of the State Department were card carrying members of the Communist party, and that the Communists took orders from Communist Russia. Clearly, these State Department employees were compromised by a conflict of interest. Do their loyalties lie with the Constitution, or with their Communist masters? As the Left always does, they attempted to muddy the waters by bringing forth the fact that a number of private citizens were also members of the Communist party. To be clear, there is nothing wrong or illegal about private citizens being Communist, although as I am about to explain, I question Communists patriotism.
The Left, which includes an assortment of various philosophies including Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Fascism, Marxism, as well as the many advocates of various Critical Theories, and which I will lump under the umbrella of Collectivist, used the muddied waters to claim that somehow McCarthy was wrong. He wasn't. Then as now, the press, the Democrats, the Hollywood establishment, and others in essence "cancelled" McCarthy and convinced most Americans that he was wrong.
The Founders' idea was that "the people" was a group of individuals each with his or her own interests, achievements, and religion and other unique attributes. They wrote a frame work, called the Constitution of the United States of America to allow for the peaceful working out of these individual interests. First, they divided up the power into a bicameral Congress, an independent Judiciary, and a relatively strong Executive. They even made the two Houses of Congress different. The Representatives would be elected by popular vote. The Senators would be selected by the states. Then they limited the power that the Federal government could exercise over the American people, leaving the rest of the power to the individual States.
Note: there are many areas of business for which the Federal government has never been authorized. Healthcare, Social Security, education, are some of the things not included in the powers delegated to the Fed. The Supreme court does not escape notice here either for acting, or failing to act to protect the Constitution. And while a strong and energetic Executive was contemplated, the Congress has delegated far too much power to the President, allowing him to create laws through Executive agencies such that no one can truly understand the law, much less obey it.
The people wishing to have the new Constitution ratified were know as Federalists. Those that were leery of ever having so much power invested in government were known then as the Antifederalists. In order to achieve ratification, the Antifederalists wanted a Bill of Rights to make explicit the rights acknowledged in the new Constitution. Note that the Constitution does not grant rights,. Rather rights are granted by our Creator. The Constitution acknowledges these rights.
The rights belong to each of us, and include freedom to practice our religion as we deem correct, freedom of speech, of the press, and other rights such as the right to a trial by jury of your peers. Then they also acknowledged that we each have a right to keep and bear arms. And since the arms are also intended to be used in the event of war, we are entitled to keep and bear the arms that a soldier keeps and bears. Thus, we should be allowed to own and use fully automatic arms like the M16 or the M4. This may shock gentle readers, but the idea that "weapons of war do not belong on American streets" is totally false. We should have them on our streets. It is not the possession of such arms that is the problem, but rather the misuse of them by a small percentage.
By contrast, collectivists do not believe in individual rights, but group rights. At various times in history, they have advocated for various classes of people such as "workers" as opposed to "capitalists," or blacks as a class as opposed to supposed "white supremacists." According to the collectivists philosophy, a person who happens to be black must have the interests deemed to be those of a member of a class known as "black", and must vote those interests.
Here's the problem with the notion of group rights: Who decides what is a group right? I have a friend who is a retired Army Military Police officer, who works two jobs, one of which is armed security for businesses. He is married to the same woman for 30 plus years. He, obviously doesn't use drugs. Now, what interests does my friend have in common with, oh...say...George Floyd? The least important on, how he looks. But his character is more in line with other normal Americans. How can anyone define the interests of a class like being black? And the same is true for each of the other identities and the countless genders the Left promotes. Their "classes" are based on greed, envy and revenge against the successful. They appeal to peoples emotions to gain votes. And votes in turn translate into power. And power is the real point of the upheaval imposed on society by collectivist philosophies.
As an individual, my interests intersect with many people. But I am not defined by any of them. My ancestors came from Northern Europe. My neighbor hunts with guns, while I use guns for different purposes. I am a Lutheran Christian, married, a father and grandfather. I am, in other words, a class of one. And in truth, every other individual turns out to be a class of one as well. This was the central premise upon which the Founders built a successful, prosperous nation.
So, while being a collectivists of one or another stripe is not illegal, the fact is that collectivism and the Constitution are diametrically opposed ideas for governing the country. And since, up until now the Constitution was the way our nation was founded, and since every officer of that government from the lowliest Army private to the people elected to Congress, the Senate, or to the Presidency have all taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, it is collectivists who are committing treason in pushing their collectivist ideas.
Every time a Congress person suggests kicking another out of Congress because of what they have said or believe, that Congress person at the very least commits sedition. Remember one of the rights embodied on our First Amendment is freedom of speech. If one Congressman disagrees with another, their disagreement should be debated in public, and allow voters to decide who is correct. Yes, of course if someone's ideas truly offend the Constitution, that Congressman can be censured. But this should be rarely used, and the offense should be against the Constitution, not against the individual's personal sensibilities. Kicking people out, or cancelling them is the stuff of kindergarten, no mature statesmen.
Every time a member of Congress proposes a bill that limits in any way our right to keep and bear arms they are committing treason. Sound harsh? Sorry, but it is true. The only way that Congress should be regulating arms is in connection with their military utility.
Similarly, the entire cancel culture project is as Un-American as...well...kimchi or sushi. Ideas that can stand up to a fair debate (and no, those presidential so called "debates" are not true debates) will in time prove to be the ones that survives. Of course, because greed, envy, and other evils are a part of human nature, collectivism will always be a temptation. And, because collectivism always awaits, tyranny, which always accompanies collectivism, is also waiting in the wings.
So, as the Left takes the levers of power in this country, patriots must be unafraid to call out their treasonous and seditious behavior. And we must call out Un-American behaviors as well (Jack Dorsey, I am looking at you.) We used to say that while I may disagree with what you say, I would defend your right to say it. Now it seems that if I disagree with you, I should cancel you. Frankly, this seems like another new rule the Left is imposing, that they won't like when it comes back on them.
Update: At the American Thinker today, Jeffrey Folks has an article entitled Our Mounting Orwellian Nightmare where he discusses the current state of culture in the U. S. He doesn't call it treason, but perhaps he should.
Update 2: At the Epoch Times isan interview with Dennis Prager entitled Reichstag Fire. You will need an hour or so.
No comments:
Post a Comment