Have we lost the battle to save the Constitution?
Perhaps the question should be “Have we lost the battle to save the Constitution and our Republic?”
Well not yet but time is running dangerously close. The progressives are doing everything they can muster to offer the blueprint to use as the framework for a new constitution and as well push America to a socialist country.
Each of us already know this. I felt a need to write this down out of frustration a way out of the personal to share the pain I feel. To bare the pain is just too much for anyone of us to carry alone.
We all know we must fight the good fight.
Fear the following
Books available at Amazon or Google Books:
Me (We) the People: An Order to Form a More Perfect Union by Kevin Bleyer. Jon Stewart says “I would rather read a Constitution written by Kevin Bleyer than by the best sharpest minds in the country.”
A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country, by Larry J. Sabato
The Introduction, in my opinion, demonstrates utter disdain for all conservative who fiercely holds on to the Constitution. You see we conservatives have a “blind deference to the past”. They further state “The conservative narrative that presents a constitutional restoration a dogmatic obedience to the founders’ expectations disguises normative judgement and accountability.” Do you see that in this last statement the progressive has couched us as ‘dogmatic’ as if the progressives dogma being not dogmatic, is preferable to the beliefs of conservatives.
Constitution in 2020 is an example, an eye-opener, of intentions of the progressive written in stone tablets. It is a work that does not respect the conservative point of view. We conservatives are the old farts who fiercely hold on to what the founders left to this nation. We live from the past and thus not forward thinkers. To these progressives we conservatives are dinosaurs and therefore we should be extinct.
You can read the Introduction for yourself my dear Patriots by going to Amazon and searching for the book and then choose to take a look inside. Warning it may cause you to lose your cookies. Even if they had any good points to make in the book the fact the Introduction gives one a gag reaction it has the effect of discouraging most conservatives from reading.
The author of the Introduction message is directed to fellow progressives. If you page through the Table of Contents it will inform you of their subject intentions, I think it is propaganda. Someday if they offer a pared down version for .99 cents I might read more of what they have to say for no other reason to be prepared for more of what lies ahead.
The self righteous progressive in their thinking we conservatives are out of touch with the so called advancement in the world today the progressive is using words, labels to turn the table on Patriots. Its a brainwash pure and simple to their agenda. Make no mistake their agenda is not lost on the Corporatocracy. The world nations are watching to see if America will give away its Republic.
The progressive think we conservatives know nothing of our history and worse we are incapable of its understanding. Only the progressive is intelligent enough to its interpretation.
The progressives believe it their duty to do more than acknowledge the sins in America’s past but as progressives they must always be on their knees begging for forgiveness.
I honestly believe the progressive goal is to impose a collective conscience dictated by the state. It is one that allows no deviation, no opinions of ones own. In other words we must be a vanilla society of swarming bees whose goals are only to attend to the dictatorial tyrants of a socialist America and to the emerging one world socialist governance.
Fear the agenda of Barack Obama for he is a major vehicle for the progressive agenda. He is the vehicle of bringing more socialism to the United States. I know the Patriot knows this. He [Obama] was a victory for the progressives. Obama has done more to destroy the bastion of hope the Patriot staked their trust in and that was the Republican Party.
I say to you that there is a hell of a lot of difference between the Republican Party and Constitutional Republicans. I will stick my neck out and say we conservatives need to back candidates that wear liberty and freedom on their chest and carry the Constitution in their pocket even though they may have the scent of being Libertarian. We conservatives being constantly disappointed, betrayed by the elected republican can use a dose of realism in thought. We might instead consider a different pool to choose from. Just a thought.
Ron Paul, bless his heart, was successful at raising the Constitution and as well liberty to the last presidential debate but it was soon forgotten by most, not all . The cowards of the Grand Old Party who have spent too many years in office are for self. It is about holding on to their own greed and power and not doing right by America and her children.
Just think about it Patriots, this is a way of making your voice heard, it is a way of fighting back even if it means losing another presidential election. Do not give the progressive a mandate for their agenda. Fight like hell to elevate a liberty loving unabashed constitutionalist candidate to the forefront and do all that is in your power to get that candidate elected.
The progressive is close to dominating in Congress so much so that many Republicans vote for liberty busting legislation and out of desperation to save the Grand Old Party (read their sorry asses) they vote many times to move the progressive agenda along. Not all the time but enough to turn your stomach.
The Republic form of government is slipping away.
A quick aside
I recently signed up for an online class named “Democratic Development”. This online course is available to millions across the globe. While admittedly it is not all bad it reeks of progressiveness and politically correctness. It also has the smell of western government’s agenda to seed and mold the rest of the world to a path of socialism and progressive thought. It is a path offered to them to participate in establishing a democracy in their homeland. To date this course has not talked about the good that a Republic form of government could bring to their homeland. The course originates from Stanford University.
When the delegates left the convention, A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” What Franklin meant it was not a democracy, not a democratic republic. But “a Republic, See also: “A Republic, if You Can Keep It” from the New American.
Many of the founders feared a “democracy” and some said so in the Federalist papers.
There is no, notta “true democracy” in the world. What then is the fear say of writing a new constitution that would as some say take us through the 21st century and beyond. Obviously, I think, there is a damn lot to fear. I fear that a ‘true democracy’ would emerge, a democracy that is driven by the progressives, the academician progressives, signed on to by misguided liberals and a constitution that would move us officially to a socialist country and most likely a state of fascism. The turmoil that would ensue would require that a tyrannical government be in control and a leader of this type of government would eventually have to become one the likes of Stalin.
James Madison in Federalist No. 10 said “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
Among other notable Founders who feared a democracy instead of a Republic:
- Virginia’s Edmund Randolph participated in the 1787 convention. Demonstrating a clear grasp of democracy’s inherent dangers, he reminded his colleagues during the early weeks of the Constitutional Convention that the purpose for which they had gathered was “to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States laboured; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trails of democracy.”
- Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. “Democracy never lasts long,” he noted. “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.” He insisted: “There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide’.”
- New York’s Alexander Hamilton, in a 21 June 1788 speech urging ratification of the constitution in his state, thundered: “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy.”
- George Washington, who had presided over the Constitutional Convention and later accepted the honour of being chosen as the first president of the United States under its new constitution, indicated during his inaugural address on 30 April 1789, that he would dedicate himself to “the preservation…of the republican model of government”.
- Fisher Ames served in the US Congress during the eight years of George Washington’s presidency. A prominent member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the constitution for that state, he termed democracy “a government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders”. On another occasion, he labelled democracy’s majority rule one of “the intermediate stages towards…tyranny”. He later opined: “Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes.” And in an essay entitled, The Mire of Democracy, he wrote that the framers of the constitution “intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism.”
I took the above directly from NewAfrican, dated January 2001. Do not poo poo the source for it is, I think, a good cover story.
I also recommend the FREE Google “Works of Fisher Ames”. This is downloadable and as well as the Google reader. To read an overview of Fisher Ames Read Here.
Another good read is Frederic Bastiat, The Law.
The notion of a direct democracy the founders being most insightful knew that it may work for small populations but would not work for large populations. The founders were attempting to save us from ourselves.
“The reason there was no “direct democracy” espoused by the founders was largely because they believed pure democracy, i.e., the majority of people are always correct, to be contemptible.The founders knew that direct democracy would never work because human nature never changes, and people are often mislead, often misinformed, often selfish, and always imperfect.”
The progressives choosing to ignore the warnings from the founders contained in the above bulleted quotes are marching arrogantly towards the destruction of our Republic.
They [the progressive] call for a ‘nanny state’ a state that will ensure a socialist America, a controllable society one that is incapable of living without the states good graces. In the end tyrants will rule. Tyrants will bring fascism.
It is noteworthy to point out that as the Critical Thinker has pointed out in his School’s commentary on this blog that your kids, grandkids are being indoctrinated by the DOE’s agenda. That is the progressive agenda at work.
The progressive agenda and thus a push to propose a new constitution will be bolstered in part by the new immigrant to our shores. The new immigrant will lap up the spilt milk the nanny state pores on the floor for them. This new immigrant will bring with them their forms and understanding of a democracy.
“the website Indian Elections broke the 2004 Indian Election results down to having 301 party/coalitions in a First Past the Post electoral system.
The BJP+ was a coalition of 10 political parties of which 9 won seats.
The INC+ was a coalition of 16 political parties of which 12 won seats.
And OTHERS were designated as 270 political parties of which 19 won seats.
The results means that 40 political parties won seats in the Lower House of the Indian Parliament. has six national parties and a long list of state parties.”
The above is as close to an example of a pure democracy that I could find.
We can not let this happen to our Republic.
The only reason we have not heard overtly from the Obama Administration nor the progressives in Congress an outright call for a new constitution is that although being a divided country now the call at this time would ensure widespread revolt the like that has not been seen in our lifetime. For Obama it would have meant political suicide. For winning the Whitehouse in 2016 the Obama act alike candidate it would mean political suicide.
The progressive it seems have patience and seem willing to continue to indoctrinate waiting for the right time. Will it be by 2020? Perhaps. At the very least the Constitution in 2020 is an indoctrination tool and along with other progressive scholarly documents they should be taken seriously by Patriots as blueprints.
I would be remiss and dishonest if I did not acknowledge that as soon as the ink dried at the signing of the Constitution there were those with self interest that began to conspire how to skirt using the legislative process. We today as in the decades before us have Congress writing unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court rules against many unconstitutional laws. Those with findings held as constitutional are often mixed with results that only parts are unconstitutional.
We conservatives understand the implications of the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court. We believe that we have a right to our opinions. We believe strongly that it is our duty to speak out. The progressive in Constitution in 2020 Introduction berates the conservative for their speaking out loud on rulings of the court that we disagree with while at the same time promoting progressive ideology in all branches of government. To the progressive there is only room for the enlightened theory of progressiveness. The progressive packages all conservatives into one tidy box. They have no understanding that we are a diverse lot capable of thinking as an individual. Here again the progressive is turning the table — using “all conservatives” while propagandizing the progressive theory of collective consciousness enforced by the state.
We American’s are blessed with the best form of government on the face of the Earth if we can keep it.
Keep up the good fight Patriots.