1776 Freedom’s Blog

November 3, 2008

Obama Threatens the Constitution

It isn’t Reverend Wright’s racist rants, the Ayres Dorn terrorist connection, the New Party dalliance, his early affinity for the Frank Marshall Davis poetry and thought, the Khalidi affair or his self professed attraction to radical students and Marxist professors while at Columbia.  It isn’t the suspect Internet fund raising or the broken promise to accept public funding for the election.   However, the number one reason that to vote against Obama and for John McCain is Obama’s disdain for the United States Constitution and our American heritage.  Obama’s preference for ultra liberal, frequently Marxist, policies hint at Obama’s core political beliefs.   Those beliefs will make it difficult for him to “preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  This is not conjecture, Obama has said so.  He calls our Constitution a document of “negative rights” that inhibit government’s ability to help the citizen.

Obama criticized the Warren Court as insufficiently radical because the court did not mete out redistributive economic and social justice when deciding civil rights cases.  His characterization of Constitutional limits on government power as “negative rights” evidences a disrespect for the Constitution that a president is sworn to protect and defend.  Further, this disrespect for the Constitution evidences a lack of respect for the rights of individual citizens.

Aggregated, the evidence of Obama’s personal convictions, his associations, writings and disdain for the Constitution disqualify him from the office he seeks.

Our Constitution creates a government designed to protect and facilitate free exercise of the individual human rights  proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  The constitution protects those rights and affirms the sovereignty of the individual as the legitimate source of governmental authority.  Classical liberal thinking reverses this relationship, vesting sovereignty in the society, giving society, acting through government, the power to grant rights to the individual.  This theory of government does not distinguish between civil and human rights as all rights are the dispensation of the sovereign society.  Our founders held an opposite view, a view based on primary or first causes.  As proclaimed in our national birth certificate, human beings have certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  These rights are not the gift of a grateful government to it’s loyal citizens but are an aspect of our being, ours by virtue of being born into the race of man.  These rights invest the individual with sovereignty over himself, a complete inversion of the traditional state sovereignty model of government.   Governments appropriate for themselves the power to grant or restrict individual rights to preserve political power for ruling elites; a practice our founders decried as contrary to the rights of the individual.

Senator Obama represents a political elite that asserts that government, not the individual, is sovereign over American society.  Further he believes that government has the authority and right to curtail individual rights for the common good in direct contravention of the Constitution’s protections of individual freedoms.  He views these freedoms as an impediment to social progress and believes that the state has both the right and obligation to curtail those freedoms in the name of social and economic justice.  Ours is a nation of individuals, each unique and equally entitled to the same opportunity to freely exercise their rights.   Equal rights do not confer equal economic success upon individuals.  Ours is the most prosperous and powerful nation in human history.  The reason that we are the most successful and powerful nation in history is our insistence on honoring the founders vision of a nation that protects and facilitates free exercise of individual rights.  To suddenly declare that tradition obsolete and warp the Constitution to conform to the west European socialist model will destroy our unique heritage and ultimately destroy our economy.  To put it in simple terms, Obama would reverse JFK’s famous admonition from his Inaugural Address to read: Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you.  That is why I will vote for McCain,preserve the Constitution and honor the principles of governance elucidated in the Declaration of Independence.

October 16, 2008

Racism in the Campaign: How to intimidate the voters

Filed under: Election,McCain,Obama,Palin,Politics — pj @ 12:48 am
Tags: , , , , ,

For the record, I will not vote for Barack Obama.  His skin color has absolutely nothing to do with my decision.  If the two candidates exchanged skin pigment I would not change my vote.  My vote goes to the candidate who best exemplifies American political ideals.  Having said that, I must comment on racism in the campaign.  For the last few weeks prominent Democrats have insinuated that a democrat voting for McCain, a black person voting for McCain or a Hispanic person voting for McCain are racists.  Today, Representative John Murtha declared that rural Pennsylvania voters are racist because they probably won’t vote for Obama.  These are the people Obama characterised as bitterly clinging to their guns and religion because the economy is so terrible.  Further Obama supporters and surrogates have played that refrain in other venues.

Racism is an ugly charge.  No one can deny that race was and still is a legitimate issue.  However, as a nation we have changed the culture so much that any form of racial discrimination or racial hostility is considered offensive to all.   There are still a few nutjobs out there preaching racial inequality but they are in a distinct minority.  To suggest today that voters are racist because they will not vote for a particular candidate can only have one purpose, intimidation.  The implication  of Murtha’s statement, whether he intended so or not, is that any Democrat who does not vote for Obama is a racist.  Loyal Democrat voters are more likely to succumb to this vicious pressure as the further implication of this statement is that a Democrat not voting for Obama is both a racist and a hypocrite.  By extension any Republicans who vote for McCain are also racists.  However, a Republican voting Democrat is not a hypocrite.

We founded this country on the premise that “all men are created equal”.  Modern liberal historians discount this by changing the definition of men to read, wealthy white men with property.  Nothing could be further fro the truth.  Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were among the foremost intellectuals of their time.  They were acquainted with the earliest feminists, including Abagail Adams, and acutely aware of the inequity of slavery.  The first draft of the Declaration of Independence contained a significant passage decrying the evils of slavery and would have ended the practice if enacted.  Congress edited the slavery passage to garner the votes to pass the Declaration.   They did not however tamper with that crucial statement of equality.  Virtually every congressman recognized the import of those words.  The term Man as used in the Declaration was and is understood to mean all mankind.  Every human being who is now living, has ever lived or will live is represented by the term man.  There are no exceptions for gender or skin pigmentation.  To insinuate that a vote for or against a particular candidate is racist is a direct contravention of American principles.  And, no we do not always live up to our principles but that is a subject for a later post.

October 12, 2008

Racist rhetoric, propaganda aimed at the ignorant among us.

“We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal”  This short sentence from our national birth certificate says all that should need saying about racism in this country.  Jefferson wrote those words knowing exactly what he was saying when he elucidated the principles that would govern the new nation.  Jefferson, Franklin and Adams all knew that there are no significant differences between people of different colors.  (If you don’t know, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were the principal authors of the Declaration of Independence.  The original draft of the document had a section decrying slavery as an inhumane institution.  Congress, acting as a committee of the whole, edited the anti slavery section out of the document.)  That politics preserved the institution of slavery until the Civil War is the fault of the Congress, not a defect in the principles written into the  Declaration.  To deny this requires a deliberate ignorance of our history and the founding principles written into the Declaration of Independence.

Fact: there is one human genome.  Every human being who ever lived, lives now and will live in the future is a member of the same race, the human race.  These are facts, indisputable, absolute and unchanging.  So why are racist views polluting the presidential contest?  The short answer is that people are promoting  candidates by appealing to our worst attributes and the least rational aspects of human nature.  On one side we have the subtle insinuation that not voting for Obama affirms the view that we are a racist nation, divided by the color line.  The corollary is that any black person who votes for the white candidate is a traitor to the race.  The truth is that both premises are false.

I can not criticize any black person who votes for Obama out of ethnic pride.   Our pluralistic society honors ethnic heritage as a valuable element of the national character.  Voting for the first African American presidential candidate is a compelling aspect Obama’s candidacy.  However, people of all colors and ethnicities disagree with Obama’s policy positions just as they disagree with McCain’s.

What is true is that most Americans no longer accept racist mythology.  We have a ways to go before we are a truly colorblind society.  Yet, it is ameasure of how far we have come toward fully embracing Jefferson’s ideal that Barack Obama is a viable candidate for the highest offiec in the nation.  You may disagree with his politics, dislike his positions, be mistrustful of his plans for the future but none of those considerations  include skin color.  The inverse is also true, disagreeing with the man’s political positions is not racist. That residual racism still exists is undeniable.  That the majority of Americans eschew racism is also undeniable.   Neither candidate should tolerate or encourage racist comments from staff, surrogates or supporters.

Fond memories of the Great Depression

Blogging is not as easy as it looks.  Getting attention requires something that stand s out from the herd of four million blogs on this service.  I thought sound reasoning and a different slant on issues would be sufficient to garner some attention but so far, it’s been a bust.  So why keep trying?  Because writing and fighting are part of the Irish branch of the human genome.  And, any time you can fight by writing, that’s as close to paradise as I’m ever going to get.   I’m tired of my wife telling me to stop yelling at the television every time some liberal says something stupid.  Changing spouses is not an option especially as she agrees with me more often than disagrees.  She  asked me to find an outlet for the emotional response that does not terrify the dogs or trash the TV.   Anyone married for more than thirty five years knows exactly how this was communicated to me.  No, she did not need the two by four.

The Branchflower report is out and the liberal blogs are having a field day spinning it to suit their preconceived notions about governor Palin.  Wooten gets a pass for tasering his step son and issuing terroristic threats to the governor’s family.  The report concludes that the governor was within her rights as governor to fire Monegan but that she acted against the implicit covenant between employee and employer that somehow restricted her right to fire him.  Gee, life is unfair, if you aggravate the boss you get shown the door and if you don’t move quickly the door will bruise your backside.  That, ladies and gents, is reality.  There are some things that crying to mommy can’t fix.  That this whole thing was concocted by political enemies of the governor and supporters of her opponent in the national election is of no consequence to  brain dead liberals.

However, there are more important issues in play.  If you liked the Great Depression, vote for Obama and the liberal horde running for Congress.  If you are honestly concerned with your economic future take a few minutes to study the Great Depression.  It began with a stock market crash and bank run in 1929.  In 1932 things were bad, rwelve percent unemployment and a stagnant economy.  Hoover thought he would get things moving by taxing the rich and redistributing some wealth.  The revenue act of 1932 was passed, signed into law and put into effect.  Unemployment jumped to twenty five percent, GDP shrunk thirteen percent and the serious recession became the Great Depression.  How does this ancient history relate to today?  Simple; Obama and his Democrat horde will raise taxes on the segment of the economy that produces the wealth and capital that pays all of our salaries.  Just like Hoover did it in 1932.  Just like FDR did in his first three terms, Obama plans to redistribute wealth to those in need by taking it from those who have.  And, just as happened during FDR’s administration, those in need soon exhausted the resources of those who had and the economy went deeper into depression.  Fact: FDR’s economic policies of high taxes and welfare payments deepened the depression and would have bankrupted the country if not for Hitler and his little war.  Our economy recovered not because of socialist inspired robin hood policies but because the world suddenly needed weapons on an inconceivable scale.  Thanks to Hoover and FDR we had plenty of surplus labor and manufacturing capacity so meet the demand for killing machines.  I don’t think we want to count on a new world war to save our bacon this time though anything is possible as the Great Depression was at least partly to blame for the conditions that propelled Hitler to power.

Here’s the picture, Obama gets elected, triggers a global economic depression and then what?  Desparate people turn to desperate solutions.  We are currently fighting a war against a global jihad intent on establishing a global muslim state with seventh century concepts of human rights and justice.  An economic collapse in the west would give the jihadi’s a golden oppoortuinity.  So maybe we will have a new world war to resussitate our failed economy.   Any bets?

September 10, 2008

Right to life

Filed under: abortion,McCain,Palin — pj @ 8:04 pm

The strongest reference to the right to life in this country is in the Declaration, though I doubt the founders had abortion in mind when they acknowledged that all men have a right to life.  Their definition of life applied obviously to human beings but they did not specify when a human being comes into existence.  This seemingly arcane question is the central issue int he abortion debate.   Characterizing one side as right to life and the other as free choice does nothing to answer the questions.  When is a human being created?  What are the essential qualities of being that make a mammal a human being?   What are the rights of a human being?

Life is the first right of a human being.  To deny any human being the right to life is the same as denying  your own right to continue existing as a human being.  Which leaves only one question, when does a human come into being.  A fertilized egg is considered by some to be a fully formed human being.  It is not.  At the instant of fertilization an embryo has the potential to become a human being.  In that it does not have the ability to survive without cellular level support from the mother, it is not an independent entity.  Seems simple then, it is not a human being.  Maybe.  One thing certain is that there is a point during gestation when the potential human being has the ability to survive in the real world independent of the umbilical connection to the mother.  At that pint the fetus has become a human being with all the rights of a human being, including the right to life.

This instant of viability is the point in time when the government is vested with the right to protect the baby.  At this point in the process the baby is a person.   American political theory, as elucidated in the Declaration holds that every human being is entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that   government exists to protect those rights.  Therefore it is within government’s purview to proscribe late term abortions and excluded from interfering with the actions of a pregnant woman prior to the third trimester.  Under laws promulgated in accordance with American principles, prior to the fetus attaining viability it is within a woman’s right to terminate the pregnancy.  The issue of a mother’s health is also in play.  Decisions related to survival of either the mother or the child can only be resolved by the people directly involved in the crisis, the doctor and patient.  If however, the child is live born during the procedure to save the mother and can survive with usual and customary medical care the baby must be treated as though born naturally.  To do otherwise is murder.  Should the child die subsequently despite receiving the normal and customary care given a new born, as is highly possible with a premature birth, there is a presumption of innocence on the part of medical personnel.   This is the only interpretation possible under our understanding of human rights.  However, if an individual, as a matter of faith, believes that a human being is created at the instant of conception that individual’s belief is fully protected under their right of conscience and is as inviolate as any other right.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.