For the propgressives on the left, they cannot perceive that their vision moving the nation from equality of opportunity to equality of outcome, with special benefits for the favored races, will have true resistance. For Hitler it was the Jews, for Champ it is not white men, race reasoning has become mainstream. As there is violent reaction, the sides will form, and the effort to retain the Presidency as a minority holding will beome more and more obvious. Think I'm kidding, watch Michelle's public behavior and see for yourself. The pandering to thier base will get more and more generous and obvious. God save the Republic
Champ got slightly more than half of the votes and some of those were most likely not legitimate. There were as many people who didn't vote as there were voters who voted for Champ, Romney, and a handful of other candidates. Champ hardly won a mandate. Possibly there were more people who didn't vote because they didn't like either candidate. The Progressives are playing with fire and don't seem to know what they could unleash. We had a revolution over two hundred years ago over such things as are going on now.
[NEWS.INVESTORS] For many, the Constitution is the barrier that blocks government from trampling a free people. Yet many on the political left see it as a hurdle to their ambitions. Consider the constitutional law professor who wants to kill it.
The headline of Louis Michael Seidman's op-ed in the Sunday New York Times ...which still proudly displays Walter Duranty's Pulitzer prize... was "Let's Give Up on the Constitution." The message from the Georgetown professor of constitutional law is that the Constitution is "archaic" and "idiosyncratic," and even has within it "downright evil provisions."
Naturally, Seidman dredges up slavery and the "white propertied men" who wrote the Constitution in his effort to discredit our founders' monument to liberty. The thought occurred to me whilst my mind was wandering today that despite throwing the slavery charge around every time they get a chance, the people doing so are likely the very ones who, if slavery were legal today, would buy a few -- just to keep house, do the yard work, wash the car, the sort of things that eat up their own valuable time, not to abuse them, of course. No doubt they'd care for them greatly, especially if they were young and pretty and maybe a little bit tarty. And the little woman's out of town visiting her mother and her significant other. They'd be almost like members of the family. Probably owners would be against the institution itself, but it would be John Boehner's fault that it couldn't be abolished. Or even better, George W. Bush's. After all, the poor things would need the care of their betters. Why, few of them had even been to college!
Seidman's op-ed is a locally grown, organic vegetable for the left. That side of the political spectrum holds our Constitution in contempt because of its limits on government power. It's a nuisance because it restricts the "progressive" objective to order and plan American society around the Democratic left's ideas.
Woodrow Wilson articulated the Democrats' problems with the Constitution more than a century ago. He argued that it "was not made to fit us like a straitjacket" and that "in its elasticity lies its chief greatness." ... he said, piously.
In other words, the Constitution says not what the framers and those who ratified it said it does -- it says whatever the whims of any given age wants it to say.
Which is to say in reality that it says nothing at all.
More recently, Ezra Klein of the Washington Post complained that the Constitution's "text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago" and "rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it." It's actually worded pretty clearly, despite its occasional funny use of the letter "s." "Congress shall make no law..." What's fuzzy about that? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." How difficult is that to understand? I'd call it clearer than Dickens and a lot clearer than, for instance, Bulwer-Lytton.
What the left fundamentally objects to, though, is not the language of the Constitution.
It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents -- except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.
Democrats want to police speech, for instance, but are hindered by the First Amendment that guarantees we are free to speak our minds. "But surely it matters if we offend people?" Actually, when I was a child people didn't use the word fcuk. It was considered much too rough for the ears of wimmin and kiddies. I guess we're not thinking of the children in that respect, huh? Or were they thinking of banning its use?
They also want to restrict firearm ownership, but the Second Amendment says they can't. "Oh, noze! Guns should not have Constitutional rights! What have guns ever accomplished?"
The left lives to redistribute wealth and punish the rich, though the Constitution says everyone must be treated equally under the law. I thought it was English Common Law that said that? But it may be older. As Pericles said:
If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way
But he was an old white guy and he's been dead for a long time. And they had slaves back in those days, so his opinion's obviously invalid... President B.O. himself has lamented that the Warren Court failed to "break free from the essential constraints" of the Constitution. He has complained, as well, that it has restricted his ability to carry out his authoritarian urges because of the checks placed on the executive office by the other branches of government. The guys who wrote the Constitution had recent experience with having a king and taxation without representation and that sort of thing. They were pretty sensitive about it, in fact.
The Constitution isn't perfect, but we can't give up on it. If we do, we also give up on the great American experiment in liberty. That would be a profound tragedy.
Its about OWG + "Globalism" = Global Socialism now - AN ANTI-GLOBALIST "NATIONALIST"
DOCUMENT SUCH AS THE HISTORICAL US CONSTITUTION + OTHER BECAME PASSE' BACK ON 9-11.
"Nationalism" + "State Sovereignty" + State "Republicanism, etc. related is now OBSOLETE IN THE AGE OF GLOBALISM + SPACE ORDER.
IMO, unless something drastically changes US Politicos W-I-L-L give up sovereign power-n-authority to the new OWG + OWG NAU in 2015 or ASAP afterward - OTOH I truly don't believe the Globies know yet just how much???
THE POLITICAL LEFT IS DELIBERAT INDUCING DOMESTIC + INTERNATIONAL CHAOS FOR A OWG + GLOBAL SOCIALIST ORDER THEY HAVEN'T COMPLETELY FIGURED OUT YET. 'Tis a "work/development-in-progress" for the Lefties.
I'm telling local Guam patrons that what happens in 2013 will decide iff US State-Local Govts., not just individual Citizens, file petitions for formal secession from the Union of States in 2014. I'm also telling them that history says that economic morass may not be enuff to induce the Bammer Admin or Commies-Globies to declare martial law in the US before 2016 - IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A MAJOR "GREAT POWER" MILPOL EVENT OR CONFRONTATION.
The US has not been in a direct military- nuclear confrontation wid a major Nuclear Power since 1962 and 1973, + in 2013 it may see that again wid the one Nuclear Power - CHINA - whom history says is not afraid to fight-n-win despite its enemy's/opponent's overwhelming
superiority andor third-party "Great Power" backing. US + ANTI-US AMERICAN GLOBALISTS, ETAL. NEED A serious "SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM", + THAT CHINA CAN DO.
[Dawn] EXTREMISM is one thing as a debatable philosophy, and quite another in its barbaric, physical manifestation. Two examples of the latter, as the world exited 2012, were particularly blood-curdling. The Pak Taliban killed the 22 Levies they had kidnapped, and in Nigeria, Boko Haram ... not to be confused with Procol Harum, Harum Scarum, possibly to be confused with Helter Skelter. The Nigerian version of al-Qaeda and the Taliban rolled together and flavored with a smigeon of distinctly Subsaharan ignorance and brutality... marauders slit the throats of a number of men, women and kiddies. The Taliban and Boko Haram both claim to be fighting for causes they deem Islamic, yet farthest from their philosophy is that spirit of compassion which for so many Moslems across the world is fundamental to Islamic teachings. Well, I just gagged. How about you?
There is a warped logic at play here. Even if the Taliban considered the Moslem Levies 'infidels', and thus deserving of death in their eyes, which Islamic law, especially in early examples, justifies the murder of non-Moslem prisoners of war? They have not stopped there. The Taliban have displayed the remains of their victims as trophies and videotaped executions as a chilling message. Even their arch enemies, no angels when it comes to the rights of prisoners of war (e.g. America in Guantanamo), prefer to hide their excesses.
In the subcontinent, none of the leading Islamic scholars -- including Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, Maulana Maudoodi and the entire Deoband group -- ever advocated mass slaughter to establish Sharia rule. The examples of PoWs' murder came to Pakistain in the wake of the Afghan war when some foreign faceless myrmidons killed Soviet prisoners. The Sovs knew very well it was curtains if they were captured, just like ISAF knows it today.
But that was rare and no mainstream cut-thoat group declared this its official policy. The Taliban's record shows there is nothing sacred for them -- schools, mosques, shrines, hospitals, religious processions, peace jirgas or funerals. Their aim is to sow terror as they are averse to employing peaceful means to gain power. That's why we call them "terrorists," isn't it?
In Nigeria, the Boko Haram is opposed to 'Western' education, but the methods it employs to resist it, take a leaf out of the barbarism prevalent in mediaeval times. In Pakistain it's a matter of deep shame that civil society has maintained silence on these depredations, while the mainstream Learned Elders of Islam have chosen to look the other way, some because they approve of this barbarism, others out of fear.