Another day, another lefty smear...We on the right do not believe the constitution is "sacred," we do not have a constitution "fetish" and we do not revere the founding fathers as gods sitting upon Mount Olympus. God did not carve the articles with lightning bolts, and George Washington did not carry them down from Mt Vernon, beard turned white from the encounter. We also know our history and understand the great debates and compromises that went into crafting the document.
"Constitutionalism" Blocks the Progressive Agendas of All Parties
We also don't believe that the constitution should not be changed. We merely believe it stands as written and currently amended, and should not be violated. If you want to do something that contravenes it, you must follow the amendment process. Proto-progressives understood this, hence amendments to ban alcohol and institute an income tax. Nowadays, these pseudo-intellectual busybodies are too arrogant to debate with the grubby hoi polloi, so they use raw bureaucratic power to ram through their progressive projects.
The overblown rhetoric and ridicule is meant to diminish the conservative cause and mask the progressive's dangerous disdain for our foundational principles.
Michael Lind is just one of the legion of goosestepping foot soldiers who has written one more stupid article on the subject. He follows the lefty catechism by first smearing everybody to the right of himself (which is now, tee hee hee, an expanding majority)...
"Now that the Republican Party, founded as a northern party opposed to the extension of slavery, is disproportionately a party of white Southern reactionaries"He must have been out of the country, or out of his mind high on hopium this last election. It's entertaining and encouraging that the craven, clutching, shriveled band of leftists think over 60% of the country are toothless, racist hicks. That's a sure way to bring people to your side, Michael! Keep it up.
A "Living" Constitution
He then tiredly employs the boilerplate liberal arguments about how we worship the founders and their documents. Ho hum. Charles Krauthammer gets to the heart of the matter. This is really a fight over what the constitution means:
"Originalism has grown to become the major challenger to the liberal "living Constitution" school, under which high courts are channelers of the spirit of the age, free to create new constitutional principles accordingly."Progressives hate a strict interpretation of the constitution because it stands in their way, and that is exactly what the document is supposed to do. Democrats and Republicans have been violating the document for over 100 years, with the consent of black-robed mullas. Imagine if it were merely treated as a notional ideal; we would be living in a much less free and less prosperous nation.
The Constitution is predicated on the belief that we are all free people with God-given rights, and no other man, nor government may violate them. The statists have it ass-backwards, thinking our rights come from the government. The ink stained propagandists, like their partners in government, are frustrated to no end that "the experts" cannot twist and knead public policy to herd us like cattle and goosestep us all into a brighter progressive future.
Clarity over Agreement
This concentrated attack on conservatives by the liberal press is instructive. The press is not neutral; it is biased. They are now reduced to strawman arguments and comparing the Republicans choosing to not read the superseded parts of the constitution with the editor that has censored Twain's Huckleberry Finn.
“You’re not supposed to worship your Constitution,” (Democratic Congressman Jerrold) Nadler huffed. “You are supposed to govern your government by it.” (Quoted in Human Events)
Govern the government by the constitution? We'd settle for that! We drop the "worship," and government actually starts governing by the constitution. That's a deal liberty-lovers can live with!
We are winning, my fellow tea partiers. Indignant howls from the liberal press are our victory trumpets.
14 comments:
I hope that you're correct in your assessment:
Indignant howls from the liberal press are our victory trumpets.
Meanwhile, the propaganda war on the education front continues. Conservatives, pay attention to what your children are being taught in their classrooms!
Lind was simply pointing to the irony that the GOP's power base is the South. You really can't argue with that, and surely any intelligent person would see the irony.
You'd really have to point to a specific when you talk about constructionism, originalism and such. Nine times out of ten, people cry constituional foul not because something is unconstutional, but rather simply becaue it's seomthing they don't like.
JMJ
From the looks of the last election, the upper midwest is now part of the south?
Well, the Upper Midwest, the Dakotas, Montana, and such are very sparsely populated and so not much total represenation comes from them. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and such are swing states.
The Mountain West and the Breadbelt have long been GOP country, and would be second to the South in strength of representation. But the main power base, by far, of the GOP is the South, period. There's just no arguing with that. It is a fact. Without the South, the GOP would be a distant second party.
JMJ
without the Northeast liberals and Unions and welfare states of California and NY you could say the same thing about the democrat party Jersey.
@ Jersey "Without the South, the GOP would be a distant second party."
And without the coasts, the Democrats would be a distand second party.
I can never understand the liberals hatred of your constitution, if they hate it so much why don't they make good on their promises to move somewhere else. I mean, there are plenty of countries in the west where there isn't a similar wretched and much-loathed constitution like yours.
Perhaps it's because they're unwilling to admit that these countries are not quite like yours and that's really because we don't have quite the same rights as your constitution grants.
"And without the coasts, the Democrats would be a distand second party."
Judging by the number of people fleeing the glorious, free-milk-and-honey liberal states along the coast or where ever for the republican states in the south, the democrats will be lucky to be a distant second.
On a side note, isn't it mysterious how after a year or two of experiencing the wonderous liberal ideology, people soon start leaving for places without this wonderous liberal ideology. Oh but i'm sure it's only the stupid, racist and toothless hicks who are leaving right.
Indeed, MK. It's all lies and BS funded by money borrowed from China
First of all:
"salon.com/news/politics/war_room"
I mean... should they really be calling it a "war_room"? Won't some disturbed individual take that as a call to arms and start gunning all of us down? Oh, I forgot...that only applies to conservatives.
"disproportionately a party of white Southern reactionaries"... as opposed to what? The party that is disproportionalely a party of urban progressive statists?
First I would have to take exception to the term "disproportionately" applied to the Republican party given that 14 of the 23 members of the 112th Republican congressional leadership are not from the South.
Second, I would like to point out that if you're going to call anyone "disproportionate" you need look no further than the Democratic party, since only 3 of the 23 members of their leadership are from the South.
It seems that Michael Lind is the one with the deeply flawed understanding of America's founding, as it has nothing to do with the Civil War and Reconstruction and everthing to do with a reaction against the oppressive, over-regulatory, over taxing and far reaching government of King George III. I suppose though he has never read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.
Well, of course without the coasts the Dems would be a distant second. I just don't know why it bothers you guys so much that the GOP is powerbased mainly in of the South. It doesn't mean we think all Southerners are "toothless, racist hicks." Sounds like a little insecurity on display there. There are historical demographical and political reasons the GOP is now concentrated in the South.
One thing MK strikingly neglects to consider is the effect Northeastern migration will have on the politics of the South and Desert Southwest.
They're not leaving the Northeast for to embrace the joys of Republican rule. They're simply retiring to warmer, cheaper states.
First and foremost - retirees don't need schools. Right there, they save a fortune on property taxes. And sure enough, the Red States, even wealthy ones, on average, have relatively poor-performing schools. You do get what you pay for, ya' know?
Between the warm weather and low property taxes, the Baby Boomers, over the next twenty years, are going to flood into Florida, Arizona, the Coastal South, Nevada, and probably even Texas and Utah. That will significantly boost the representation of the South, but at the same time it will bring more Northern Liberal Baby Boomers into those electorates.
On top of that, the disbalanced dependence on immigrant labor in the South will ever increase Hispanic votes. And when the Boomers start flooding those Southern states, it will be immigrant labor that builds their homes and pools and landscapes, and tend their yards, and clean their pools, and on and on. Unless the GOP can reverse its reactionary image among Hispanics, they will vote more and more Democrat, trying to lift their conditions.
Don't start counting partisan chickens yet. I expect the country to start moving heavily to the Left, in many ways, in the next twenty years.
I would prefer to see improvements in both parties rather than just endless, pointless disparaging of either.
JMJ
The facts, Jersey, seem to paint a different picture:
Each of the 10 states losing congressional seats as a result of the newly announced 2010 census reapportionment process is politically Democratic...Five of the eight states gaining seats skew Republican.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145397/States-Losing-Congressional-Seats-Tilt-Democratic.aspx
Conservatives remained the largest group, followed by moderates and then liberals.
Very Conservative 10%
Conservative 30%
Moderate 35%
Liberal 15%
Very Liberal 5%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145271/Conservatives-Continue-Outnumber-Moderates-2010.aspx
Top 10 Republican States:
Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, Idaho, Alabama, Montana, Nebraska, Mississippi, (Texas, North Dakota, Kansas (tied))
Top 10 Democratic States:
D.C, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware
And seven of those represent the N.E corridor, only two of the top Republican states can be considered 'South'.
Jan 14-16 2011 Gallup Poll
Republican 28%
Independent 42%
Democrat 28%
Republican Leaners 47%
Democrat Leaners 43%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx
Liberals moving out of liberal states does nothing but dilute the existing liberal urban oligarchy...which is a good thing.
"Each of the 10 states losing congressional seats as a result of the newly announced 2010 census reapportionment process is politically Democratic...Five of the eight states gaining seats skew Republican."
Yes. For now they do. But what will happen when millions of baby Boomer Northerners move south? Think about that.
JMJ
Yeah Jersey, They'll try their best to import the liberalism that wrecked the failed experiment they are fleeing, but sometimes it's not so easy.
Bostonians infected New Hampshire, but they are now snapping back to conservative sense.
Californians escaping the mess they have made have been attempting to Calfornicate Colorado for over 20 years now, and they've turned us light purple at best.
Post a Comment