Tuesday, June 30, 2015
More than 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln gave his most famous speech, The Gettysburg Address, where he reiterated the American ideal of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. With the recent spate of US Supreme Court rulings, the oligarchy of elite progressives have become firmly entrenched as the ruling body of the United States. Rather than a country ruled by the people, we have turned all control over to a small group of individuals who flaunt the Constitution to create law where none existed and to erase law where it was plainly written.
In King v. Burwell, Chief Justice Roberts argued that what the law said, and what the law meant were not the same things. Deciding in favor of keeping Obamacare intact with regard to federal funding of states which did not create their own exchanges, the majority court basically acted as Congress and rewrote the law to suit its progressive ideology.
In Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Kennedy created a right to same-sex marriage out of thin air, redefined the term marriage, denied the complementary nature of men and women, put the 1st Amendment at risk, and negated the ability of voters to create law not in sync with progressive dogmas.
In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Justice Ginsburg let an earlier federal court ruling stand, preventing states from requiring an ID in order to vote. This opens voting to a whole, new level of abuse.
The basic, and most dangerous, problem with these court rulings is the assumption of power of the Supreme Court over the people and the people's elected representatives. It takes power away from the people and puts it squarely in the hands of an elite oligarchy. The oligarchy extends beyond the benches of the court and reaches into the White House, as well as reaching out to a select few who are rich and powerful enough to turn the gears of the current government.
The question remains. Why did we, as a people, allow the oligarchy to take over control of the US? Some would argue that the oligarchy has always had control. That may well be true. But never in the history of the US has the central government had such control over the daily lives of its citizens as we endure today. Except for rare occasions in the past, the rule of law has been held sacred, now thrown out with the whim of the ruling liberal progressive class.
Why did we give up our self rule? Part of the answer lies in the exploitation of our general laziness and disinterest in the most basic operations of government. Part of the answer lies in our general trend toward the immoral, where we extoll the virtues of the sexual revolution above the virtues of marriage, fidelity, family, and honor. Part of the answer lies in an educational system that no longer teaches the hard lessons of history. Part of the answer lies in selfish human nature.
Only when we the people regain our moral standing will we once again deserve a government that responds to liberty and the rule of law, rather than bowing to the dictates of the corrupted elite.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
I am honored and thrilled to receive the 2015 Paul Revere Award from Curmudgeon at Political Clown Parade and my peers. It warms my heart to know that there are patriots with common sense left in a world turned upside-down with the lust for power and the lull of seductive ideologies.
The dangers that we face as a nation have come to a full boil. Those of us who still see the better path must continue as Paul Revere did, lending our warning voice to the world.
So thank you for the honor to be counted among the shining sentinels who stand in the light against the encroaching darkness of ignorance.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Since 2008, I've written against the concept of same sex marriage, mostly from the viewpoint that those who have pushed for it have always done so by destroying the foundations of the Constitution and the rule of law. That these same ideologues also represent the vanguard against religious freedom speaks volumes about the inherent immorality of same sex marriage advocacy.
Today's Supreme Court ruling will have deep and long-lasting ramifications. Yes, homosexuals and other same sex couples will now be able to get married across the nation. Bully for them.
But the ramifications that matter are insidious and dangerous. With a stroke, the Supremes have created a new "right" out of thin air. (It certainly isn't found in the 14th Amendment.) The Supremes have established gayness as a protected class, giving their advocates the unregulated power to abuse discrimination laws in order to squelch anyone who disagrees with their peculiar dogmas. The Supremes have opened the door to a slippery slope of "lifestyles" which will now have legal footing to abuse anyone who merely disagrees with them. The Supremes have thrown common sense out the window with regard to gender differences, enshrining the idea that government can somehow override the definition of marriage and the biology of the human species.
The four dissenting justices understood the dangers:
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. - Chief Justice Roberts
Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority's argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority's position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law. - Chief Justice Roberts
Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. - Justice Scalia
When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. They [the majority] have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a 'fundamental right' overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. - Justice Scalia
Along the way, it rejects the idea - captured in our Declaration of Independence - that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. - Justice Thomas
In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. - Justice Thomas
By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds. - Justice Alito
Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today's majority claims. Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed. - Justice AlitoOver the years, I've advanced all of these arguments, seeing the erosion of basic principles of the United States embodied in its terrible and monstrous form within the dogmas of a small, rich, elite, and powerful special interest. Make no mistake about it, today's ruling has gutted the basic concepts of liberty and rights of the Bill of Rights. It has made the 14th Amendment meaningless, dependent on the whims of ideologies. It will only be a matter of time when gay proponents use their newfound power in an all out effort to squelch dissent and to enforce the tyranny of the elite.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Our country is doomed.
I just finished grading essays about one of Benjamin Franklin's letters where he practices his famous wit. Franklin's letter is neither difficult to read, nor particularly challenging to understand. The class is full of freshmen at the university taking an introductory US history course.
Not one student in the entire class recognized the humor in Franklin's writing. Not one.
Most couldn't tell me what the basic idea of Franklin's letter was.
Nearly all of them roundly condemned Benjamin Franklin for being insensitive. One student called Franklin's writing "crap." Some students were deeply offended by Franklin's letter.
All of these students have grown up in a world where postmodernist dogma has affected our interpretations of history. Postmodernism was a reaction against the idea that there can be absolutes, and introduced the concept of relativism. (Click for more information.) What this created for today's historians is a philosophy of history that basically says one interpretation of history is as good as another.
This presents a double standard which has imposed all sorts of conflicting interpretations on original documents, many of which have nothing to do with the writer's intent. In the present day, much of history is now filtered through the lens of oppression dogma - meaning most interpretation of history sees events and people as mere oppressors, rather than as events and people. The problem with this trend in history is that it tells students what to think, rather than teaching them how to think.
If students can no longer interpret a simple letter from the past, we as a republic based on a government of the people, by the people, and for the people will fail.
That will be the legacy of the postmodernist, leftist, liberal dogmas that today plague our system of education.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Leftist dogma is a house built on sand. It's a metaphor. Get it?
The last few weeks, I've been reading several books, some by the great Thomas Sowell. One of his best books, A Conflict of Visions, outlines the basic differences between modern leftists and modern conservatives. I highly recommend the book to those who seek truth about our modern ideological conflicts. In rereading his book, I was reminded of the fundamental and ignorant flaw in leftist dogma - that in general human nature can change to support leftist dogma.
The reality of the human condition is that human nature does not change very much. Human nature is a constant and consistent part of us. The whole of history shows case by case, example after example, of the constancy of human nature. To be sure, individuals can and do change, only by fighting against the thrall of human nature. People as a whole, however, demonstrate time and again that humans tend toward evil, rather than toward good, toward selfishness, rather than toward selflessness.
The whole ideology of leftism rests on the premise that human nature can (and must) change. The whole philosophy of leftist thought is based on this faulty premise. The modern conclusion, of course, is that all humans must accept the latest liberal dogma du jour. Modern liberals are stymied when people fail to live up to those expectations even when they fly in the face of reason.
The sinister side of modern liberalism is a direct result of its faulty premise. It boils down to the idea that those who will not conform to leftist dogmas must be forced to do so. Leftists cannot accept any other outcome than total adherence to the dogmas of liberalism. As the ideology gains hold across the US, more and more political (and police) force has been brought to bear against those who haven't bought into the poor premise of leftism.
Modern liberals now force others to accept their same morbid and unhappy doctrines. Yet, in contradiction to liberalism's premise, using force to coerce others is in our human nature. Hence, liberalism's faulty premise is contradicted by the fact that modern liberalism must resort to force to promote its doctrines.
History is replete with examples where such an abuse of power - to make people conform to the ideals of others - shows that it is human nature, when a group is given a little power, it will immediately abuse that power to suppress the will and autonomy of others.