It's day two of my seemingly invisible blog experience. Little has changed since Day One. Since exactly no one outside the Razmosphere is aware I even have a blog, the task of blaming others for not reading it and commenting becomes problematic. Instead, I shall concentrate my energies this post on getting myself (and future reviewers) up to speed on one of the crucial issues that compelled me to start this goofy stuff in the first place.
Now, be advised and comforted; what follows will surely appear a wandering, mindless rant, disjointed and pointless, but don't be fooled. It's important to set the stage for future posts that will be almost solely event-driven. Without knowing where we came from, and the course we took to arrive at where we are today, we can't really examine our lot in life and contemplate what should be done to make it better. So stick with me -- it will get interesting as we go, especially when I figure out how to incorporate photos and videos with which to make a point, or to simply ridicule a walking yeast infection I don't like.
Without further ado, here's "The Mess..."
We have a problem. Our country is divided (at least for now) almost equally into separate, distinct political camps. Those who vote for idiots as a rule, and those who vote for idiots as a reluctant mechanism to prevent themselves from voting for really dangerous idiots. The latter is at least understandable, but can be difficult if the idiot you voted for in order to keep from office a candidate you considered a worse idiot backfires, and the idiot you voted for is still an idiot. In the end, and despite your best efforts, can still wind up voting for an idiot. Mitigating the potential risk, or "relative idiotness" of one political hopeful by voting for a different, less offensive idiot is, by definition, still voting for an idiot. Sound confusing? It shouldn't -- the current White House resident enjoyed a lot of votes that came to him this way, while the previous President did likewise in his two elections. Voting against a candidate has become a customary Election Day activity, sadly.
How we came to this unfortunate set of circumstances is a complicated story, and one we'll examine in small, easy to digest segments in the coming months, but suffice to say the country is in a deep tank of reeking turds, and the collective idiots WE voted for created it, or lent a generous amount of help to the effort. It is, one might conclude, a Mess.
Of course, there are so many distinct, yet interconnected pieces to the Mess puzzle, simply cataloguing them would be impractical and mind-numbing. After all, this isn't a history lesson -- it's a blog. Who wants to read about the past when we're trying to avoid being bludgeoned by the present? Instead, we will take license and focus on a part of the Mess few nationally syndicated wonks or wonkettes seem willing to confront. Let's call our first element of The Mess a"Constitutional Divide." This is fundamental to an understanding of how we got into The Mess, even as we prepare to define what The Mess really is, so buckle up -- here we go.
Provided you can still understand the importance of the United States Constitution, which assumes you've taken the time to read it (either wholly or at least in part), a nagging problem exists for a lot of us that confounds our ability to apply those tenets and concepts that compelled the Framers 220 years ago to our modern lives. That 'problem' is the progression of time, and the inevitable separation over the years from those solemn conditions which existed when the Constitution's authors drew up the Articles of Confederation, and the bizarre, image-driven sideshow we live in today.
The Founding Fathers (I don't give a shit if the term sounds gender-biased, archaic or out of date to you; it has meaning for me) wrote the Constitution to survive the test of time. They didn't simply create a form of government and say "hope you like it; you're on your own." Instead, they actually thought about this and gifted the document with a built-in system of change called the Amendment process. They also made it bloody difficult to effect that change, but not simply to dissuade future leaders from trite, fanciful changes. They understood the importance of a free society, rooted in fundamental "unalienable" rights (rights that were not the Government's to grant or rescind), to maintain a connection with the basic principles of Liberty that would not (and ought not) change over time. The inevitable discussion regarding Divine rights as held by the Founders is noted here, but will be saved for another time - this isn't a rant about the existence of God.
In short, the Founding Fathers did much more than successfully break a Colonial group away from the King of England (no small feat in itself, remember), they provided for us a way to adapt and change our new Constitution when the need arrives. But they did so much more when they met to craft and ratify the Constitution; they also built a perpetually lengthening bridge back to that initial, crystalline moment when a small group of visionary and courageous men stood up against the rule of a distant, oppressive and powerful Monarchy and said, 'enough.' They made it possible for us to stand on a foundation of individual Liberties. That meant Liberties not to be jerked back and forth by the Government -- a government THEY created, no less. In a manner of speaking, the Founding Fathers were the first group to really say "power to the people!" Clearly, they were some smart mo-fos.
But the bridge is under assault. Those seemingly unbreakable connections to our Constitution's guarantees of freedom and liberty for the individual are being stretched and stressed with increasing frequency. Some today would even have us ultimately abandon its principles in favor of a modernist, "World Citizenship," unincumbered by the perceived, and necessarily imposed restrictions of nationality or sovereign borders. But before such fantasy can be truly entertained, the twits who long for a land of Kumbaya and rose-colored hugs continue to regard the Constitution as authority to promote Left, socialist change, rather than a guiding set of principles designed to preserve Liberty. Those voices belong to ignorant, arrogant assholes, it goes withtout saying.
Constitutional scholars have long debated its meaning, relative to their own circumstances, and each according to their own beliefs and interpretive skills. Traditionalists hold the Constitution as-written to be beyond reproach. Deviation from its words should be held to a strict minimum, if at all. Modernists, on the other hand insist the articles within were intended to be interpreted generously and broadly -- to be applied with current-day conditions in mind. But that carries with it the potential for disaster. Wide latitude for interpretation leads to more than just modern era jurisprudence; it also runs the risk of opening the door to the eventual diminution and (possible) dissolution of the Constitution altogether. No more 'freedom of anything,' under this insane model. Sounds impossible, but arithmetic and the law of probability say otherwise. Get enough people to rail against a document's meaning, and the document will disappear, given time. The Constitutional Divide works that way...
As an example, consider the ongoing debate so popular among civil rights advocates regarding the validity of the Framers' beliefs (remembering many of them owned slaves, and all of them were devout Christians). Antagonists join the fray and contend that perhaps 'more separates us from the Framers than joins us,' even if that position is founded in the tired 'slavery/Christianity' argument. They say, "How can modern Americans, who are neither slave owners, nor strictly Christian, be expected to walk in-step with the belief systems of those who were?" The question can be asked, from an academic perspective, but it's silly to take it much further because its answer has little to do with why we're concerned with the Constitution under fire today. But for the less educated among us, I will translate:
No one is arguing the merits of slavery. No one believes the United States ought to be a Christian-only nation. Of course our modern lives are, in so many ways, totally different from those led by the Framers -- it's been 220 years! In 1787, they rode around on horseback; we have Bugatti Veyrons. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence (with a quill) by the flickering light of a candle; we have Jumbotrons, LEDs and LASERs. The Founders sent and recieved letters by a process that took months; we shoot our mouths off via the instant, digital magic of e-mail, "texting," (and dip-shit blogs like this). The nation was founded on several principles, not the least of which was a desire for religious freedom, and in 1776, that religion was Christianity. They were Christians, seeking freedom from persecution for their beliefs. What a surprise our country was founded on Christian traditions!
One could argue that Muslims and Jews, had they been present when the Congress first convened, would've had a say because hearing the voice of many came along with their notions of freedom from the Crown. Unfortunately, that argument is moot because there weren't many Jews or Muslims hanging around Philadelphia at that time We aren't a Christian nation by exclusive, purposeful design, as Israel is a Jewish nation, so get used to it, all you secular jerk-offs! There's a difference between the norms of life in 18th Century America, and a desire to exclude one religious group over another. Please, liberal idiots, figure it out.
What about slavery, then? How could the Founders speak of the Liberty of some men, while coldly denying it to others? Shouldn't we question the intent of those who saw nothing wrong with keeping another human being against his will as little more than an implement or tool of convenience? You could question that intent, if you're a moron and want to hold those who lived two centuries ago to the same social and moral standards by which we live today. But doing so opens us up to equal scorn by future generations who may look down on us for the perceived crimes of oh, let's see, pet ownership, consuming alcohol, or watching an organized, contact sport. And while I'm on the stupid subject, consider this:
Most of the Framers wore wigs. Most of the Framers shit through a wooden plank into a hole in the ground. Most of the Framers drank Laudanum (an opiate) for a headache. Most of the Framers saw nothing wrong with marrying a close cousin. One of them (Alexander Hamilton) was killed by a man in a duel, solely for the preservation of honor. Sounds slightly barbaric by our standards, doesn't it? But wait, there's more to the story.
None of the Founders ever did time for vehicular homicide. None of them participated in a drive-by shooting or mowed down thirty people at a college campus over a lack of popularity. None of them posted photos of themselves getting a blowjob on the internet. None of them had a tattoo on the small of their back that reads "Shoot Here." None of them swindled billions from trusting clients in order to afford another Upper West Side condo and a new megayacht. Why? Because none of that stuff existed back then, so enough with the apples and oranges comparison to the way people lived two hundred years ago -- it is irrelevant!
What is relevant, on the other hand, is the constant bombardment from a deluded Left on many of the core tenets of the document they find distasteful. Better yet, the disgraceful practice of utterly ignoring what the Constitution says while they're busy quoting it. Case in point, those recent (and all-too often) occasions when socialist advocates from the shit-for-brains Left insist on invoking the oft-abused "Separation of Church and State" clause as a half-assed sword of Damocles with which to hack apart those unfortunate parts of State or Federal Governments who have made the grave mistake of holding with ancient, and apparently discredited, Christian icons including Christmas, the Ten Commandments and Halloween. Nevermind the heavy religious topics of prayer in school and abortion, these nitwits get pissed-off about Santa Claus.
The problem isn't the existence of a Separation clause, but rather its misinterpretation today. I'm continually staggered at the frequency with which yapping, secular morons get this wrong. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights says this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What a noble and perfect expression of Liberty, isn't it? Unfortunately, its meaning has been perverted and essentially reversed by some who believe it is their duty to remove all vestiges of religion (Christian religion, that is) from anything to do with Government. They cry out for this, presumably because they fear the Government becoming a willing arm of the Church (a Christian Church, of course), which ultimately leads to a repressive society where individual freedoms are exchanged for pious, highly restricted drudgery in the name of God (the Christian God, naturally). Recently, the notion of Separation of Church and State (in the minds of secularists and social progressives) equates to "Keep the Church out of Government!" Too bad for them the language of the First Amendment actually operated toward keeping Government out of the Church. In English, that means the Government can't order you to pray or not to pray -- it's none of the Government's damn business.
Excellent concept, and absolutely fundamental to what makes America a better place than most. When you think of it, that took real balls back in 1787. To guarantee the people a right to free speech was revolutionary enough, but to go so far as to ensure their right to gather, or even to sue the government? Unbelievable balls, in fact. You must appreciate just how far out on a limb these guys were going. And while they were at it, they made sure the Government could not inject itself into the religious lives of the individual. They built a form of government that protected the people FROM THE GOVERNMENT. I wish more wide-eyed, Obama-adoring idiots understood this simple truth, I really do.
When the Left took a wrong turn on the issue of Separation is unclear. Why they went wrong is unknown to me, except for the very real possibility liberal nitwits are uniformly stupid, and they simply missed the point. As most ACLU wankers (currently occupying space on the Earth they don't deserve) are lawyers, one would presume they, of all people, would get the distinction -- they all had to deal with Con Law class in 2L, so how is it so many lawyers are consistently (and) stupidly wrong on the idea of Separation as they leap to the defense of those arguing cases in order to punish governmental agencies for allowing religion (Christian religion, big surprise) to defile public corridors?
Whether screaming at the State of Georgia over the Ten Commandments disgracing the halls of the State Supreme Courthouse, or the Governor of Washington crumbling under pressure from atheist dip-shits to remove something so innocuous as a nativity scene from the Capitol building, folks who misapply the First Amendment's protections to suit their own fears are splendid examples of why we need to pay attention to the Constitution and what it really says. Believe in a deity or disbelieve -- that's your choice. Do NOT rip off the Constitution and suborn its words and meaning to suit your own bullshit agenda. Personally, I don't have a religious conviction, but equally, I don't presume to piss all over those who do. I'm glad the Founders made it possible for me to hold both views at the same time.
And the danger of screwing around with the Constitution is not even down to an honest debate among our people -- it's way worse than that. It comes down to decisions made by a handful of extreme legislators and judges, sometimes in support of, but just as often in direct opposition to, the Constitution's tenets that inflame my worry and concern. The whole point of the Constitution was to line out the form and format of a system of representative government based on the preservation of Liberty -- the individual's Liberty. The point was NOT setting up a new regime to control or subjugate its people. The individual's Liberty, now under the crushing weight of our Glorious, Teleprompter-enabled Savior's mad dash toward progressive socialism as prelude to totalitarian rule is no longer assured.
Our Democrat-dominated leadership (so-called) applauds as the Messiah hands out apologies like breath mints to anyone we may have offended over the last two hundred years. Laced with blame-laying at the feet of the previous Administration, Obama's World has lost sight of a few fundamental truths, not the least of which, is that Liberty -- brought to you by the United States Constitution -- is the only real reason he gets to act like a complete asshole today. In another place and time, he'd be little more than a loud-mouth mulatto rabble-rouser. A governmental system that does not provide for or recognize the individual's liberty (as ours DOES) would've ground him into fertilizer long ago for the things he's done in his immediate, 'community organizer' past, let alone those disgraceful things he's done as President in just over three months. The despotic half-wits he spends so much time appeasing and bowing down to would cut his dick off and stuff it inside his severed head if he ever tried that 'community organizing' shit in their countries. A pity he can't make the distinction while he kisses their rings or their fascist booties to the cheers and tears of joy from Hollywood's finest jackasses.
So, what's to do? How can we fight back against a changing system that seeks to remove the rights of the individual in favor of the dull misery of a collective? How do we prevent a further slide into the abyss if our judges, Senators, Representatives or media darling President persists in their collective desire to force-feed an unwanted shift down the throats of those who do not welcome it? In short, what are we (that means half the country -- B.O. didn't win by a landslide) to do in order to reverse this nightmarish trend and throw back the assault on our freedom? We could shoot a few of these American-hating rat-fuckers right in the head, but that would be against the law, slightly wrong and probably counter-productive. Instead, the goal is (and always has been), voting them out of the offices they currently pollute.
This isn't about Tea Parties, and it's not about suffering blather from the Hollywood elite. It's not wringing our hands about greedy bastards in the auto industry that are about to get exactly what they've deserved for fifty years, thanks to the UAW. This is about winning elections -- lots of them. It's about jerking the Republican Party up by the scruff of the neck and making it clear to them they are just as much a part of the problem as the thick-skulled Democrats we already knew about. This cuts both ways, unfortunately.
Extreme Left dickweeds are left to pound away at democracy, freedom and Liberty because greedy, self-serving and drunk-with-power politicians make sure nothing stands in their way. Without Senate or House confirmation, extremist judges who insist upon legislating from the Bench wouldn't have the chance. No big surprise here, but most of the time, that uncomfortable feeling you get about your future was hand-delivered by a politician, riding on a liberal judge or Justice's bicycle.
Our politicians and judges have been failing us for years. Why is this so surprising to so many? ALL politicians are deserving of suspicion and caution because most of them follow one simple politician's rule: win and hold power. Their voting records are available online -- read them. The incumbent isn't always worth your vote because you happen to belong to the same Party -- vote for somebody new for a change! Get your news from at least five different sources, or you're nothing better than a dazed parrot. Still find it comforting to blame Bush for all things evil? You're a tie-dyed parrot. Believe McCain would've done better? You're a parrot who doesn't understand elections. Think this is all the fault of somebody ELSE'S Representative or Senator? You're not a parrot; you're an ostrich. Still think Obama's a great guy, simply because he's NOT Bush, McCain or (gasp) Palin? You're worse than a parrot -- you're a groupie and a brain-dead loser. Hopefully, you'll die before I do so I can shit on your grave.
Liberty means something. Take the time to look it up and educate yourself. Better than that, take a few extra minutes and consider what life would be like in a true collective, and one without individual Liberties. That's a difficult proposition for most Americans to get their arms around because we've long-enjoyed the luxury of never having to consider it. Not in our lives. The War generation understood it, but they're old people now, and that means (under the new Obama-written healthcare reform plan) nobody gives a shit what they think.
My concerns are not simply blind nationalism or irrational flag-waving. This is a moment in time when those ideas that made our way of life possible, the thoughts and beliefs that made everything you ever had possible, stand a strong chance of becoming little more than subtexts to a New American History; a history co-authored by Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Bill Maher, Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill and Miriam Star Hawk. A history rooted in weakness, acquiescence to thugs and a desire for popularity over the rights and liberties of the individual. It will be a history bereft of the Constitution.
Join us next time as we actually tackle current events (with real live citation and everything!), and how they affect you. We'll depart from the past a bit more, concentrating on the present, but when reference is required, we'll examine where we once were. While we still can. Until then...