People who universally condemn prejudice are bigoted on the subject of prejudice, and are prejudice against prejudice people and cannot see that they have placed themselves within that group with their intolerant opinion. That they can see no ironies in their condemnation of another’s pet prejudice is very humorist and sad to me.
One cannot live without making assumptions, and I assume that all people came by their prejudices honestly. That is that their opinion came to then with a historical context. If some white are prejudice regarding blacks, or some blacks are prejudice regarding whites one has only to look at the history of how we have struggled with the relation between the races in the US for hundreds of years. They were winners and losers in that struggle and it is not surprising that the losers were left with a bad taste in their mouth and past that feeling on to their children. The amazing thing, to me, is that the race relations have came as far as they have come considering all the people use it for a horse for their own grandioseness.
The prejudice against WASPs and Fundamentalists is of a much more recent origin and spring from, in my opinion, a deliberate campaign to discredit them by some of those who believe in a secular agenda. The methods used are insidious, they consist of only portraying those they wish to discredit in as unfavorable a light as possible such as in moves as Elmer Gantry, and by attacking moves that do not, like the Passion of Christ.
Being unable to get their ideals passed through Congress they turned to the courts to have their will enforced by fiat, a judicial diktat. They invented the concept of a “Living Constitution” to justify their abandonment of the Constitution. Prior to the reign of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the courts were still largely populated with originalists, who properly rendered legal interpretation based on construction of the Constitution's "original intent." However, FDR grossly exceeded the Constitutional limits upon the authority of his office and that of the legislature in his folly to end The Great Depression (the latter falling victim to World War II -- not FDR's social and economic engineering). FDR's extra-constitutional exploits opened the door for the judiciary to follow the same path -- to read into the Constitution what was necessary to make it conform to the demands of the prevailing political will.
This notion of a "Living Constitution," was embraced by the secularist liberals who have an affinity with the godless communists of the world, judicial activists of this bent insures their type of judge was appointed and confirmed, and in turn they legislate from the bench by issuing rulings based on what they want the Constitution to mean, or at the behest of like minded special-interest constituencies. Way to many were nominated for the federal bench and confirmed in droves.
With like mined members on the court they attacked religion in America with a passion. The most insidious line of activist interpretations of our Constitution's First Amendment invoked the so called "Wall of Separation". In the words of late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, "The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... The greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights."
If the liberals wish to continue their taking over of America and reinventing it in their image and likeness they have to do it through the courts, and this had led to the great battles over who to appoint to the court. Terms like “Strict Constructionist” applied to a nominee with insure the Democrat’s most furious opposition to his being confirmed. Anyone who cares about the future of America should consider who any candidate for President will appoint to the Courts especially the Supremes.
The Federalist Papers, are the definitive explication of our Constitution's original intent, clearly define original intent in regards to Constitutional interpretation. In Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton writes, "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment...liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments." In Federalist No. 81 Hamilton notes, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...."
Our Constitution was written and ratified "in order secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" as set forth in the Declaration of Independence "endowed by their Creator." It established a Republic intended to reflect the consent of the governed, a nation of laws, not men. In order to bring their vision to fruition the whole concept of God given rights has to be done away with, as well as the concept of am immutable Constitution that can be amended but not open to judicial interpretation beyond the plan meanings of the word. How many of you still believe that we are living under the rule of law when the President can suspend bankruptcy laws and impose his own settlement on GM?
To what ends are people of faith portrayed as small-minded, bigoted, superstitious fools. They hold science out as the answer to all of man’s problems. They present evolution as the only way to view creation if you are other then a fool. A bible thumping, Jesus is the only way to salvation, he who holds this opinion is condemned for his belief.i.e., that anyone who does not accept Christ as his savior is dammed to hell, as a prejudice bigot to whom it is aright to have a bigoted attitude about. The same goes for any who believe that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is only for same sex couples.
The progressive bigot are hell bent upon changing America into a country I do not know. About 40 years ago I had a discussion with a devoted American communist, he asserted that his side would win and I told him, "Not if I can help it". I went on to getting more education, improving my employment, and raising my children, and let the struggle slip my mind. He,and his elk, did not. They have come much further along this trail than most of us realized. Calling them selves liberals instead of progressives or communist slowly, by little increments, ratcheting up but never back until we find ourselves at this pass. Until of late I have did little to live up to my assertion way back then, not if I can help it. Now I have woken up, and am doing my best to wake up all Americans as to what is taking place before our very eyes and have been blinded to.
~
~
~
No comments:
Post a Comment