Here is something I wrote in response to an article published in 2005.  Strangely enough it seems even more relevant today.

 
In response to “The Immoral Majority” by Susan J. Douglas, http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2243/

 
I am not one of those "so-called originalists (sic) when it comes to interpreting the Constitution", rather I am one of those privately educated people who is actually literate.  The plain meaning of the Constitution is hard to miss if you have been simply taught to read.  Phrases like "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" are unambiguous and not open to interpretation.  If the Constitution needs to be changed to reflect a changing political perspective, a process to do so is in place.  They call it an "Amendment" and made it intentionally difficult to pass one so that a fickle majority could not trample the rights of the minority.

"Washington also warned against the U.S. getting caught in the vicissitudes of other nations. Does that mean we should not have been involved in Vietnam and Iraq? Most conservatives would believe otherwise."

I am in total agreement with Washington.  I do not believe we should have been involved in Vietnam or Iraq.  But not for the reasons you might think.  Once again, I defer to the Constitution, which places the President as the Commander in Chief, but clearly places the power to declare war in the hands of Congress.  The Congress has abdicated that power to the President on several occasions illegally.  It has no authority to transfer that decision to another branch of government thereby upsetting the checks and balances put in place by our founders.  By transferring this power illegally, they have shown themselves to be the spineless, self-serving, vermin that they are.  This tactic allows them to be on both sides of the issue instead of clearly on one side or the other and thus directly accountable to the People.  Instead we have the, “I voted for it, before I voted against it” syndrome.  Or, to paraphrase, “I voted for the use of force but I wouldn’t have done it that way.  The President is doing it all wrong.  He rushed to war”, etc. 

If we need to go to war, then Congress needs to declare it and be held accountable to the People for their decision as opposed to one man who will spend 8 years at most in office.

“Do you concur with the viewpoint of James Madison that political parties are a danger to the democratic process?” 

They certainly have proven to be a danger.  Just look at McCain-Feingold; an obvious flagrant violation of the First Amendment designed by incumbents of the two major parties to stifle political speech thus securing their reelection.  Look at the ballot access and campaign finance laws designed to make it nearly impossible for a third party to compete in the same arena on equal footing.  And what have the two parties given us?  Excessive taxation without representation.  Our elected “representatives” tax us but do not represent us any longer.  They represent paid lobbyists and special interest groups; powerful unions like the NEA who are perfectly happy to keep our nations children ignorant rather than release us from their vicious monopoly.

“My point is that those comments were made in a certain historical era and not in a vacuum. Those comments are not absolutes, but rather reflect the amalgamation of particular events that affected the thinking of certain founding fathers.”

Freedom is an absolute.  You either are free or you are not.  Freedom means you have choice in the matter.  That you will not be thrown into prison for deciding you want to be a stingy and keep your money.  The left love to talk about “choice” when it comes to killing unborn children in the womb.  But ask about a “choice” as to whether or not my tax dollars should fund something I consider to be on par with cannibalism and suddenly “choice” is taken off the table.  Stem cell research, Education, Social Security?  I’m all for these as long as they are funded privately.  There is no authority for such funding in the Constitution. 

If you don’t like it, amend it. 

These quotes from our Founders have just as much relevance now, if not more, today then they did then.  They revolted over a 3% tax on tea.  I have over 40% of my income confiscated from me every two weeks against my will with the threat of imprisonment.  I ask you sir, if that is not the definition of tyranny, than what it?  God almighty only asks for 10%, but Uncle Sam demands 12.7% through a payroll tax and another 30% in income tax.  Then when I take the crumbs he has left me and go to the gas station or the grocery store, he taxes once again my already taxed dollars.  When I have finished providing for my basic needs and I have a few crumbs left, I decide to invest these already taxed dollars.  Should my investment prove profitable he will tax that profit funded by dollars already taxed.  Is this freedom or servitude?  And what are my twice taxed dollars used for?  Billions in foreign aid, abortions world wide, parking lots in Alaska, rain forests in Iowa.  Come on.  How can you look yourself in the mirror and call yourself free? Because you agree with these causes?  What if you did not?
 
As I said, freedom is an absolute and so is tyranny.  Tyranny sugarcoated, spun, and processed through the liberal media machine and placed on the Republicrat agenda is still tyranny. 

 
John K. Borys, Jr.

 
“Social spending constitutes at least two-thirds of federal expenditures -- spending for Medicare, Medicaid, school lunches, farm and business handouts, job training, education, and Social Security. It's great to want to help people, but our Constitution does not authorize Congress to do so. Its spending authority is itemized in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. A dimwitted congressman might say, ‘We do have authority for those spending programs under the welfare clause.’ Balderdash! James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said, ‘I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the object of benevolence, the money of their constituents.’"

- Walter Williams in The Washington Times, May 28, 1997.

Our Shameful Legacy

I read this article about the motion to impeach the Vice President.  The article is here:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/06/AR2007110602000_pf.html

I scanned down the comments on the article and stumbled across this gem.  Now this is great advice for the STATISTS (liberals is no longer an acceptable term if you want to know why, the answer may be found here:  http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2007/11/07/illiberal_statism)

 
This is what the reader, “aaronarnwine”, had to say:

“The left-wingers should break from the Democrat party (just a suggestion) and demand a candidate that's had multiple abortions on demand, is an illegal immigrant and wants to implement the Hugo Chavez plan for radicals...”

 Now that is beautiful.  This was shortly followed by the Question of the day from a reader called “tvlopes”:

“Let's get this straight once and for all...was Kucinich under orders from the mothership to pursue this resolution, or did the aliens merely SUGGEST that he do so? Legislative historians will certainly want to know, later!”

 
My idea on what these wackos should do?  Send them all to California and let them form their own Statist country. 

 Then break diplomatic ties and pretend they were never our countryman. 

 When anarchy ensues and even MORE criminals flock there to ravage the disarmed abolishers of the Second Amendment and they begin to starve as they find out that, if everyone is on the public dole, there is no one to produce anything for them to eat nor money for them to buy food from elsewhere, their pinko-communist attitudes will change faster than you can say Roe v. Wade.  Fortunately for us, with all the left wing nut jobs gone, we will have secured the border - to include the new one between the A.S.S (“American Socialist State” formerly known as California) and the rest of us, they won’t be able to get back in.

I must say I am disappointed in those of you with solid reputations in the journalism industry labeled as conservatives. Talk about negotiating with yourselves... You, like the NRA, start your arguments by conceding ground. And not a small patch of lawn, but the entire back 40.

The NRA for years has put forth the claim that assault weapons are used for recreation and sporting so we must protect the sportsmen rights in a free America. What a bunch of crap. Ralph doesn't need an AR-15 to kill Bambi. Ralph's AR-15, along with the right of all his neighbors to have one is the final check on government tyranny. Ralph needs the AR-15 "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is [Ralph's] right, it is [Ralph's] duty, to throw off such Government" with the assistance of his handy assault weapon. That is exactly why politicians want them taken away. They may lie often, but they're not stupid.

Sadly, those of you with a voice have used the same tired tactics in fighting Social Security. You immediately concede the constitutional principle and more importantly the spirit behind it. Do you think Patrick Henry would have stood for 12.4% of his earnings being taken by force or do you believe he and his brethren would have fought? James Madison, our 4^th President and considered the Father of the Constitution said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." So how does Social Security squeak by your ever-vigilant protection of the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? Or the war on drugs (wasn't the 18th Amendment repealed)? Or federal funding of education? Or Medicare? Or funding for abortion, stem cell research, foreign aid? Pick the issue du jour. Conservatives debate them all by immediately surrendering their most powerful position - "it's the law of the land! If you want to change it propose an Amendment."

The problem is the two party system could careless about their differences, what they care about is protecting their power. If you want to see bipartisanship, try passing a law that removes the campaign finance laws that make it nearly impossible for a third party to win. Try making ballot access just as easy for third parties as it is for Republicans and Democrats and you will see the elephant lying down with the jackass. Watch conservatives celebrate their November 2nd 'victory" while their "winner" spends tax dollars like a drunken sailor on crack and has never even heard the word "veto" let alone use it.

The conservatives, having gradually given up every vestige of true freedom over the last hundred years, rationalize away their strongest argument.

"It's been around for years, do you think we could change it now?" or "You have to be realistic we could never get enough votes to change that" or