What do we have to agree with people like Obama and the whole Democrat Party? We don't. There aren't any areas of commonality, folks. We have a Democrat Party led by a man whose avowed aim is to change America, transform it. And his biggest impediment is the Constitution. That's the single biggest obstacle he's got. I wish I could tell you the biggest obstacle he's got is the Republican Party, but, sadly, that's not the case. The biggest obstacle Obama has is the Constitution. The Constitution gets in his way. ...
Here's a proud member of ... the Democrat Party and the American left who think the Constitution here is an obstacle, it's an impediment. And you know why? Because it doesn't say what the government can do. The Constitution is a document that empowers citizens. It empowers the individual over the state, and that is despised by people like Obama. That's despised by most Democrats. It is the state, many doofuses believe an altruistic state, which is to have dominion over citizens. Citizens are a bloc of nameless, faceless robotic parts to be collectively controlled and manipulated and shaped and formed by the altruistic state.
The Constitution has proscriptions against government. The Bill of Rights tells government what it cannot do. Obama and his buddies have a name for this. They say the Constitution is a set, if you will, of negative liberties, negative liberties from the point of view of the government. If you believe government should be all powerful, the Constitution's your enemy, it's an impediment. And that's why Obama, whenever he can, is just ignoring it, such as recess appointments when there are no recesses. Such as telling the Catholic Church and other religious institutions -- from the same bunch that runs around and talks about separation of church and state. The only time they care about that is when a religious conservative is about to win office or a religious conservative has a set of values and issues. Then we hear about separation of church and state.
When Obama wants to tell the Catholic Church what it must sell, what it must make available to people, and the things that it must do go counter to every moral underpinning it has, that's not separation of church and state. No, that's the church not knowing what's good for it; that's the church standing in the way of the state; that's the church getting in the way of the state doing what it wants to do. And that's really the root of all this, that obstacle that the Constitution is, is at the root of what Obama's attempting to do here with the Catholic Church and contraceptives. It must provide abortion education in its schools. It must do these things as part of Obamacare. Obamacare itself, taken as a whole, has as its premise that the Constitution is wrong, that the Constitution's flawed.
I mentioned this last week. We now have some audio. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the US Supreme Court was on Egyptian TV. She'd never say this on American TV, by the way. Not yet. But on al-Hayat TV, this is what she said to the Egyptians as they put together a constitution and reorganize their country.
GINSBURG: I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.
RUSH: Don't model whatever you're doing after the US Constitution. Why not? The greatest document in the history of mankind, preceded of course by the Magna Carta. Why not? Why not? Because, ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is an impediment to people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Constitution tells her what she cannot do, and everybody else in government. The Constitution raises up the individual over the state, enshrines the whole notion of the pursuit of happiness, which you may think that's just a throwaway phrase. That's normal, everybody wants to pursue happiness, everybody wants to be happy.
When your founding documents mention that that is one of the fundamental aspects of creation, therefore that's one of the fundamental aspects of our human spirit, the right to pursue happiness, no government shall impede that or get in its way. It is a major reason why this country has become a superpower in so few years, compared to all the other nations that have been on the earth for thousands of years, all the other civilizations. Yes, it's freedom, but it's the definition of that freedom vis-a-vis the state. Right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. It is fundamental. There's Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She's speaking for the regime. She's speaking for Obama. Don't model it after the US Constitution. No, no, no. There's not enough about human rights, no basic human rights in the US Constitution.
No basic human rights? That's another term that's been bastardized and now means something entirely different from what its true definition or meaning is. The US Constitution spells out human rights better than they've ever been spelled out before. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the ACLU's top lawyer before she became a justice. They despise the US Constitution. It's a problem. Obama doesn't like it. And you know what they're replacing it with? By the way, we have conversations on this program and we have since this program's founding. This particular program's founding was August 1st of 1988. And a lot of people think we live in a democracy. We don't. We live in a representative republic where theoretically the people have a say in what the government does.
A democracy is pure majority rule, and that's what Obama is attempting to set up, a pure democracy, no representation, no republic, a pure democracy where the majority runs the show regardless. They couch all this in the need for basic human rights and civil rights. But of course when you look at what they do it's the denial of all of that and the elevation of the state over the individual who, in their perfect world, would cease to exist. The individual would be part of a conglomerate, faceless, practically nameless, just numerical, numbered robots who are plugged into various places by the state as part of their collective, part of the command-and-control that they, and only they, have the intelligence and the understanding to be able to run.
The representative republic that is America's government has been transformed, little by little through liberal policies over the years, into something more closely resembling an oligarchy, where a small number of people rule the entire nation.
You may be asking why a liberal would want a pure majority rule system, when it is inevitable that the pendulum of political favor is likely going to be constantly swinging back and forth. Well, that's the other key thing to remember here. Liberals have an ace in the hole that gives them an advantage over conservatives because conservatives refuse to play the same game.
Agenda-driven courts.
Have you ever heard of a conservative (or originalist, as they are sometimes called) judge blatantly ignoring, changing, or revising a law based on nothing other than his or her own personal feelings? No. On the other hand, liberal (or activist) judges do it all the time. Liberals cannot realistically win at the ballot box because they are a minority of this nation, and that means they can't get their agenda enshrined into law through normal legislative processes. Instead, they must rely on legislating from the courtroom. It is only in rare times when a liberal ran as a conservative (remember all of Obama's talk of tax cuts for the middle class, a strong America internationally, and so on? those are conservative principles, which is why they resonated with so many who wouldn't normally have voted for a liberal Democrat like Obama) and succeeded in a perfect storm scenario where Democrats also controlled Congress. Ironically (or not), the last three times that has happened, America has experienced the largest three expansions of government in history:
1. FDR in the 1930s - initiated Keynesian economics via the New Deal, which also included many government social programs
2. LBJ in the 1960s - initiated the Great Society, which furthered government growth through more social programs like Medicare and Medicaid
3. Barack Obama in 2008 - implemented Obamacare and Keynesian stimulus spending on a globally unprecedented scope that caused annual trillion-dollar deficits
The American people now understand what Obama was all about, and they are rejecting his agenda. His approval rating is in the toilet, and he often can't even get Democrats to sign onto his agenda now because they know it's tremendously unpopular and will damage their own chances at re-election. But, with the infrastructure of judicial activism, we now have legal insanity all over the place, and in many cases the legislative control of Congress is irrelevant to governing. One obvious example is the EPA, which has now declared all air, dirt, and water to be under their control, thus they are developing and implementing regulations to control anyone and everyone affected by all occurrences of air, dirt, and water. Hm, last I checked, that would include pretty much everyone in America.
Or how about Obamacare, which almost 2/3 of American citizens opposed but liberals in Congress passed into law anyway? It was promised to reduce costs and increase the number of people covered, and it has been proven to do neither. It was also promised that critical provisions like the religious conscience clause wouldn't be violated, but that has also been ignored:
Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation's 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama's new heath care reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees.
"Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church," said Catholic League head Bill Donohue.
But the insanity of judicial activism doesn't stop there. Take, for instance, a recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California (where else?) that declared a voter-approved ban on homosexual marriage was unconstitutional. Stop and think about that...
A voter-approved law was ruled unconstitutional by three judges.
When judges fabricate and/or destroy legal precedent like this, liberals don't necessarily need to control Congress to drive their agenda forward.
The bottom line is that compromise, bipartisanship, or whatever other nicey-nice sounding terminology you want to use is the last thing we need right now. If we want to restore America as the free and prosperous nation it has been since its founding -- indeed, if we want to restore the vision of the Founders -- we need the opposite. We need elected representatives who are willing to stem the slow creep of liberalism and activist judges. We need citizens who are angry and concerned about the direction of this country to stand up and demand accountability from their local, state, and national representatives. We need informed, confident voters in every state of the union to flush out the liberals -- regardless of party -- and usher into office people who are itching for a confrontation and willing to boldly call out those people and policies that are destructive to this nation.
The time for playing nice is long past because this nation is on the brink of self-immolation, and the liberals and activists of the Left can taste their impending victory. It's up to us to beat them back, prying America's bloody and battered body out of their claws, and to restore its health.
No comments:
Post a Comment