The Tea Party gained momentum, helping alter the course of the 2010 election, narrowing the Democratic lead in the Senate and bringing key wins to regain the House majority.
Leading into the Presidential campaign, conservatives and other Republicans could not carry the day, leading to a definitive if not sweeping victory for President Obama.
If the Tea Party was an initial, outer defensive perimeter of traditional values, other organizations will need to close an inner perimeter in defense of Constitutional liberty.
Immediately after the results were declared, many pundits from all sides performed a postmortem on the Romney campaign. A second term President, with supporting fires from political machinery and broadcast media postured for further permanent changes in America in keeping with his agenda. Observed by many patriots, but severely understated, is the potential permanency of changes ushered in by populist group think that will outlast the regular election cycles.
Following redoubled efforts to weaken the Second Amendment of the Constitution, many citizens have begun to reconsider their freedoms and their relationship to the government. Many citizens have purchased weapons and ammo based on communications from the federal, and in some cases state regulators. In addition increased membership in the National Rifle Association represented a spirited debate of the need for "the right to bear arms".
Oath Keepers represents an important inner defense between citizens and the abuse of powers. Americans aware of the current tide will not cede Rights and Freedoms to a wave of "popular" thought.
The men who founded this country were brilliant and inspired. Those who wish to claim our declared Freedoms, are resolute.
Yet it is important for calm and clear thinking. Rash actions will serve the interests of collective interests who wish to disband our Rights. In written forums, frequented by 'professional' bloggers and institutional liberals, conservatives should speak clearly of the issues. We must avoid any language that appears as a threat, while still guarding our rights, our families, and our free speech.
Our words will not be read responsibly, but emotionally by opponents. We must choose our posture and our dialog well.
3 comments:
Your comment "Rash actions will serve the interests of collective interests who wish to disband our Rights" is so true and at times hard to stay within its boundaries. It is too easy to make rash statements concerning our rights when we feel they are being stripped away. I know I have been on the side of making poorly chosen comments due to my disbelief that others can be so easily talked into giving up their rights and ours. Too many think that because we have the rights they cannot be taken away slowly and be gone before you realize they are no longer there.
There is so much in the above that I disagree with, not as a matter of opinion, but as an issue of fact. Much of what is written here represents extreme epistemic closure, presuming truths that are, at a minimum, disputed, if not objectively untrue.
And the "truths" are delivered via ex cathedra condescencion, to wit;
"The purpose of the constitution is to grant rights to the people and limit the powers of the federal government. Sadly, most Americans do not understand this."
We can endlessly debate the "purpose" of the Constitution, and I would hesitate to do so authoritatively, but I would think that ANY discussion of the purpose of the Constitution would start with the Preamble, and the initial statement that it was intended to create a "more prefect union." The atomistic statement of purpose proferred here arguably contradicts the Constitution's own statement of purpose.
And what gave rise to the Constitution? The failure of the Artcles of Conferderation. It is ironic that those most emphatic about the misunderstood actual meaning of the Constitution advance an understanding of the political Union created therein which is more consistent with the replaced Articles of Confederation. It was no coincidence that the political movement that most tried to destroy the Constitution called himself a Confederation.
At the risk and almost certainty of oversimplification, they were two gigantic flaws in the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution sought to ameliorate. First, it sought to make the federal government far more powerful vis-à-vis the states, an understanding greatly advanced in the postwar amendments, what Bruce Ackerman has called a de facto constitutional convention. Second, it also sought to create a much more powerful chief executive. Little known is the fact that our first "president" was not George Washington; George was simply the first President under the Constitution. The first President of Congress Assembled with John Hanlon, under the now-defunct Articles.
Cue up the quotes from the Federalist papers, knowingly misrepresenting context. Consider the authors, who were dedicated Federalists, and were seeking to sell the new Federal Constitution (Hamilton represents all that is decried here).
And if the 1789 Constitution did not go far enough in asserting federal power, even containing an explicit "Supremacy Clause" consider the postwar amendments, contrast and language to the Bill of Rights, which generally start, especially First Amendment with "Congress shall make no law...”, with the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 22nd, 23rd and 26th Amendments, all of which contain the following clause: "the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Again, there is nothing inherently incorrect with making a normative argument. However, to frame one's worldview in terms of the only accurate understanding of law and history is always a bit suspect
That was me - Rick Fueyo. I signed in via Google, and did not realize it would render me "Anonymous"
Post a Comment