Thursday, June 30, 2011

The Constitution—Do We Still Follow It?


“Provocative? Perhaps, but that’s nothing new for Time magazine with a history of taking iconic American symbols and using them to make political statements.

On Thursday on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe,’ Time magazine editor Richard Stengel presented the cover of his new July 4 issue, which features the U.S. Constitution going through a paper shredder and asks does the document still matter. According to Stengel, it does, but not as much anymore.

‘Yes, of course it still matters but in some ways it matters less than people think,” Stengel said on ‘Morning Joe.’ ‘People all the time are debating what’s constitutional and what’s unconstitutional. To me the Constitution is a guardrail (Does it matter what the Constitution is to him?—my addition). It’s for when we are going off the road and it gets us back on. It’s not a traffic cop that keeps us going down the center. And what our politics are about—politics are about conflict. There was no people who argued more about defining principles of America than the framers of the Constitution. They argued both sides of the most powerful issues in American history—slavery, states’ rights, central government. So to say that what did the framers want is kind of a crazy question, I have to say (Is he right or wrong with this stance?—my addition). I write about that in the piece.’

The cover is about a story Stengel authored dated June 23 and tackles issues of the day as they related to the Constitution, including Libya, the debt ceiling, ObamaCare and immigration.

Stengel concludes his article by saying it isn’t the document that is the U.S. Constitution that plays the prominent role in American society, but the people instead.

‘The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution,’ Stengel wrote (Have we lost that spirit of liberty?—my addition). ‘The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution. That’s what the framers would say.”

From the comment section:

“Princeton University

When you can’t win by playing by the rules, simply destroy the rules. America—we hardly knew ya.”

2:34 AM 06/25/2011 - 2:34 AM


‘WE THE PEOPLE’ … Would like it if ‘You The People’ who have such disdain for this country and it’s Constitution, would get on a slow boat to China and never return.

5:19 PM 06/24/2011 - 5:19 PM “


“Dear Patriot,

You may have already seen the provocative Time Magazine cover that shows our beloved Constitution being shredded with the caption ‘Does It Still Matter?’ Our question is:

‘Does Time Magazine or any of the establishment media still matter?’ The establishment class in this country has bastardized the Constitution, using radical interpretation to circumvent the negative powers that impede their power. The free press has failed in their responsibility to be a critical check on the establishment; instead, they have championed a radical liberal agenda that centralizes power. For years they got away with it because they had a monopoly on the flow of information, but advances in new media like talk radio and the internet have destroyed their monopoly and, when offered a choice, the consumer overwhelmingly rejects their blatant propaganda.

Now, we are taking our fight against liberal policy and the publications that push a liberal agenda to a whole new level! The Tea Party Cyber tour gives our members direct and exclusive access to conservative candidates, our upcoming groundbreaking Presidential Debate circumvents the old media kingmakers and puts you in control of the information that you demand of candidates. All this is a part of our broader strategy to close the information and technology gap between liberals and conservatives.

Regaining control of the instruments of information is not an option as we seek to restore our nation’s constitutional footing. We cannot fail, but we cannot succeed without your continued support! Hosting a Presidential Debate, sponsoring townhalls with conservative leaders that utilize multiple mediums, recruiting tens of thousands of new patriots every week, and all of the other amazing tools and information that we offer free-of-charge has a cost. We rely on you, our membership to fund these important endeavors, and you can help by making a generous contribution today!

Thank you,
Dustin Stockton
Media Director”


“June 24, 2011
The Constitution’s Demise According to Time: Nothing to See Here

The central-government media has finally given us knuckle-draggers an explanation of the difference between war criminals and constitutionalists: It's party affiliation, and which party is in power.

Time magazine's recent cover story ‘One Document, Under Siege’,8599,2079445-1,00.html

is clearly written as a response to the constitutional conservative movement, or as the essay says, ‘the rise of the Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on the founding document.’

It’s worth reading for one purpose only, which is to understand the curious, inconsistent and anti-intellectual thought processes by which the left views the Constitution. Through the words of Time managing editor Richard Stengel, we come to see the internal contradictions that the Constitution must be applied strictly, but then not. That it’s to be obeyed in some instances, but then not. (Much like some people profess obedience to GOD. Obedient when they agree with the WORD of GOD and when it suits their purposes; disobedient when they disagree with it and/or when it does not suit their purposes!—my Addition)

Walking us through four topics of the day—Libya, the debt ceiling, ObamaCare and immigration—Mr. Stengel takes us through the rollercoaster thinking that is the left’s view of the Constitution. (Situational ethics?—my addition)

When it’s for the progressive cause, ‘we shouldn’t be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it.’ The Constitution is, after all, merely a ‘blueprint.’ (Really—my addition) For the Founders, ‘it was a set of principles, not a code of law.’ (What? By definition, a Constitution is law!—my addition)

‘A constitution in and of itself guarantees nothing,’ writes Stengel. ‘Bolshevik Russia had a constitution, as did Nazi Germany.’ (He is correct about this!—my addition)

Why, yes, as a matter of fact, those totalitarian regimes did have constitutions. That must make some people salivate.

As to our Libyan war, he writes:

‘The War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That’s not unconstitutional; that’s how our system works.’ (That doesn’t mean it isn’t Unconstitutional!—my addition)

Mr. Stengel is right in one regard. The President and many elected officials operate by ignoring the Constitution and other laws. That he is comfortable that this is how ‘our system works’ is both disturbing and revealing. (True! Did he voice the same position when George W. Bush was President?—my addition)

On the other hand, whether America ‘defaults on our national debt is not only reckless; it’s probably unconstitutional.’

Aha! Mr. Stengel has given us the key to understanding the left’s interpretation of the Constitution. I get it now, and I want all of my fellow knuckle-draggers to understand it with me. It’s a document written for the progressive movement to make what they will of it. (A living Constitution? An uninterpretable Constitution?—my addition)

This makes it so much easier for us knuckle-draggers to understand the Constitution. Thank you, central-government media.


‘One Document, Under Siege
By Richard Stengel Thursday, June 23, 2011

Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga. (So what? The only author of any document who knew the future is GOD. That doesn’t prevent people from ignoring, reinterpreting, and disobeying the Bible!—my addition)

People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well, since George Washington didn’t even dream that man could fly (Don‘t know this!—my addition), much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it’s hard to say what he would think (That may be true. However, that does NOT mean the Constitution is not to be used to make decisions in that area!—my addition). What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress’s authority under the commerce clause (That it is! I have no doubt about that!—my addition)? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it’s difficult to know what he would say (Not necessarily!—my addition) . And what would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed (Believed by whom?—my addition) to have fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white, half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not exist)? Again, hard to say (Not necessarily!—my addition).”

The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms—freedom of speech, assembly, religion—but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being (A compromise that made the adoption of the Constitution possible! These people love to rewrite and/or ignore history when it suits their purpose!—my addition), that women were not allowed to vote (Nothing about women voting or specifically about men voting is said in the Constitution! Voting rights were a State issue!—my addition) and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy (Again, a compromise to help make the Constitution possible! Ignoring history!—my addition). And I’m not even going to mention the Electoral College. They did not give us income taxes. Or Prohibition. Those came later. (Those came later by Constitutional Amendment as REQUIRED by the Constitution!—my addition)

Americans have debated the Constitution since the day it was signed, but seldom have so many disagreed so fiercely about so much (Really?—my addition). Would it be unconstitutional to default on our debt? Should we have a balanced-budget amendment? Is it constitutional to ask illegal immigrants to carry documents? The past decade, beginning with the disputed election of 2000, has been a long national civics class about what the Constitution means—and how much it still matters. For eight years under George W. Bush, the nation wrestled with the balance between privacy and security (an issue the framers contended with) while the left portrayed the country as moving toward tyranny. For the past three years under President Obama, we have weighed issues of individual freedom vs. government control while the right has portrayed the country as moving toward a socialist welfare state.

Where’s the Crisis? (He has to ask?—my addition)
A new focus on the Constitution is at the center of our political stage with the rise of the Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on the founding document. The new Republican Congress organized a reading of all 7,200 words of an amended version of the Constitution on the House floor to open its first session. As a counterpoint to the rise of constitutional originalists (those who believe the document should be interpreted only as the drafters understood it), liberal legal scholars analyze the text just as closely to find the elasticity they believe the framers intended (Believe is the operative word! Claim may be even better!—my addition. Everywhere there seems to be debate about the scope and meaning and message of the Constitution. This is a healthy thing. Even the framers would agree on that (How does he know? Earlier his claim about not knowing seems to dispute this statement!—my addition).

So, are we in a constitutional crisis? In a word, no (In a word, YES?—my addition). The Constitution was born in crisis. It was written in secret (Not true! It was written by a committee of State representatives. Some who were present and participated did not sign the final document!—my addition) and in violation of the existing one (What?—my addition), the Articles of Confederation, at a time when no one knew whether America would survive. The Constitution has never not been under threat. Benjamin Franklin was skeptical that it would work at all (And YET he signed it and gave GOD the credit for its formation!—my addition). Alexander Hamilton wondered whether Washington should be a king. Jefferson questioned the constitutionality of his own Louisiana Purchase.

Today’s debates represent conflict, not crisis. Conflict is at the core of our politics, and the Constitution is designed to manage it. There have been few conflicts in American history greater than the internal debates the framers had about the Constitution. For better or for worse—and I would argue that it is for better—the Constitution allows and even encourages deep arguments about the most basic democratic issues. A crisis is when the Constitution breaks down (Or when it is continually not obeyed!—my addition). We’re not in danger of that (In his opinion!—my addition).”


“Lessons In History
June 23, 2011 by Bob Livingston

In his column this week, Patrick J. Buchanan wrote about the ignorance of today’s American schoolchildren, as revealed by the results of the National Assessment of Education Progress test.

On a history test given to 31,000 pupils, most fourth-graders could not identify a picture of Abraham Lincoln or why he was important. Most eighth-graders could not identify an advantage American forces had in the Revolutionary War, most 12th-graders did not know why America entered World War II or that China was North Korea’s ally in the Korean War.

One of the questions on the test showed a poster put out by the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies in 1940 that depicted a boot with a huge swastika on its sole about to trample the Statue of Liberty and asked which country the boot represented. Four countries were listed as possible answers. But a majority of students failed to pick Germany.

Buchanan wrote:

‘We’re raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate (And illiterate when it comes to the Constitution?—my addition),’ historian David McCullough told The Wall Street Journal.

‘History textbooks,’ added McCullough, ‘are (sic) ‘badly written.’ Many texts have been made ‘so politically correct as to be comic. Very minor characters that are currently fashionable are given considerable space, whereas people of major consequence’—such as inventor Thomas Edison—‘are given very little space or none at all.’

Trendies and minorities have their sensibilities massaged in the new history, which is, says McCullough, ‘often taught in categories—women’s history, African American history, environmental history—so that many students have no sense of chronology … no idea of what followed what.’ (True!—my addition)

But if the generations coming out of our schools do not know our past, do not know who we are or what we have done as a people, how will they come to love America, refute her enemies or lead her confidently?’

This ignorance of history is a plague that is leading America down the road to ruin.

Socialism (and its related ‘isms’ communism and Marxism), which just 30 years ago was rightly considered a danger to America, has not just become an acceptable alternative to a growing number of today’s youths, but is actually something many are striving for.

Few are the people today younger than 40 who appreciate the Constitution and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and fewer still are those who have ever read it, much less understand what it means and says. And an even smaller number know that the tyranny of the British Empire the Founders rejected and defeated is no less than the tyranny our own government now imposes upon us.

The result is an acceptance—even an embrace—of the growing police state in exchange for a life of government handouts.

Noah Webster (who authored the first American textbook and dictionary) once said: ‘Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country.’

Parents who expect their children to learn the real history of America in a government school are deluded. It’s something that must be taught at home. And that teaching is vital to restoring the American Republic.”

How can and how will a people defend, preserve, and protect a document—the Constitution of the United States or the Bible—that they are NOT familiar with and knowledgeable of? Knowledge is, in a very real sense, power. Lack of knowledge makes it easier to lead others down the wrong paths as any pied piper knows.

Do people today know what the Constitution says? How can one obey what one does not know? How can one know when the Constitution is not being obeyed if one does not know the Constitution. To return to the principles and law of the Constitution we MUST know what those Constitutional principles and law are. That is why I’m developing a Constitution workbook. Knowledge is, in a very real sense, power.

This is my last post until July 5th. Have a safe, enjoyable, and patriotic Fourth of July weekend!

Be back next Tuesday, the LORD willing!

It’s time, it is past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It’s time, it is past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!