Thursday, July 21, 2011

Constitutionalist Commentary part 2

This is part two of a series I will be doing on why I identify myself as a Constitutionalist. I have been receiving questions lately on why I chose the Constitution Party over the Republicans, and I cannot explain the answer in any more brief a way than this: The Constitution Party represents my views more closely than any other party.

However, for those who are looking for more information, read on. This second part will cover the section titled “Sanctity of Life.” You can find it HERE. I recommend reading it, because I will refer to it regularly throughout this post.

The first part of this section quotes the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The phrasing from the Constitution quote is most important. It states, very specifically, that it secures liberty for both the current generation, and the generation to come. In other words, those which have been born, and those yet to be. If any wonder why most pro-life groups are referred to as “right to life,” this statement is why. Any termination of human life, at any stage, is a gross violation and transgression against the Constitution.

I agree fully with the statement that a pregnancy should not be terminated for the crimes of the father. Rape and incest are crimes in themselves, and ones which wreak havoc on all involved parties. However, to end the life of an innocent only furthers this damage, and furthers the crime. One innocent has already suffered in this situation- Two innocents suffering is unthinkable. A recent study showed 73% of rape victims give birth to their children; a prior study showed 75% to 85% chose the same way. Obviously, the majority of the victims in this study did not think along the lines of most pro-abortion mouthpieces. Furthermore, data shows termination of such pregnancies to be detrimental to the victim. It does not solve a single problem, and it leaves the victim feeling like a criminal.

Abortion is also not an acceptable birth control method. If one wishes to spin that roulette wheel, they can take their chances with prophylactics of varying forms. Methods such as the morning after pill do not work in practice within other areas of life- One cannot rob a bank and decide to give the money back the next morning; one cannot kill then decide to give the victim’s life back the next morning; nor can one become pregnant, then decide to give the child back the next morning. Such is life, and life has consequences which must be faced.

The only method of birth control which is one hundred percent effective is abstinence. If that seems unbearable, then spin the wheel and take what comes.

The statement that court decisions are binding only to the parties involved is true. Roe vs Wade was binding only to the parties involved, and further reference to it as binding national law is lunacy. The courts do not create federal law- They enforce them. The Supreme Court is granted the power to strike down unconstitutional laws, but it is a power not granted them to create law by ruling. Such statements are not in keeping with the express powers granted within the Constitution.

Moreover, every state is a separate government ruled by law itself. Each of these states is sovereign, independent of Federal rulings. Each state has the right to govern itself, to the extent the Constitution allows. As pertains to abortion, every state can, and must, deny and renounce the rulings of the Supreme Court as binding law.

I continue to stand behind anyone willing to stand up and be counted as pro-life. Thus, I am in full agreement with the nomination and campaign of anyone with a pro-life agenda. This includes legislation, judicial enforcement, law enforcement and executive order. No innocent life should be ended at the whim of another.

The section continues by declaring that the advancement of federal power through legislation such as the FACE Act to be in violation of the Constitution. I firmly agree, and affirm that the government must immediately withdraw the law. Such legal action is specifically and completely within the State Government’s power, and to be enacted or repealed by the State alone. The federal government has no Constitutional authority in this matter whatsoever.

Continuing, I stand with the party stance on stem cell research. Such cells are unnecessary for this form of research, and can be harvested from a number of other resources. These resources include the placenta and the umbilical cord. A human life need not be ended to research the potential extension of another.

I also stand with the party regarding euthanasia, infanticide and suicide. These are all right to life issues, all covered by this section, and all preventable with proper care and knowledge. The end of any life need not be so cheapened. Indeed, all life is far too valuable to waste in any of the afore mentioned manners.

I personally do diverge slightly from this section. While I believe that human life begins at conception, I acknowledge that there are life-threatening pregnancies which occur. By this, I mean that so-called “tubal pregnancies” threaten the life of the mother. These pregnancies are rarely carried to term, and it is even rarer for the child to be found alive in the event of a full term pregnancy.

As such, I believe that in cases such as these, such pregnancies should be monitored closely. If there is any problem inconsistent with normal pregnancy; any problem where the medical community would be unable to intervene on behalf of the mother and child; the pregnancy must necessarily be terminated. This is a last resort, and most serious in nature. Every such termination would need to be reviewed, with every bit of documentation of the pregnancy, to ensure that nothing further could be done.

This method would also be immediately halted should technology progress to the point of transplanting tubal pregnancies to the uterus. At this point, no abortion will be permissible. All emergency funding for such procedures would immediately be transferred to tubal/uterus transplants, and all further abortive procedures would be prosecuted as murder.

This is the only area in which I diverge on this issue, and one that is reconcilable with the stance as a whole. I will explain.

In war of any kind, there will be casualties. These casualties can be minimized, but sometimes this minimization comes at great sacrifice. During Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers often had to make a snap decision regarding the right to life. When a child or a woman came walking forward with a bomb strapped to them, the choice was clear: kill the carrier, or allow many more to die.

Likewise, in an emergency situation, triage is often followed. In this instance, once more, decisions must be made regarding the right to life. For some individuals, no amount of medical knowledge will save their lives. Then, there are others who can be saved, but only at the cost of the first group. Finally, there are those who need medical attention, but can wait for only one other group before time runs out. In this situation, the first group is nearly always sacrificed to save the other two.

Finally, our law enforcement officers are placed in situations where they too must make decisions regarding the right to life. In these situations, they are often faced with a perpetrator intent on harming himself or others, and often with far more lethal intentions. The decision they face is such: Shoot and possibly kill the suspect, or allow them to harm and possibly kill others? Though it is a hard choice to make, often the only decision to be made is the shooting of the suspect to save the lives of others.

In these three examples, we see that the right to life is sometimes necessarily voided for the wellbeing of others. Likewise, my position does not contradict the overall position of the party. Rather, it acknowledges the tough reality of life itself: That sometimes, choices such as these must be made.

However, these choices are not open to those who would use them at whim. Those who do we call murderers, terrorists, Nazis and other such titles. No, these choices are made only by those facing the decision from a third person perspective. They are not the potential victim, nor are they the potential villain; they are the deciding factor in a tragic twist of life. Only in the case of a truly life threatening situation do these choices arise, and only the deciding factor can make that unbiased call.

To summarize, abortion is a violation of the Constitution in that it ends an innocent life. No court can create binding law contrary to this, as it violates the Constitution. No federal agency can force state government to allow abortion, as that violates the Constitution. Abortion is not a form of birth control, and often creates more problems. Abortion does not solve problems; it only makes the problems worse. There are rare cases in which abortion may be justified, but only until this archaic and horrific practice can be replaced with a more humane method of saving the life of the mother.

This is my commentary on the Sanctity of Life section of the Constitution Party. Next I will review the section: Bring Government Back Home.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Which of These Sounds Right?

Pharaoh and all his men were storming into the open area of the Red Sea. As they neared, Moses looked up and asked God, "Aren't you going to wash them away with the Sea?" There was a snort from on high, followed by, "What?! And pollute My creation?!"

Jesus and His disciples were just finishing up after He fed the five thousand. As the crowds left, and his disciples began to gather the food, Christ had one last instruction for them. "Make sure you collect any remaining trash, too! We want to make sure we don't litter."

As God looked out over the expanse of space, He created the planets. After forming Earth, He glanced around. Then He said, "Let there be non-mercury laden, carbon footprint reducing light!"

After Joshua leveled the last stronghold of their enemy, he began to order his men to sow salt into the ground. Suddenly, a messenger of the Lord appeared. "Belay that order!" the messenger cried. "The Lord's decided that would be bad for the environment."

IF any of these examples resonates with you; if you feel that any of these are right sounding; if you think the Bible has totally covered up an eco-sensitive Creator, one who is ultimately concerned with the protracted existence of this world... You're blooming nuts.

Remember, we're talking about a God who will leave the bodies of hundreds of thousands to rot in the Valley of Meggido. Also, the same one who destroyed it once already with a flood- And if you think THAT wasn't bad for the environment... Finally, this same God will destroy this world with fire when all is said and done- How's that for global warming?

Look, it boils down to this: We are called to be stewards of creation. We are meant to care for it, and to prevent things such as extinction. However, we are not called to prevent people from using incandescent light bulbs.

Thanks for listening.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Renegade's Rants!!!: Constitutionalist Commentary part 1

Christian Forums Blog

Constitutionalist Commentary part 1

This is part one of a series I will be doing on why I identify myself as a Constitutionalist. I have been receiving questions lately on why I chose the Constitution Party over the Republicans, and I cannot explain the answer in any more brief a way than this: The Constitution Party represents my views more closely than any other party.

However, for those who are looking for more information, read on. This first part will cover the Preamble to the party platform. You can find it HERE. I recommend reading it, because I will refer to it regularly throughout this post.

They begin by giving glory to God. As a Christian, and a firm believer in the law of sowing and reaping, I view this as only right. Without God, there can be no success, no progress, and no freedom. Ascribing God the honor due Him is tantamount to a successful nation. This is seen throughout the Old Testament with Israel’s example, as well as other honorable mentions.

From there, we move on to an acknowledgement of the foundations of this country. Though revisionists have attempted to rewrite the majority of our nation’s history, the fact remains that this country was founded on Biblical principle. The fact remains that the majority of the founders were Christians, though their dogmatic and theological beliefs varied.

There is one glaring fact about this section that I wish to expound upon. For this country to have grown in the way it has, and succeeded in the way it has, there could be no other foundation other than the Bible. The Koran demands unbelievers be converted, by any means necessary. The redes of Wicca, or witchcraft, allow for gross misconduct, so long as no other living person is harmed. Atheism would never have founded a nation wherein religion is practiced freely. However you look at it, the principles and precepts upon which the nation was founded could come from only one place- The Bible.

Now some have stated that the first and second commandments come into direct contradiction with the Constitution. I want to take a moment to address this. The idea is that, because the first two commandments deal with having no other god before God, the first amendment is contradictory. Thus, most people using this argument are doing so in hopes of “proving” the United States was not formed on a Christian foundation. The argument is fundamentally flawed, however, when one takes into account the fact that it allows for the free practice of religion, but does not demand the adherence to a specific religion. As such, it is not anything even close to a contradiction; rather, it is further proof of the wisdom of the Founders. They formed the country based upon the whole of the Bible, rather than just a few parts.

Now we come to the five principles listed at the end of the preamble. I will list and comment each one.

· That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness… I agreed with these words when I first read them in the Declaration of Independence, and I continue to agree with them. Some may point out that the word “property” is not found in the original Declaration- This is wrong merely on a technicality. The word is found within the original, but not within the ratified version.

· That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights… This is a point I believe to be one of the most at risk liberties in our nation today. The regulatory nature of every form of government, from local to federal, in regards to property is preposterous. More to the point, the fact that these rights are continually trod upon through the use of sovereign ownership, in whatever form it takes, is a supreme violation of the people’s will, and a betrayal of their good faith.

· That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all… Some may disagree with this statement; I do not. Government was never meant to be a wet nurse, a “Daddy Warbucks,” or a savior. It was meant to be a sentinel- Ever vigilant to the welfare of the citizens. Welfare is not defined as a check every week or so. It is the well being and peace of every individual to live out life and live to the fullest. However, it is not the government’s job to assure that person is able to live at the peak of their potential- Merely that they have the opportunity and chance to do so. Everything else is up to the individual. Basically, the statement of the government is this: “I keep you safe, and provide the peace and the law to allow you to succeed; get to it.”

· That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights… Nowhere in history do we see a government remain a champion of liberty and freedom. If there were such a government, it would still be around today. As such, every government must remain constantly and consistently in check at all times. There is need for growth and flexibility, but there is also a requirement for a very specific boundary that will not, and cannot, be crossed. This government has crossed it long ago.

· That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed… This is how the above commentary is achieved. That the Constitution remain the highest law of the land; that said law not be changed except in great need, such as the Civil Rights movement; and that no part of the Constitution be altered to allow for greater government power. Power truly does corrupt, and it will corrupt a system as easily as a human being. Once corrupted, the entity will continue to grow, much like cancer. Thus the need for absolute accountability on the part of the public servants, which will begin with a heavy emphasis on the word “Servant.”

This is my commentary on the Preamble of the Constitution Party. It is, in my opinion, one of the most accurate appraisals of where this nation needs to be. No other party has the wherewithal to champion such a goal. Certainly no other party is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to return this nation to its original design.

Next, I will be looking at the next section: Sanctity of Life.

Monday, July 4, 2011

FDR, Nationalism and H.R. 973

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."
~Franklin D. Roosevelt

I find it very interesting on more than one level that FDR, a man who lived about half his life as a cripple, made a statement such as this. I am not slamming him for being crippled- In fact, that is about the only thing I hold him in esteem for. The man was the only physically challenged president we've had, and he did a pretty decent job in many respects. The problem is that he also did a horrendous job in many others.

Actually, one of the first reasons I find it interesting is that it is a quote many liberals would wish to champion. Notice, I did not use the words Democrat or Republican: Truth be told, there is very little difference between parties any longer. No there is only ideology, and that breaks roughly into Conservative and Liberal, with many riding fence in between; but I digress. It is a quote they would champion because it sounds like a truthful statement from a heroic figure. The man could not walk, yet look at his keen observation!

I cannot help but notice, however, that the only backwards walking I've seen from most modern Conservatives is derived from their need to clean up the past administration's mistakes. The charge I often hear is that Conservatives are stuck in the past- Well, people who clean up someone else's disasters often are, though not by choice.

This brings me to an article I read earlier today originally written by the late Howard Zinn. In it, he lambastes what he terms "Nationalism ... One of the great evils of our time." The problem is, Zinn proceeds to describe patriotism- Not Nationalism. Now mind you, this man was a veteran. He fought in World War II. Thus, it was strange to read such a gross mischaracterization- He ascribes the very attitude which gave rise to Hitler to patriotism.

Take, for instance, this excerpt from the beginning of the article:

On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blesse

Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

This is not Nationalism- This is patriotism that is being attacked here. Perhaps more amazing in its sheer foolishness is the fact that the article attempts to paint the United States of America as unimportant, unexceptional and far from unique. He ends his abomination of an article with these words: "We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history ... We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation."

This is humanism at its best- Not to mention historical revisionism, interpretive deviance and terminological hijacking. While I agree that the U.S. has no feet to stand on from a moral perspective in many instances, the rest of his closing statement is purely progressive liberal bull.

I bring this up because once again, a Conservative has to set the record straight.

Nationalism is what Germany experienced during the rise of Adolph Hitler. It is an extreme attitude of superiority centered around a single powerful figurehead. The ruler institutes symbols and the subjects show reverence and/or deference to these without question, criticism or complaint. It was this attitude that allowed Hitler to not only come to power, but also to taking his first steps towards eternal, historical infamy. When Hitler was questioned, what resulted was often a less than pretty sight; within his government, individuals who stood against him wound up catching a bad case of death.

Contrasting heavily with this is Patriotism. Patriots support their nation, think highly of their nation and appreciate their nation. However, they are also highly critical if something seems to be affecting it for the worse- They speak out, demanding a return to proper adherence to rule of law, for instance. Or, hypothetically speaking, denouncing as wrong something as obvious as electing a duel citizen to federal public office. In this country, this sort of thing can be done at any time, anywhere. In this country, patriots rally behind a flag and their troops while demanding accountability from their leaders. In this country, people can do this without disappearing unexpectedly- Or being slaughtered on the spot.

This article exemplifies perfectly the need for H.R. 973. In short, it spells out the need for all courts, from Municipal to Supreme, decide cases based solely upon US Law and no other. It seems so simple and common sense that one might be tempted to dismiss it as unnecessary. Such a dismissal would be a colossal mistake, however.

As indicated in the earlier example, common sense is far from commonplace nowadays. As such, people are needing, more and more, for things to be spelled out for them. Our leaders in D.C. top this list. For this reason, I urge you to phone your Reps and Senators and demand their support and passage of this bill. It's simple, it's common sense, but in the long run, it may save this country.

If you don't know who your Reps and Senators are, try this handy online tool.