Saturday, June 30, 2018


“The End of the World”...again

“We’re looking at the destruction of the constitution” says Kamala Harris — socialist (Democrat) senator from California.

This is a classic debate point from the left every time a Republican president nominates a Supreme Court justice. Like everything the hyperbolic vein-bulging left comes up with, it’s utter nonsense. (Remember, “ripping babies from their mother’s arms and putting them in cages” Hitler, of course).

A Supreme Court justice’s role is to reconcile laws to the specific instructions of the constitution and the spirit that gave birth to the document. The specifics are obvious and concise. The spirit is also obvious as there are numerous documents from the period that make clear what the American government is to be. Specific reference and details to specific issues (like abortion, for example *) need not be listed. This may be the case in a 500 page bureau-authoritarian monstrosity like the EU’s “constitution.” The prime overarching attribute of America’s constitution is that American government is to be LIMITED, power is to be diffused, and the citizenry is to be largely “self-governing” ...a very unique and successful way for a people to live.

While leftists will often point to constitutional rights when it serves a specific argument, their sympathies are decidedly anti-constitution. They are not just opposed to “conservative” (originalist) court justices. They are opposed to the constitution itself. Just as progressives see America as a deeply flawed country, they see it’s founding documents as the irrelevant outdated self-interested rambling of mere “dead white male slave-holders.”

It should be no surprise that a progressive (now, virtually indistinguishable from a communist) should see a Supreme Court Justice’s role as one of imposing ideological standards on the nation that have no relationship to the founding documents. The Supreme Court to them is just another command center in which to subvert a society of free people and reintroduce the world-historical standard of tyranny.

People, and the left specifically, will often frame the arguments regarding a nominee as being part of the conservative / liberal polarity, but this is not what is actually at issue.

“Originalists” like former justice Scalia believe — as they should — that their role is one of applying the constitution and its original intent to the issues of the day. The constitution is the reference that determines legal decisions. In itself, that is NOT a “conservative” position. In fact, if done honestly, it is incredibly neutral — as it should be. What disturbs leftists’ sentiments is the fact that an originalist interpretation of the constitution more often than not defaults to what is currently seen as “conservatism.” As in the culture as a whole, the court has so successfully been skewed to a leftist method of operation, that anything stable and “original” is seen as “conservative.” In some court cases, members of the court have cited “international law.” International law is completely irrelevant to America and its constitution, not least because America is — thankfully — not governed by “international” law. (Most institutions and ideals deemed “international” are typically far left in in their makeup and goals).

It is now seen as “conservative” to want the country’s border to be secure....Really? That position was considered mainstream and moderate a mere few years ago. Positions seem to become conservative after the left has successfully attempted to mainstream their radical position.

The left has never held America or America’s constitution with any real respect. To them, the constitution is an obstacle to their desire to reintroduce the “rule of men” over impartial laws.

The prime goal of “progressives,” socialists, communists, et al has always been “socialist revolution” and absolute rule over their fellow citizens’ lives and thoughts. America’s constitution is the citizenry’s greatest defense against tyranny and tyranny’s contemporary advocates.

Another appointment of a strict constructionist to America’s Supreme Court is not the “end of the world,” or the “destruction of the constitution.” It’s the maintenance of a sane world and return to genuine constitutional authority.

* (The complexity of the abortion issue stems largely from how one views a fetus at its stages of development. If one sees it as a human life, than abortion would accurately be seen as murder and one would reasonably hope that people would be strongly opposed to murder. If one does not believe a fetus to be a human life, one could reasonably argue for “a woman’s right to choose.” Constitutionally, this is the kind of issue that should most likely be addressed by individual states).

Saturday, June 09, 2018


For What it’s Worth

This is my feeble first attempt at publishing on Amazon/Kindle. I make no pretense as to the quality but, if you’re interested in art history, please have a look.

Who would have guessed that a "narrow-minded, ill-informed, mouth-breathing conservative" would have an interest in nineteenth-century Landscape painting...or maybe the left’s self-righteous pseudo-intellectual arrogance is ill-founded.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?