Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

As a number of bemused Americans await the highly touted "Bipartisan Congressional Kumbaya Chorus," which was earnestly suggested by certain Liberal Legislators regarding the seating arrangement for the State of the Union address, still more Citizens stand confused.  The confusion emanates from a new set of Democratic talking points which comically suggests that the new Healthcare law will actually end up reducing the deficit.  While we have heard a number of Conservative pundits constructing grandiose analogies in order to try to explain why this simply isn't possible, our conclusion to all of this would simply be for them to stop wasting their green energy.

In fact, the premise of a huge new Government Healthcare program which both the President and the Democrats say will result in a reduction in spending and thereby lower the deficit is so ridiculous on its own merits that to try to simplify it down any further becomes an exercise in talking down to the entire Nation.  "Shoot!  We might even profit from it"--is essentially what the Lefties are telling us.  But this is apparently how stupid both the Liberals and the Media thinks that most Americans are--barring the usual suspects who routinely believe this sort of drivel.

However, the madness does not end there, but rather it becomes a sort of starting point.  We have somehow moved from a radical left-wing nut's murderous rampage into Sarah Palin's, somehow, being culpable (??), to a media-wide relanguaging effort aimed at anything having to do with...aiming, to Healthcare miraculously being an exciting to way to lower costs.  Perhaps all of this is the run-out of a bold and yet new Democratic slogan:

To Seem Rather Than To Be

Even as December drew to a close, the newly Republican-controlled Congress prepared to take over the reins of US legislative Government to the stark relief of millions the world over.  Speaker Boehner, in a move that drew cries of "foul" from many Liberals, shortly thereafter declared that the entire House would take turns in a televised reading of the US Constitution before Congress.  The fact that this had never been done before, in over 220 years of congressional history, was the hue and cry that went up from the Progressives, and many of the moderate Democrats, as a firestorm of media attention ensued.  And therein, Ladies and Gentlemen, lies the artful beauty of the thing.

112th Congress Reading the US Constitution

While it often seems that the Progressives are mostly about breaking away from tradition, in this case it would have defeated their own veiled "We are One with the Gov" purposes --thus the backlash.  The Conservatives, meanwhile,  historically appear to be all about adhering to proven tradition, unless or until a deeper meaning via breakaway can be achieved.  Here, both parties actually appeared to depart from their respective traditional roles.  One party, the Republicans, in the bolstering of what many consider to be a sacred text that had been essentially shredded in the previous Congress, and the other party, the Democrats, in an ingratiating attempt to deflate from one of the most powerful Libertarian government documents ever written.

The ongoing comments from the Liberals, in the current day, essentially poo-poo the ideas of extreme adherence to the Constitution by often laughingly pointing out that many Republicans and Americans in general "pretend as if the document is sacred."  Still others laugh at the stringency of the offense many Conservatives mount in stark defense of the document, as if t'were a most abject thing.  Here, musing over these events as we have many times before, our thoughts turned to a two-thousand year old quote which has bobbed to the surface of our consciousness' ever more frequently over the last several years--that being, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

See Ezra, See Ezra and Nora Talk, See Ezra and Nora Get Confused...

Ezra Klein, a very popular Liberal blogger who also writes for the Washington Post, finally made us all cognizant of the exact reason for his extreme popularity--as it regards the increasingly mind-numbed, diminutively numbered, Liberal automatons of the Nation.  In a televised interview with Progressive info-babe Nora O' Donnell on the "Lean Forward and to the Left" network MSNBC, Klein was asked his opinion of the impending public reading of the Constitution in the House. Klein responded that the reading was, indeed, "a gimmick" that "had no binding power on anything."

The Hulk-ettishly Ignorant Ezra Klein

Klein further explained, in an Aha! moment, his apparent reason for Progressive-angst against the Constitution by whining, "The text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago."  He further stated, in a rather daunting display of  incredibly Hulk-ettish  extreme ignorance, the following: "What people believe it says differs from person to person and differs on what they want to get done."

Our increasingly typical response, these days, sounded once again: Oh, for Heaven's sake!  Now...first of all, we would like to thank Ezra personally for allowing us that rare but very telling peek into the Liberal workings of what many might refer to as an ever declining group-think mental process.  But the most important part of this particular discovery points to what we might refer to as a basic and yet mammoth misunderstanding of what the US Constitution means to both a Government and the people who are being governed.  All of this even while missing the entire all-encompassing purpose of the text in the first place.

Recently Discovered All-Natural Liberal Repellent

First of all, we note it to be fascinating that the US Constitution begins with "US" --and musefully wonder if that is some sort of typographical accident, or does it, perhaps, point to some serendipitous cosmic implication of a thing much deeper at play?  In fact, the entire document defines what a government cannot do to an individual or, more conjunctively, "Us."  Conversely, President Obama referred to the Constitution as a list of negative rights against the government, while lamenting the fact that an individual's "positive rights" fail at redressing redistribution of wealth.  In other words, the President would prefer to see the US Constitution as a list of positive rights custom designed for the expressed protection of each native individual in every way conceivable, which would leave the Government free to perform anything that it desires in achieving that unsound goal.

And herein lies the strongest implicative power for individuals on the planet, being that any government or authoritarian power which usurps one's inalienable rights in favor of another will become subject to the pinnacle of authority in the United States--that being "the word" in the form of the US Constitution, which functions as the  Rule of Law imprimatur.  For those who might typically doubt the power that lies in words, it should yet be noted that in numerous passages from both the Torah and the Christian Bible, are verses which read as follows, "In the beginning the word existed and the word was with God, and the word was God."

The Constitution, is in fact, an amalgamation of the one and all powerful word and that word or collective will protects the sanctity of each individual and that individual's independence to assert his or her free will.  Or, in other words, his or her's God-given right to "self determination."

Now why, for Heaven's sake, could anyone, but especially Liberals, whether Godless or otherwise, have a problem with this particular ideal?  Well, Ezra has kindly explained this to us already; the word, in its blinding brilliance, is difficult for some to read without being intellectually blinded by the blazing nature of the words.  This can, perhaps rather whimsically, be likened to casting Holy Water on a vampire, or maybe even reading the Rite of Exorcism against an unclean spirit--you get the idea.

The Constitutional Warding  Of Tyranny

But, once again, rather than point to and explain the extreme and ultimate power of an adherence to the "exact" words of the Constitution, why not look at what happens when a governing authority is unbounded or even in an essential vacuum of an all powerful and protective word  or warding of the people.

What separates our government and keeps it from devolving into a centralized Statist machination or particularly a tyrannical construct such as the Chinese Communist government or even Russia's continually worried fledgling Democracy?  The US Constitution, as we look at two major examples of two notable Governmental systems which do not avail a fully functioning Constitution.

China

As with all eyes being upon China's recent State visit and her increasingly complex role within American business and Government, what better time to point out a few notables between China and America as it regards our respective forms of Freedom.

In China's case the issue of Freedom and Liberty can be seen to be measured out to the advantage of the Government, in America's case such Freeedom and Liberties are more advantaged by the people.

Mao Executions

The Chinese, more and more often, seem to ironically be the darlings of both the Liberals and the media in general for reasons that tend to increasingly evade most of us whom are of a Conservative bent.  When Mao Tse Tung forcibly took over the reins of China's Government, the estimates of the dissidents which he exterminated range from 50 to 70 million people which would equal the combined total populations of Great Britain and Canada together.  But the ironic part of this fact is that a disproportionate percentage of those murdered individuals actually belonged to the Chinese media or press of the time--simply because they were the most "vocally" dangerous, by the way, now would be the time to begin drawing correlations. The even more ironic part?  The Chinese actually utilize the two very things that most individuals of a liberal bent despise beyond madness.

The first being China's militarily based Totalitarian Government which derives most of its power over the people from an authoritarian controlled central politbureau or oligarchy--an Autocracy if you will. The second decidedly un-liberal fact is that the Chinese Communists ever increasingly employ a both ruthless and relatively lawless Chino-capitalistic system designed for the express and implicit purpose of profit at-any-cost.  This can be seen in the increasing array of products exported to the US in the last few years such as poisoned baby formula, toxic Chinese drywall and even children's toys laced with hazardous lead paint, among a host of others both well known and not.  However, the main point that allows the Chinese to do pretty much anything they wish to anyone they wish, especially those citizens that disagree, is the fact that there is nothing in place, such as a warding Constitution, which keeps the Government from employing harsh measures when it comes to its own subjects.

Simplifying Human Interaction Is Like Trying To Herd Cats On A Pogo-Stick

What We call a Rule Of Law here becomes a despicable Rule By Rote in China. So while many might marginalize the interpretive nature of the Constitution's role within American law as put forth by Ezra Klein, what the simplistic critics fail to understand is that as with the infinity of both numbers and stars in the night time sky, so it is with the infinitive number of complex human interactions that will inevitably result in a wrong being done.

Here is where both Law and the word in the form of the US Constitution come into play at measuring corrective or sometimes preemptive justice that speaks to an individual's right to pursue his or her happiness unimpeded.

While many might perceive the Chinese as a rising world power with state of the art infrastructure, the sad truth is something quite different. In fact, China proudly boasts the top 20 most  polluted cities in the world. Virtually every system is corrupt, in one way or another,  including the state run medical system simply because there is no rule of law. Government protected Religious observation? forget it. The Chinese actually raid and arrest those who gather at organized religious meetings, outside of state approved religion, because the central Government and the military must be observed as being number one at all times. The Chinese society-- while many of the left might view as a model of stabilized equality-- is actually a haven for ruthless inequality.  In fact, the homeless of China, on any one night in a large city, can range to more than 10,000 individuals sleeping in the streets or in transit stations.

Unlike within the US, where virtually anyone can excel based on a wide-range of factors, the sad truth in China is simply that in order to persevere you either must know someone or be someone beatifically approved by the State, such is the level of corruption.

What separates our Government and keeps it from devolving into a centralized Statist machination or tyrannical construct such as the Chinese Communist Government or Russia's continually threatened Democracy?  The US Constitution.

Russia

After the Demise of the Soviet Union Communist Government, the Russians set to creating A Democratic form of Government, under Boris Yeltsin,  modeled in many ways on the US Government but with a Parliamentary type of system. The main difference between a parliamentary System and our Federal Government system, while myriad, is the method by which the President is selected. In the US the President is selected by an electoral vote of the people which is based in essence upon the Citizens in each State's popular vote.  In a Parliamentary system, the question of a President is based upon a selection by votes, within the actual Legislature. This would therefore mean that the Country's leader is selected by the ruling elites in Government rather than the people.

While the Russians actually developed a Constitution that, many would argue, offers even more expansive liberties to the people than even the US Constitution, there is one glaring difference between the two in main and this particular difference glares in abeyance to universal liberty. Noting the problems with which the Russians have struggled, especially of late, we can begin to discern a number of differences between the two Constitutions.  The glue which will, more often than not, hold the People's liberties intact, is one of process or procedure and is one of great import.

In the US Constitution, a process of governmental procedure is clearly laid out and it becomes a question of the various branches of Government, and Parties, to essentially watchdog the other branches  that process is adhered to in total. In the Russian Constitution, the question of Federal process is left "Open-ended" in large part.  This open-endedness is the extreme weakness which ultimately allows injuries to the Liberty of the people and speaks to a number of instances in Russian Government that leaves open the possibility of ongoing tyranny.

Mikhail Khordorkovsky in jail

This can be seen where despite a different President's having been elected, Putin seems to have retained political power on a massive scale. Further, we also note the recent arrest and what many say was a manufactured list of crimes by one of the Chief dissidents and a powerful Presidential contender, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Khodorkovsky was to have been released from jail this year, however, many contend that due to an impending Russian election for President, Khodorkovsky was sentenced to an additional six years in prison.

The Withering  Domino Effect Of Constitutional Bypass

The old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely can easily be seen in Russia where we see members of the press being severely beaten, protesters subjected to state sanctioned violence and on and on.  But Russia and China are merely two of the Government States exampled. In fact, Russia in large measure, is currently considered to be free, and herein lies the rub.  These are but two nations making up about one fourth of the world's population, where another grouping of nearly two billion people exists also under the bootprint of tyranny.

These worldly deficits of non-adherence to procedure also speak to the large number of cries by Conservatives as it regards the Obama Administration's attempts to often bypass rulings by the Judiciary, along with legislation defeated by vote, only to be reinstalled by Federal Agency mandate or Presidential fiat.  If proper procedure is not completely adhered to, tyranny and abuse will ultimately result.

So, while fussy, prepubescent Liberals might point to the US Constitution as being a prehistoric construct that has seen its best day, Conservatives, The Tea Party, a large number of Republicans, some few Democrats and many, many others would argue that it is the one particular thing, within America's history, that has proven to be the  primary arbiter for America's outrageous success.

Whenever legislation is passed that whittles away at the Peoples rights, such as in healthcare's case with its 3000 pages of overreaching mandates, the Constitution has been weakened.  Whenever historically prescribed governmental procedures are bypassed, such as in a Federal Agency's overriding the intent of passed or voided legislation, the basic tenets within the Constitution have been bypassed and the Constitution has, once again, been weakened.

While the Progressives will then expectedly rant about the greater good being done in a particular instance of overreaching, they will inevitably fail to see the domino effect such procedural overreaching will have on future questions of individual rights and the government's role--which may then indeed step into their particular area of self-determinative concerns.

What many people, Liberals especially,  simply do not understand is that the World population considered to be free totals less than half of the planet's population.  This would conversely mean that only 47% of the planet's population are considered Free in political discourse, speech and various other human endeavers.  This, in its very essence, means that nearly 4 billion members of the world's population have no US Constitution as protection and are then routinely subject to the tyrannical whims of the greater-advantaged.

To those who would speak ill of the sacredness of the US Constitution, it must further be pointed out, that every step by  a people's government which leads away from the document that is the US Constitution is a another step towards the chains of  tyranny couched in man-made Draconian authority.  To those who might think that our Governance and its future leaders, whomever they might be regardless of Party, are or will be incapable of usurping what many in the US consider to be "God-given rights," it becomes our duty to point out and educate those innocents of the misinformed, that we currently stand in the minority of the world's population as it regards basic human freedoms.

Ultimately, for those whom are yet unsure, the basic difference that we will continually see playing out within our respective ideologies can be defined and boiled down into one particular idea:

While the Left tends to fear what Government will not do, the Right, more often than not, fears what Government will do.

Listen to this article