A Progressive Declaration of Self-Evident Truths

As Conservatives, we all know and revere the preamble to the Founders’ Declaration of Independence, perhaps the greatest political statement in the history of mankind, attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed —

These self-evident truths lie at the core of our Constitution and Conservatism.  They are what mathematicians and philosophers call axiomatic.  In other words, they are acknowledged to be unprovable, but they are presumed and accepted as true (hence “self-evident”), and they are the starting point for whatever follows — in this case, the remainder of the Declaration and later the Constitution itself.

So …

If these are the self-evident truths of Conservatism, what are the self-evident truths of Progressivism?  I’ve never seen them offered up or written down in concise Jeffersonian style.  Perhaps there are bits and pieces available in the writings of Karl Marx.  Perhaps from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs is an example of a Progressive* self-evident truth.  Perhaps some of our Progressive readers can enlighten us(?).

In the absence of guidance from Progressives themselves, we are left to infer the self-evident truths of Progressivism by working backwards from observations of their statements and behaviors.  That’s what I try to do in this article.

Of course, we’re not entirely without clues. For example, Progressives like Barack Obama have told us that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed because it focuses too much on what the government cannot do to us and not enough about what the government must do for us.  As Obama has put it:

… the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

This is a helpful clarification.  For over 100 years, Progressives in America have been marching to the same drummer’s beat that Obama hears.  From Obama’s statement and my amateur observations of Progressive behaviors for several decades, I offer up the following to Progressives and Conservatives alike for their comment:

Progressive Declaration
of Self-Evident Truths

We hold these Truths to be self-evident:

  1. That all people are created equal,
  2. That they are endowed by The State with certain inalienable rights,
  3. That among these are Liberty, Equality, and Social Justice,
  4. That Equality includes life-long human rights to food, shelter, clothing, education, and health care,
  5. That to pursue Equality, The State may confiscate wealth from those who have it and redistribute it among those who don’t,
  6. That to pursue Social Justice, The State may constrain Liberty and Equality for some groups as reparations for past injustices suffered by other groups.

 

What follows are my notes on how I chose these six explicit clauses to represent the self-evident truths of Progressivism:

Clause 1:
In this clause, “all people are created equal” is used to avoid the allegedly sexist “all men are created equal” in the Founders’ Declaration.  A lesser point perhaps, but I’m trying to think as a Progressive would, right from the get-go, and then stay “in character” for the discussion of the remaining five clauses.

Clause 2:
In this clause, the phrase The Statetakes the place of the wordCreatorin the Founders’ Declaration.  All mention of God or a Creator is expunged in the Progressive Declaration, thereby avoiding any dual loyalties or competition with The State.  Religion is not explicitly forbidden, but neither is it mentioned or encouraged.  It may be tolerated so long as The State feels unthreatened by it, but The State is always the final arbiter in these matters.

In a Progressive’s world, Clause 2 has significant advantages.  For example, the current conflict over Government-mandated contraceptive coverage in employer-provided health care would be instantly resolved in favor of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the aggrieved party named Sandra Fluke.  Similarly, all the long-running controversies over religious displays on government-owned property would be resolved quite simply — The State’s word would be final.

Most importantly, since all fundamental rights are endowed by The State, they can be limited or withdrawn by The State.  This becomes important in Clause 6.

Clause 3:
The Founders’ Declaration lists Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness as inalienable rights.  In the Progressive Declaration, “Life” does not appear at all.  This is another convenience for The State since abortion rights would be much easier to declare and maintain if Life were not an unalienable right.  Thus, it would no longer matter whether a fetus does or does not constitute “life”.  The State decides. Simple, no? In fact, if The State were to allow it, abortion rights might even extend to infanticide in the first 30 days of baby’s life, as proposed by some, or up to 2 years as proposed by another.  End-of-life decisions or euthanasia for the elderly or handicapped would also be much easier for The State to control.  Do you see the pattern?

Similarly, “pursuit of Happiness” in the Founders’ Declaration is replaced by “Social Justice”.  By including this phrase in the Progressive Declaration, the grand utopian Social Justice vision of Progressive luminaries like the self-avowed communist Van Jones is explicitly elevated to an unalienable right.  And what could be “happier” than that?

Clause 4:
When I wrote this clause, I was motivated in part by an email I received a few months ago from a self-declared Democrat/Socialist.  In it, he asked: “What is the purpose of government if not to ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living?” I’ve seldom heard the Progressive cause put so plainly and clearly.

Of course the constitutions of the European Union and South Africa already explicitly list “human rights” similar to those in Clause 4.  So by including that clause in the Progressive Declaration, the path is paved for modernization or outright replacement of our own Constitution, as implied by Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her recent interview in Egypt.

Of course, there is one big problem with Clause 4 — how do we achieve it?   Enter Clause 5.

Clause 5:
Clause 5 explicitly lists a principle that Progressives have implicitly followed since the beginning of the movement — that is, to achieve Clause 4, confiscate wealth from the makers and give it to the takers.

By following this principle, ostensibly out of “compassion” and “fairness”, Progressives can win the support of the takers until there are so many of them that they can out-vote, out-shout, or out-threaten the makers.  As the takers demand more and more, the makers produce less and less as they lose incentive to create new wealth only to see it confiscated.  Eventually some of them go on a de facto “strike” as the industrialists did in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged.  Soon thereafter, Progressives run out of other people’s money and resources.

There follows some combination of civil unrest, rationing, martial law, starvation, tyranny, and virtual slavery to The State. It has happened many times in many places.  WesternFreePress.com recently interviewed three direct eye witnesses (here, here, and here). Yet Progressives keep trying despite all evidence that their beloved principles simply don’t work.

In particular, in our own time, no doubt borne of compassion and fairness, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on US debt now consume all of our federal tax revenue, and our government is frantically borrowing over $4.7 billion per day to make up the shortfall for those expenses plus everything else.

Our plight is getting worse faster and faster as over 10,000 baby boomers retire every day.  And there is no way to tax or confiscate enough wealth to resolve the situation for long. This brutal truth  is shown clearly by Bill Whittle, with his usual wry humor, at this link.  Nonetheless, Progressives keep plodding along, demonizing “the rich” as the source of, as well as the solution to, our gargantuan economic woes.

Clause 5 appeals so much to base human emotions that Progressive politicians like Barack Obama exploit it to their political advantage through class-envy initiatives like the “Buffett Rule“, and “Fair Share“.  Unlike a precious few stalwarts in Congress, Obama simply refuses to confront the accounting arithmetic that is staring him in the face. He and his party perpetuate the myth that taxing the rich “just a little more” will solve the problem.  And the media never call him on it.  And the beat goes on.

Clause 6:
Clause 6 explicitly permits violation of Clauses 1 and 3 in some politically motivated circumstances in order to achieve a State-controlled version of EqualitySome current examples of Clause 6 in operation are Democrat tolerance for voter fraud, government-mandated purchase of health insurance, and Eric Holder’s infamous race-based pursuit of justice.

So …

There it is then, a Progressive Declaration of Self-Evident Truths.  But this is just a first draft.  What do you think?  Have I got it wrong?  Have I left something out?  You can enter your comments below.

Even though Progressivism has failed dismally from its very earliest days in America, it is now making a comeback thanks to the Democrat Party, hijacked by the Left after John F. Kennedy died.  It will soon swamp all of us — unless, that is, we can stop them on November 6 and begin a restoration and renewal of the principles in our original Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

In the words of Shane F. Krauser, JD,

The Constitution is the not the problem.
It is emphatically the answer.

———————————————————————————————————————-

* Footnote: I use the term “Progressive” in this article to represent the broad mass of political thought that has variously been called Progressive / Liberal / Leftist / Socialist / Collectivist / Statist / Redistributionist / Communist or some other name.  These are not all synonymous I know, and as usual, some readers will prefer to pick at the definitions of these terms rather than address the main point of this article. Suffice it to say I use “Progressive” because “Liberal” has fallen out of favor with the Left, and “Progressive” now seems to be the most broadly accepted term for those on the Left side of the political spectrum.


Comments

  1. Conservative American says

    I LOVE it, dleeper47! Nothing quite like dropping the bomb right on “Progressive Central”, LOL! 😉

    Now “TrueConservative”, the Marxist, ought to be along any minute to defend the left and point out how you failed to cross a “T” somewhere, LOL!

    Let the games begin! 🙂

    • dleeper47 says

      Thanks for the support (again!), Conservative American!

      I post on multiple sites, and there has been a lot of feedback on this piece … favorable-to-unfavorable is running about 100-to-1, but almost all of those responding are apparently Conservative themselves.

      So far no substantive comments from any Progressives about alternatives to my list of their self-evident truths. Does that mean I got the truths right? Can’t tell. But the post is only a day old. Maybe more will show up.

      I’m looking for clarity … not agreement. One Progressive did tell me that Progressive truths may be found in the writings of Nietzsche, not Marx. But she supplied no text as an alternative. No help there. … I’ve never read Nietzsche …

      I guess I should try posting on (serious) Progressive sites. Know any?

      Thanks again …

      • Conservative American says

        You’re most welcome, dleeper47! 🙂

        I think that the most important thing is that you are doing a valuable service by bringing up “real” issues. Your articles raise genuine, fundamental points of contention and differences in thinking and ideology between left and right. Those are the kinds of “meaty” things we should be debating and discussing, not simply a narrow issue or a primary candidate. The “smaller” things are good too but what has been missing in the debate are the broader, underlying issues which you always raise.

        Sonoran Alliance is probably the best place to post your articles because SA is unique in that Shane doesn’t impose political censorship. People of all political stripes will read your article and are free to comment on it, for or against.

        My experience with progressive forums is that they do impose political censorship. Daily Kos is probably the leading self-proclaimed progressive Democrat blog and they have a mechanism whereby a handful of members can silence a poster, and they are not hesitant to do so. That in itself makes apparent one of the differences between progressive thinking and the thinking of a Conservative like Shane.

        We aren’t going to get any clarity unless people like you are willing to put their cards on the table. You have a point of view and are not afraid to put it out there. Being honest about where we stand is the first step in sorting things out, otherwise we are simply being avoidant and there is no benefit for anyone from that.

        You have courage and that is the primary requisite for leading a meaningful life. You keep writing ’em and I’ll keep reading ’em! It’s definitely a breath of fresh air to have someone get down to the nitty-gritty! Keep on keeping on! 😉

  2. TruConserv says

    This is the kind of tin-foil drafting that most conservatives can’t stand.

    It is unduly antagonistic, is disrespectful of the core principles it claims to protect and is intellectually untenable.

    Just because we as conservatives revere the Constitution doesn’t mean the progressive does not. We simply have a different understanding of the what those words mean. We are right and they are wrong. We can persuade them to join our side through logic, reason and cogent argument.

    Posts such as the one above serve none of those needs.

    No progressive is going to read this article and say – hey, he’s right. No conservative is going to read this article and say “now I know how to get people to join the conservative movement.”

    All it does it feed the black-and-white, you’re-for-me-or-against me mentality that drives people AWAY from conservativism. It is an absolutely mindless, juvenile attempt to claim what a progressive thinks without actually asking a progressive what he thinks.

    Real analysis is hard work, and none of that is found in this article.

    It does the movement no good, in fact it makes us all seem a little smaller

    My core message on this board has been to improve the level of rhetoric, to toss away the childish games and gotcha editing. I want to make unassailable the presentation of conservative ideologies – and as a consequence conservative candidates.

    I have to ask: why don’t you? What purpose did you think this article would serve?

    • Conservative American says

      ROFL! And here comes the Marxist, TC, stout defender of the liberal left, LOL! 🙂

      Ronald Reagan -”The enemy is not confused – to him the course is very clear. He knows he is in a war now. This conflict was delcared more than a century ago by Karl Marx.”

      “TruConserv” -”It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

      Ronald Reagan -”With the most arrogant cynicism, they say that our ignorance of their tactics and strategy, their aims and objectives is communism’s greatest weapon.”

      “TruConserv” -”Marx wanted citizens to be armed, trains that run on time, milk to be fresh.”

      Ronald Reagan recognized that there is an enemy who is at war with us and that that war was declared by Karl Marx. Reagan warned of being unaware of the tactics of the Communists.

      “TruConserv” seeks to dissuade us from opposing “everything” which Karl Marx supported and paints Marx as a benign man concerned that “trains run on time” and for “milk to be fresh”.

      Heed the warning of Ronald Reagan. Do not fail to recognize the deceptive Communist tactics of “TruConserv” who is a Marxist posing as a “Conservative”.

    • dleeper47 says

      I’m sorry you didn’t like the article.

      You seem to have a sympathy for, and understanding of, Progressivism and Progressives.

      Which, if any, of those truths do you think I got right? What self-evident truths would you suggest to better represent Progressivism?

      • truconserv says

        I don’t have a sympathy for progressives, but I do think they, writ large, are decent, if misguided, people.

        When I discuss and debate liberals and progressives, they cite the same source documents as we do, just with a different interpretation.

        From my experience, you have everything after all people are equal wrong. I’m sure some wingnuts (the left has them to) hold some of the radical ideas you list, but most, I posit, do not.

        The problem with your article is that you try to deliberately create a second America.

        The truth of American politics is that most Americans live, ideologically, within a very narrow range. This is reflected in how America elected a liberal like Obama 3 years ago and then a conservative congress 1 year ago. It’s foreseeable, and regrettable, that the same America who elected all the conservatives last year may re-elect the liberal president next year. When contrasted to, say, Italy, where you have viable political parties across an extremely wide spectrum.

        We don’t win that middle by antagonizing them, by repeating myths and memes that fail under simple vetting. Rhetoric takes three basic forms: ethos, pathos and logos. Anti-rhetoric takes the same. If we come off as less-than credible analysts of objective reality, we can not be seen as credible analysts of subjective reality. If you think about it, politics is a subjective game – what do you think is important, what do you think the founder’s intended.

        When the lunatic fringe argues that Obama was born in Kenya, or that he supports slaughtering Christians in Africa – things objectively not true – that calls into question everything we advocate.

        If you want to learn what a liberal thinks – and why they think it – ask them.

        • Conservative American says

          Excuse me, TC, but you seek to create a “second America” of “wingnuts”, which you discount, and you set yourself up as the sole judge of who is a “wingnut” and who is not. For you, only those in “the middle” have any validity and you determine what “the middle” is. Here is an example of your sort of thinking at work:

          “Russell Pearce’s Pal Shane Wikfors’s Fake Outrage in Sonoran Alliance (w/Update)
          By Stephen Lemons Fri., Aug. 26 2011 at 11:28 AM”

          “It’s always amusing when wingnuts try to grow a conscience. Like a beard on an alligator, you know it’s fake from jump.”

          “That’s why I cracked a smile today while perusing far-right wing blog Sonoran Alliance, where moral relativist-in-charge Shane Wikfors is demanding an apology from Carolyn Cooper, a supporter of the recall of state Senate President Russell Pearce.”

          http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/08/russell_pearces_pal_shane_wikf.php

          Do you agree with Stephen Lemons that Shane Wikfors is a “wingnut”? Do you discount Shane and his views because Lemons has pronounced Shane to be a “wingnut”?

          Lemons’ comments demonstrate the inherent flaw in you “wingnut” paradigm.

          • TruConserv says

            No, I am not seeking a second America by my pushing back on the right’s wingnuts.

            I do not write phony lists of their principles and precepts.

            I do not accuse them of not loving America.

            I simply want to exclude them from speaking for the conservative movement.

            Of note, the liberals want to exclude the left’s wingnuts from being considered progressives.

            My wingnut net is fairly discerning: if you push Internet myths and memes, tell demonstratively false claims in defiance of objective fact, think in black-and-white terms and generally think everything comes down to conspiracies and enemies – then you’re a wingnut.

            Of note, again, I think the left would use that definition on their side as well.

            Those on the left who think the conservatives are Nazi’s are wingnuts. Those on the right who think liberals are communist and Marxists are wingnuts.

            My definition is not likely to match Lemon’s.

            Do you have a better definition?

            • Conservative American says

              You’re dancing around things, TC. Let’s take this point by point.

              First point: Stephen Lemons called Shane Wikfors a “wingnut”. Do you agree with Lemons that Shane is a “wingnut”?

              That’s not too hard, is it?

              • TruConserv says

                One, I’m not yours to depose, especially given your history of failing to reciprocate when it comes to answering interrogatories.

                Two, I feel my answer was direct for the larger purpose of your question.

                If you need further clarification on the minute issue, I’d say Shane is mainstream with occasional symptoms of wingnuttery. He’s made some odd posts from time-to-time, especially regarding Pearce and the Redistricting Commission. (See also, “the photo.”)

                What is your question of a wingnut, if mine is unsatisfactory?

              • Conservative American says

                That isn’t what I asked, TC. You’re avoiding. Let me restate the questions again.

                Do you agree with Stephen Lemons that Shane Wikfors is a “wingnut”? Do you discount Shane and his views because Lemons has pronounced Shane to be a “wingnut”?

                That is the question, not the question which you made up and gave an answer to.

                Now either you agree with Stephen Lemons that Shane Wikfors is a “wingnut” or you disagree. Which is it?

                Do you discount Shane and his views because Lemons has pronounced Shane to be a “wingnut”? Yes or no.

                Stop avoiding. Think deliberately, answer the questions presented.

              • TruConserv says

                We’ve reached the point of discussion where you’re being silly, deliberately obtuse or retarded. (sorry, I’m not a big PC guy.)

                Any rational reader knows I answered your questions, and you ducked mine.

                No mas.

              • Conservative American says

                And thus you lose again, TC, as always, when you engage with me. Face it, TC, you’re as much of a loser at SA as you were on the Rugby field where you held the team record for eating dirt and sucking on cleats.

                When Marxists realize that they can’t win, they shift gears and set as their new objective not losing. TC knows that if he answers my questions, no matter how he answers them, that he loses. Therefore, he refuses to answer them.

                What you fail to realize, Marxist ignoramus, is that you lose anyway by failing to answer. How? Because readers see that you are refusing to answer a very simple and straightforward question. They know that only people who are disingenuous liars like you manifest that behavior.

                Now I’m going to answer your question and remove one of your rationales for not answering mine. You asked me to give my definition of “wingnut”. Here it is:

                “Wingnut” is a derrogatory term with no set, universally agreed upon meaning used in an attempt to belittle, demean and discount someone who disagrees with you.

                You asked me a question and I have just answered it. Now it’s your turn, TC.

                Do you agree with Stephen Lemons that Shane Wikfors is a “wingnut”? Do you discount Shane and his views because Lemons has pronounced Shane to be a “wingnut”?

                Now that I have answered your question, what is your new excuse for not answering mine, Rubgy “hero”?

        • dleeper47 says

          TC says: “you have everything after ‘all people are [created] equal’ wrong”

          Wrong?

          So Progressives don’t believe the State is obligated to provide food, shelter, health care etc?
          So Progressives don’t want to confiscate wealth from the wealthy and redistribute it?
          So Progressives have no interest in Social Justice concepts like affirmative action?

          Thanks for straightening me out … I could swear I’ve seen & heard them pounding away on these themes for over 40 years.

          Gee, what a dilemma … whom am I going to believe from now on? TC or my own lying eyes and ears?

          I’ll ask again: What self-evident truths would you suggest to better represent Progressivism? Write them out … clearly and concisely. Number them. If you won’t or can’t, don’t bother replying, and I’ll do the same.

  3. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “This is the kind of tin-foil drafting that most conservatives can’t stand.”

    What is “tin-foil” drafting and when were you chosen to speak for “most conservatives”, Marxist?

  4. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “It is unduly antagonistic…”

    Yeah, we know how you hate that “antagonism”. You have shown us!

    Ronald Reagan wrote this:

    ”The enemy is not confused – to him the course is very clear. He knows he is in a war now. This conflict was delcared more than a century ago by Karl Marx.”

    But you don’t want any “antagonism” so you wrote this:

    ”It is not our goal to oppose everything Marx supported.”

  5. Conservative American says

    TC wrote this: “Just because we as conservatives revere the Constitution doesn’t mean the progressive does not.”

    Nice Pinko tactic, TC. As I have pointed out before, this is the Marxist tactic of speaking for one’s opponent, thereby setting up a strawman to be knocked down.

    Dleeper47 never said that progressives don’t revere The Constitution BECAUSE Conservatives DO revere it.

    Try again, Marxist, LOL!

  6. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “We simply have a different understanding of the what those words mean.”

    Why that sounds like your characterization of Karl Marx, TC!

    ”Marx wanted citizens to be armed, trains that run on time, milk to be fresh.” – TC

    But this is what the ideology of Karl Marx unleashed upon the world:

    “BACKGROUND: 100 million deaths under communism”

    “Washington – The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, ‘The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,’ published by Harvard University.”

    “The 1997 book, hailed by US reviewers as a groundbreaking documentary work, put the death tolls at 65 million in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in the communist states of Eastern Europe; and 150,000 in Latin America.”

    http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

    A “dfferent understanding” of words? Is THAT what it is, TC?

  7. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “We can persuade them to join our side through logic, reason and cogent argument.”

    Oh really, TC? And what proof do you have to back up that statement, LOL!

  8. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “No progressive is going to read this article and say – hey, he’s right.”

    Excuse me, TC, but this is a Conservative political blog. Do you think that the purpose of the article, posted on a CONSERVATIVE political blog, is to get progressives to say, “hey, he’s right”?

    Duh!

  9. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “No conservative is going to read this article and say “now I know how to get people to join the conservative movement.”

    Does the article purport to tell Conservatives how to get people to join the Conservative movement? Is that it’s stated purpose? Where do you see that written, TC?

    Duh!

  10. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “All it does it feed the black-and-white, you’re-for-me-or-against me mentality that drives people AWAY from conservativism.”

    ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    I’ve seen “concern trolls” at work before but you take the grand prize for being the least subtle and most obvious, LOL!

    So you would perhaps prefer gray-and-gray, you’re-for-me… or-we-can-discuss-it? This, while Marxists like you are engaged in this:

    Ronald Reagan -”The enemy is not confused – to him the course is very clear. He knows he is in a war now. This conflict was delcared more than a century ago by Karl Marx.”

    Think it would be easier if we simply surrendered to the leftists right now, TC? Yeah, you would just love that, wouldn’t you, Marxist!

  11. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “It is an absolutely mindless, juvenile attempt to claim what a progressive thinks without actually asking a progressive what he thinks.”

    Well, at least we got the expect TC insults out of the way early, LOL!

    Let me get this straight. You want us to ask a progressive what they THINK rather then looking at what leftists have DONE over the last fifty years. LOL! It doens’t matter what they think. What matters is what they have done!

    Duh!

  12. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “Real analysis is hard work, and none of that is found in this article.”

    And you are the authority on this because of what expetise which you have established? Sorry, TC, we’re not going to take the subjective judgement of a known Marxist as the definitive judgement on anything!

  13. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “It does the movement no good, in fact it makes us all seem a little smaller”

    What do you mean “us”, Marxist?

    And you were given this pronouncement on tablets of stone which you brought down from the mountain?
    When we want to know something about Marxism, TC, we’ll consult with you. When we want to know something about Conservatism, we’ll studiously avoid you.

  14. Conservative American says

    TC wrote: “My core message on this board has been to improve the level of rhetoric, to toss away the childish games and gotcha editing. I want to make unassailable the presentation of conservative ideologies – and as a consequence conservative candidates.”

    ROFL, ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Now THAT is the biggest lie you have EVER told, TC:

    TruConserv says:
    March 7, 2012 at 8:37 pm
    Tell the truth – how did you get so f-’d up?

    TruConserv says:
    March 7, 2012 at 5:26 pm
    I’m one of a dozen or so posters here who have kicked CA’s intellectual teeth in on more than a few occasions…

  15. Oberserve says

    So how do you explain asset forfeiture laws continually pursued by “conservative” legislators in THIS state? Asset forfeiture is in SB1070 and in the recent state guard law. Furthermore, for any action taken by any law enforcement official or state guard member, including executive/administrative forfeiture, the “official” confiscating the property is indemnified, regardless of whether the taking was appropriate or not. So say both laws.

    Where does that fall? Under the pro-freedom principles? Or under progressive principles?

    • Conservative American says

      Sounds like you know a lot about the law. Did Lawrence v. Texas render all morality-based laws unconstitutional?

  16. The Declaration separated the colonies from the King and Parliament. It’s more of an unfounding document than a founding one. The true founding document, the Constitution, brought the colonies together to form a union. Some would argue that the colonies asserted their rights (with accompanying violence) in the Declaration, then willingly ceded some part of them, giving up some sovereignty, when they joined the Union (which happened quite peacefully). So, to the people that view history this way, it is improper to combine the two documents into one. One is a birth certificate, the other a marriage certificate. Related, but not the same. It would be a mistake to view the platitudes and optimism contained in the Declaration as providing a moral bearing for the Constitution, because the Constitution left so much up to the individual colonies, and permitted of course widespread slavery.

    Some say because of this paradox the Constitution actually contradicts the Declaration to such an extent to render either one or the other meaningless. School children are taught Lincoln freed the slaves because of they had rights contained in the Declaration, and too few want to argue with that. Progressives seem to look more toward the Declaration as our founding document, conservatives the Constitution. Always interesting to see the opposite happening, especially in the name of blowing the conservative horn.

    • Conservative American says

      Wilson wrote: “Progressives seem to look more toward the Declaration as our founding document, conservatives the Constitution.”

      I respectfully beg to differ with that satement, Wilson, although this is the best thing I’ve ever seen you write at SA. It’s a thoughtful, well-written and reasonable argument for a genuinely debatable point. Hat’s off to you on this one.

      “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

      I have had numerous debates and discussions with progressives centering around this portion of the Delcaration. The point of contention is that, as a Conservative, I refer to the fact that the ultimate power, even to dissolve the entire government, rests with the will of the people. Progressives have consistently maintained that there is an authority higher than the will of the people, specifically judges and politicans, who are entitled to dictate to the people.

      This comes up often in debates and discussions regarding homosexual “marriage”. Same sex marriage has not been determined to be a 14th Amendment right by SCOTUS and despite the fact that it has thus far failed every time it has gone to the ballot, judges and politicians seek to thwart the will of the people on the matter.

      So from my perspective, Conservatives look toward both the Declaration AND The Constitution while progressives ingore both and look only toward what they want to get and how to circumvent every principle of democracy to get there.

      Progressives don’t recognize the will of the people as supreme, as in the Declaration, nor do they honor the fact that unless and until SCOTUS finds something to be a right under The Constitution, it is not a constitutional right.

      • Well thanks for the compliment, sort of. Not all people who call themselves conservatives recognize that the will of the people, as expressed by a majority of the people, is the ultimate power. Some conservatives (in contrast to what are often called populists) believe the will of the people can be wrong, as in opposed to a “higher power.” A single conservative being beaten by an angry mob would be one of these types of conservatives. Yeah, it’s the majority expressing its formidable power, but that doesn’t make it right.

  17. We are not a democracy; we are a republic. Not all votes by the “majority of the people” are Constitutional, hence a republic. The Founders knew the danger of “majority rules” (democracy). We are a nation of laws (republic). John Adams said, “Democracy. . . while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. . . There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

    • Conservative American says

      …and nothing is a constitutional right unless proven to be.

      …and the purpose of judges and politicians is not to rule over the people.

      • TruConserv says

        Not really. I see your point, but its not really how the law considers these things.

        The better phrasing is that nothing is an enforceable Constitutional right until ordered to be.

        One can argue a Constitutional Right exists in anything.

        If a District Court rules it is there – that didn’t create it, that is simply the first recognition of it. If no appeal is taken or granted, then the right is enforceable in that jurisdiction.

        It all starts with someone saying “that violates my Constitutional rights.” That person is not wrong in making that declaration until a court rules they are not, and no appeal is available or granted.

        So, if someone were to answer your question of gay marriage with a “Yes, there is a constitutional right” they would not be wrong because a court has not told them otherwise. They simply don’t have an enforceable claim to that right.

        Judges do not rule over the people. They rule on the law and on disputes involving the people.

        Politicians do rule over the people. They are elected for that role. The people can recall them and not re-elect them, but when they are in office they very much are the rulers of the country.

        There are three ways an elected official can carry out his duties in a republic.

        1) He can vote as he thinks is best, the people having elected him because of his abilities to make decisions for them.

        2) He can vote as he thinks the people would want him to vote.

        3) He can vote as he thinks the people would vote if they knew everything he knows.

        • Conservative American says

          TC wrote: “So, if someone were to answer your question of gay marriage with a “Yes, there is a constitutional right” they would not be wrong because a court has not told them otherwise.”

          No, TC, they would be wrong. Why? Because there is no right to homosexual “marriage” specified in The Constitution. Lacking that, and lacking a decison or action by SCOTUS affirming a constitutional right to homosexual “marriage”, no such constitutional right exists.

          TC wrote: “If a District Court rules it is there – that didn’t create it, that is simply the first recognition of it.”

          No, TC, that’s wrong. That is called “legislating from the bench”, something which has been a major issue for Conservatives for decades. Abuse and misuse of “interpretation” amounts to usurpation of the legislative function.

          TC wrote: “Judges do not rule over the people. They rule on the law and on disputes involving the people.”

          That is how it is supposed to be but that is not what we see today from progressive judges. What we see is that they are using dispute resolution as a vehicle for legislating from the bench.

          For example, district judge Vaughn Walker said this:

          “Moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, has never been a rational basis for legislation.” He cited Lawrence v. Texas, 2003.

          Walker conveniently ignored this 2007 finding by a higher court, the 11th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals:

          “Accordingly, we find that public morality survives as a rational basis for legislation even after Lawrence, and we find that in this case the State’s interest in the preservation of public morality remains a rational basis for the challenged statute.” – 11th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals

          That is a direct contradiction of Walker’s opinion, from a HIGHER court, PRIOR to Walker’s statement. So Walker ignored the previous finding of a higher court on the subject, choosing instead to legislate from the bench.

          TC wrote: “Politicians do rule over the people. They are elected for that role.”

          That is the single most gross distortion of our form of government I have ever read and provides us with the best insight yet into your Marxist thinking.

          No, TC, politicians do NOT rule over the people and they are NOT elected for that role. Politicians are elected to represent the people, not to rule over them.

          TC wrote: “…when they are in office they very much are the rulers of the country.”

          No, TC, when they are in office they are empowered by the people to represent the people and not to rule the country.

          No matter how an elected official carries out his duties in a republic he has never been empowered to “rule” anything.

          I find it humorous that in your comment you articulate the MOST radical progresssive views regarding judges, constitutional rights and elected officials while still claiming to be a “Conservative”. Perhaps what you are claiming is that you are a conservative Marxist, LOL!

          • TruConserv says

            1) My position on judges is hardly radical. They don’t rule over people, they rule on the law and disputes between people. That’s virtually hornbook law. The judge, after all, is known as the “trier of law” while the jury is the “trier of fact.” Nothing radical there.

            2) The elected officials make “the rules.” When they are in office, they are “rulers.” As Jefferson wrote, they are the rulers and the ruled.

            They, collectively, are the sovereign as that word is used in a republic. They are not required to vote as the people wish. Some do, but you may recall that we criticized Clinton for following poll numbers, not exercising independent judgment. We didn’t want a representative democracy then and we don’t want one now. We want a republic where the legislators are both the rulers and the ruled. (I am referencing T. Jefferson, not A. Stevenson.)

            If you want to get hyper-semantic about it, and use a very narrow definition where a ruler (as a noun) can only be a dictator or a monarch, then okay, you’re right and I am wrong. Ruling (as a verb) however, has me squarely on the correct side of the lexicon.

            In a practical sense, however, you would be wrong on both. We’re a Republic. Deal with it. If I’m a Marxist then so is Thomas Jefferson.

            (seriously, do you even know what a Marxist is? you throw around that insult with such frequency it loses meaning.)

            3) Your comments on when a right is a right is contradictory, and bordering on nonsensical. Rights emanate from the Constitution or from legislation and the regulations promulgated thereunder. If the right does not exist, as you argue, until a judge declares it so then THAT is legislating from the bench. If the right exists, because it emanates from the Constitution, as I argue, but has yet to be recognized and is therefor unenforceable, that is NOT legislating from the bench.

            In your defense, it’s a tough legal concept, one that give law students a lot of grief. Think about it a bit. You’ll realize that it only makes sense to say rights emanate from the Constitution, not from the intellect or whim of a judge.

            At some level, however, it’s all just nonsensical semantics. There either is a right that is enforceable or there is not. Whether the judge later recognizes it, as I argue, or creates it, as you argue, matters not. Either way no can effectively enforce the right until a judge says so.

            4) Walker is in the Ninth Circuit, at the district level. The Williams case is from Alabama, as you note, in the Eleventh Circuit. A Ninth Circuit District Court judge has no obligation to follow courts outside its Circuit. The Supreme Court is tasked with resolving conflicts between the circuits. You can not credibly chastise the Ninth Circuit for not following the Eleventh. It just doesn’t work that way.

            A person may honestly argue a Constitutional right exists to gay marriage and not be wrong. Even if the Supreme Court rules against them, they can come back and argue it again. As many conservatives would do with Roe v Wade. These are esoteric waters … and matter little.

            To make the debate cleaner, and not have each side trying to “gotcha” the other, the question can discussed as “should a right to XXXXX be recognized and enforced.”

            I’ve expressed that in my personal life and in the teachings of my faith marriage is the union of man and woman. The SC will determine what that means in the body politic.

            NB: before you hang your hat on the Williams case, you should read it. It ruled a rational basis can be found for regulating the public conduct of a commercial enterprise based on the harm that commercial conduct may have on public morals. As I told you before, which you blindly rejected, all moral laws that are upheld are traced back to a harm. Williams is no different. Pulling one sentence from a decision without understanding the entire ruling is a fool’s errand.

            In other words, the proper question for gay marriage in the 11th Circuit is whether marriage is a public act that is commercial in nature. Or, expressed as a negative, is gay marriage a non-public, non-commercial act. I don’t have the answer to that … I have not fully considered it.

            • Conservative American says

              What a bunch of Marxist double talk, LOL! You hang yourself with your own words. You have made my case for me. Thank you! That is the single most gross distortion of our form of government I have ever read and provides us with the best insight yet into your Marxist thinking.

              And chew on this finding from the 6th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Just pretend that it’s a cleat on the shoe of an opposing Rugby player and you shouldn’t have any problem at all chewing on it:

              “[The stepfather’s] remaining arguments are meritless. His claim that the Ohio law is contrary to Lawrence because it is morality-based fails for two reasons. First, the state has a legitimate and important interest in protecting families.” So much for Vaughn Walker, LOL!

              And let’s cut to the chase regarding homosexual “marriage” being a federal constitutional right:

              “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” – Elena Kagan

              Have a nice day, Marxist ignoramus! 🙂

              • TruConserv says

                Yea, you can’t reply substantively so you retreat to naked insults unsupported by fact or cogent argument.

                Still want to argue you aren’t a wingnut?

                If you want a fight with someone about gay marriage, you’ll have to go elsewhere. I’ve told you what I think and what my faith teaches, and I don’t have an opinion on the legalities nor on the politics that drive the legalities.

                FWIW: Lowe doesn’t challenge, in the slightest, what I have stated. You, again, have simply pulled a line from the decision without reading it in its entirety.

                Here’s the finish of the quote: “. from the
                destructive influence of sexual relationships between parents or stepparents and their
                children or stepchildren.”

                In other words, the court found a harm the government could legitimately protect, and it wasn’t the generic protection of the family.

                If you have a substantive post on my past two, I’d welcome reading it. If all you have are childish insults, then, again, No Mas.

              • TruConserv says

                Sorry, forgot to add.

                Please read the Ninth Amendment to better understand that just because a right is not enumerated does not mean it does not exist.

                “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

                Again, I’m not taking a position on gay marriage, just trying to give you the tools to understand how the judicial process works.

              • Conservative American says

                Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right, Professor Rugby, LOL!

                You’re making this waaaaay too easy TC. I don’t have to do a thing any more. You weave the rope, put it around your neck and drop the trap, ROFL!

                Wait, wait, wait… here’s my favorite description of American government from TC:

                “Politicians do rule over the people. They are elected for that role.” – TruConserv

                So, Folks, the next time you go to the polls, remember, you aren’t electing someone to represent you. You’re picking who is going to rule over you! That’s America, the land of the free, according to Comrade TC! If Karl Marx were alive, TC, he would pin a big Red medal on your chest!

                Have a nice day, Marxist ignoramus!

                BTW, if you were on a Commie Rubgy team, they would have disappeared you.The Kremlin hates to be embarrassed, LOL!

                Oh yeah, and don’t try to take the high ground after you wrote this, hypocrite:

                “TruConserv says:
                March 7, 2012 at 8:37 pm”

                “Tell the truth – how did you get so f-’d up?”

                You have the worst pottymouth at SA, Marxist ignoramus!

              • Conservative American says

                Sorry, I forgot to add:

                “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” – Elena Kagan

              • TruConserv says

                If I’m a Marxist for stating that legislators in a republic are the rulers and the ruled then so is Thomas Jefferson.

                The United States is a republic. Please learn a bit more about civics and civility and come back and try again.

              • Conservative American says

                ROFL! Now, like a true Marxist, you are telling us that Thomas Jefferson was a Marxist, LOL! How many of the other Founding Fathers do you claim were Marxists?

                Here’s a news flash for you, Rugby hero, when Jefferson died, Karl Marx was eight years old. Marxism didn’t even exist yet! Duh!

                Hey, pottymouth hypocrite, don’t lecture me on civility when you wrote this:

                “TruConserv says:
                March 7, 2012 at 8:37 pm”

                “Tell the truth – how did you get so f-’d up?”

                Sorry, I almost forgot to add:

                “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” – Elena Kagan

  18. Interesting comments. Arizona HB 2664 passed the house today. Most of the “conservatives” in the house voted for this bill, which seems to be needless meddling into contract disputes between individual parties. The part that I object to is section 44-7804. Basically, it states that a final billing statement of a credit card account can be used to establish a presumption of the amount of debt owed, without taking into account any payments made by a debtor to a creditor after that final billing statement was issued.

    Government should not get involved in contract disputes between independent parties, and it looks like creditors will become “more equal” than debtors in Arizona soon if this passes the Senate. Remember “Napoleon”, the pig, in George Orwell’s Animal farm…

    • truconserv says

      I agree.

      It used to be that credit was a two-way risk.

      The debtor was willing to pay interest at a higher than normal rate, but gained convenience.

      The creditor undertook risk, but gained better pay-back.

      I supported efforts to criminal the filing of false financial statements, as that affected the creditors ability to fairly measure risk, but these codes are more about giving the creditor an upper-hand. That’s all well and good when the person they are after actually owes the money, but there are significant errors by these company and “because we say so” should not be an appropriate standard of proof in a court of law.

      • Conservative American says

        Let’s not even talk about the mortgage fiasco!

        • truconserv says

          That’s a great example – banks foreclosing on homes, evicting homeowners, only to then discover they didn’t even hold the mortgage for that home!

          Large institutions make mistakes. How many times do you find errors on your bills?

          For someone in credit trouble, that can add up to large mistakes.

          “Because I said so should” should never be the burden of proof in a court of law.

          • Conservative American says

            That sort of “setup” of customers is epidemic now. Once one entity got away with it, others followed suit!

            Without boring you with the details, I had enough. Cut up my credit cards, which I only used because they have a positive impact on your credit rating. Stopped financing things, like automobiles, because I only financed them for the same reason, credit rating. Now I simply pay cash. That means that I don’t need a “credit rating”. No business will refuse cash on the barrelhead. I have the financial means to do that so to hell with them and their games.

            • truconserv says

              A sidenote on buying cars – don’t let them know you are paying cash until after you set a price.

              If you have mid-to-weak credit, the dealer makes a TON of money doing the financing. They will cut the price thinking you are going to finance. Don’t lie to them and say you will finance, but leave it out there that your credit may seem weak.

              Then, after you have a price, pay cash.

              I learned this from a client who is worth north of $50 million. It’s what he does, and now I do as well.

              • Conservative American says

                Oh yeah, I’m hip to that one! I never mention or discuss financing but they do. Only when I have a firm price and I’m ready to buy do I inform them that I’m paying cash. Thanks for thinking of mentioning that tip though.

                I don’t know if it still exists but there used to be something called “paticipation”. If you went the term of the loan and paid it off, the dealer would get a chunk of change from the finance company. There’s no end to the ways in which consumers take it in the shorts as regards financing. People like you and I throw a little monkey wrench into their plans though. Ain’t we awful, LOL! 😉

    • Oberserve says

      Well dang you can buy a “conservative” legislator’s vote in this state for $410. Principled conservatism at its finest! And the teaparty “leaders” of this state keep telling us to vote for them or ELSE (we’ll get someone worse.) It’s hard to imagine.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Progressives, on the other hand, tend to invest their faith in a person like Barack Obama.  To this date, I don’t know what their “founding principles” are, if indeed they have any, unless perhaps they come from Karl Marx’s from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.  I wrote about these themes last year in “The Left’s Tragedy of Misplaced Confidence”, and “A Progressive Declaration of Self-Evident Truths”. […]

Leave a Reply