Wednesday, May 25, 2005


Freedom has been “endowed by our creator.” Liberty is what individuals and governments do with that freedom.

Today's zealots drive to shut down free speech through political correctness, demand that race be considered in hiring or admissions through affirmative action, force private property owners to capitulate to governmental "taking" either through eminent domain or environmental regulation or rule, and the disregarding of the second amendment's obvious meaning to allow citizens the right to keep and bear arms all illustrate that the control-freaks of the left are certainly the most amazing purveyors of insidious encroachment of liberty in American history. The danger in the zeal of these "well-meaning” (an oxymoron if every there was one) but without understanding authoritarian practitioners, has been the perpetual destruction of our personal liberty.

Unfortunately, the "eternal vigilance" demanded was thwarted when a tiny group of 14 senators decided to piss on the constitution and make senate rules more important than the constitution's own words.

Despite the fact that 69 percent of Americans (Gallup poll) believe that filibusters are wrong, this cabal of self-indulgent, power hungry, anti-constitutionalists took the law into their own hands. That is a perfect example of insidious encroachment. The tradition of filibustering federal judges has now been institutionalized despite more than 200 years of the opposite tradition and the very next time a Democrat president attempts to appoint a judge...there is no question it will not be forgotten. It is pure and simple devious subversion of the personal liberty of every man, woman, and child in America.


Anonymous said...

Umm "endowed by our creator" is not in the Constitution. Where do you get your information?

NewGnome said...

Since it didn't say it was, what's your point. You might check the Declaration of Independence though or don't you consider that a founding documant?

The filbustering of judges is an unconstitutional act perpetrated by Democrat Senators and a cabal of idiot Republicans led by John McCain as chief among them.

Anonymous said...

Well, it is not technically a founding document--certainly not legally. Our document is the constitution. Now, if you take the mention of the "Creator" in the Declaration to be some kind of declaration of faith, you obviously have not read the rest of the document that talks about how god left government to men (which is a deist position basically arguing that we are in charge of settling our own moral questions). I am so tired of the American Taliban claiming that we were founded on "faith" when it is a simple fact that we were founded on social contract theory.

Anonymous said...

"I am so tired of the American Taliban claiming that we were founded on "faith" when it is a simple fact that we were founded on social contract theory."

"American Taliban"? Care to enlighten the intellectual midgets your statement appears to respond to?

The United States was founded on faith. Strong faiths. However, the authors of the Constitution saw fit to separate church from government, but that did not include severing their faith. Therein lies the difference.

Social contract theory is just that. A theory. Devised, protheltized and used by old masters of philosophy. Socrates and Plato being two of them. It has it place in history.

Before social contract thoeries were espoused, liberal thinking was "anything goes". Our Constitution authors were not of the "anything goes" mind set. Quite the opposite.

NewGnome said...

Clear back to MAY...I’m impressed. Still promoting Social Contract Theory? “American Taliban”? What is ad hominem attack just for fun? And, please remember that you called yourself an intellectual midget, not me, although I might agree. And you’re effort to impose you’re philosophy is just as talibanic as you accuse me of being and you’re still spitting into the wind.

Religion did, does and will influence our political contract despite the best effort of the left and the ACLU. That wind is already beginning to shift, because the left has been so shrill on the subject, they have hurt there own cause, since most can’t see the damage they claim is happening.

But, I do read and hear this demand of “separation of church and state” perpetually from the left. It’s a specious argument at best. All the constitution reads is that the state shall not establish “a specific state religion” as had England (my emphasis). It was a response to a specific irritant to the colonists since many of them were here specifically because of that.

The concept of separation comes from a letter written by Jefferson, and has by osmosis been grafted into the constitution as a functioning amendment, true or not. The fact is, is that the left has used it as a hammer to attempt to destroy all religion.

Like it or “don’t” religion played a big part in the founding father's thinking and religion permeates many of our constitutional concepts . If you want to call that social contract theory be my guest. Religious philosophy is certainly a form of social contract theory. It is a series of moral, practical and communal rules of interaction. There is also the religious side of course, but it is still a self imposed social contract and method of communal interaction.

To quote you:

“Social contract theory is just that. A theory. Devised, protheltized and used by old masters of philosophy. Socrates and Plato being two of them. It has it place in history.”

First of all what do you mean “protheltized” can’t find the word anywhere. I assume you mean proselytized: meaning spreading the concept. Secondly, I’m assuming that you mean “its” place in history.

Now that we have the typos cleared up, I hope, I can answer you.
Item #1: “The concept of social contract theory.” You say that the theory was devised and promoted by Socrates and Plato.” That certainly would be news to them. They died 2000 years before the theory was first postulated. Social contract theory was devised and promoted by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the middle 1700s. It could be said, however, that any concept that attempts to define and advocate a communal form of interaction could be called social contract theory but Aristotle and his acolytes did not postulate the concept.

Item #2: Your comments are semantical constructions to attempt to make you think you sound educated.

Item #3: Did I say that your beloved “social contract theory” does not have a place in history? Let us agree on one thing. Yes, “social contract theory” has a place in history. So be it.

That having been agreed to, I would suggest you get your facts straight “before” you rant.