While most Blogs are nothing but a vent for the frustration of right thinking Amiricans, this is not my cause. I am building a link to help gather resources and take a proactive stance against the tide of socialism. My posts are meant to inform you and, when possible, help you better explain and defend our principles. We are all leaders, we are all FREEDOM FIGHTERS!

Our goal is to help coordinate as many local political groups as possible in order to create a strong and organized local movement. We would suggest that you either start a meetup group or join one that's already in place. For help go to http://www.meetup.com/ or 912 Project USA.com / For The Sake of Liberty! . With your effort and support we can become a strong force against the socialization of our great nation. If you have a suggestion or want information, please e-mail me at flounders70@aol.com .

Thursday, October 1, 2009

"There are no necessary evils in government"

So as I flip through the channels of my basic cable system and, for some God awful reason, I stop to hear a few minutes ofeach of the talking heads that I intend to pass something struck a chord. I realized something that I knew but was not sure if I was the only one who knew it.

This realization (far from an epiphany) drove me to look at some of my historical notes and data and you would be completely unamazed with what I found. It turns out that the left is wrong about almost everything that they believe... Or maybe just everything they say that they believe!

Here's how I got here... Going back and moving forward there has been one constant throughout time. Democrats always stand for change. On March 26, 1834 Andrew Jackson (our first Democratic president) became the first president to be censured by the Senate for "exceeding his Constitutional powers".

Yes, the nation was young and still forming but he went over the edge and changed the Presidency forever. He fought, tooth and nail, for a broad and powerful federal government which would be controlled mostly by the President himself. "There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils only exist in its abuses" (Jackson to Congress, 7/10/1832). He moved abruptly to make sweeping changes in the powers of the President over the states, while making enemies of all of our previous founders.

It was his claim of a mandate (winning the election of 1828 with 647,286 votes against the 508,064 votes for J.Q. Adams) which he used as his reasoning for the rapid change. He felt that he was representing what was fair and right and that he was put there for that reason only, not to listen to the conservative minority. He would become the "Godfather" of the Democratic party.

Now, looking at the Constitution, there is another anomolie. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution were ratified in late 1791. The 11th was ratified in 1795 and the 12th in 1804. This means that the first 12 amendments became law within just about thirteen years...It would be more than 60 years before anyone felt the need to change anything.

So, now that all of our "Founders" were either passed or to old to be a factor, it was time to start adding things and screwing with the original Constitution. Granted, times change and things come up but most of what was added was already pretty clear for the conservatives as an understanding of the original paperwork.

Since that time our Constitution has more than doubled and of those 14 new amendments, only 5 were ratified by Republicans. Here's the sad part, of those 5 republicans, 3 (Grant, Taft and Hoover) had already been voted out of office and had signed under serious political pressure. This leaves the only two Republican presidents to add to the Constitution as Nixon and Bush Sr. Not exactly the pride of the conservative movement.

I know that some amendments were great and others.. well, you know.. But the point is that the Dems (and generally the left) have always been in a hurry to make drastic changes in our government. From Jackson to FDR, Clinton to Obama, these guys always come in with a whirlwind of new programs and Ideas and cram them down our throats the second they have the majority with which to do so.

Hmmmm, why is it that they are always in a hurry? Well, last night I got my answer (which I had already suspected). I heard the audio clip of a Liberal saying that "we need to hurry up and pass these things while we still have the power" and then went on to say "this might be our last chance for a long time".

WOW! Can you read between the lines? What they are saying is that what they are donig is not popular but it is the right thing so we have to do it all before anyone can stop us. You see, when a conservative gets into office they don't run around trying to force new laws in before anyone can see what they are. They might have to undo some ridiculous mess made by the overzealous Dem that they proceeded but generally they are very methodical.

When is the last time a Conservative Republican took office and said that they needed to hurry a bunch of laws through "while they still have the power". They don't! It's because they have nothing to hide. We conservatives do not hide behind a new label every time the populous figures out what the old one means (Liberal..Leftist..Independent..Progressive..) we have always simply been conservative and proud of it. Even Michael Moore said in an interview that he was impressed by the rights "convictions" in that we never back down from what we believe.

The point is that the left always runs around like a chicken.. blah blah... everytime they get a little power because they know that they will be voted out and generally disgraced once the majority of people see what they've done. This is how it is now and this is how it's always been. The left is just plain wrong!


flounder said...

This was a crappy post but give me a break.. I was really tired. The point seems somewhat clear.

Anonymous said...

Actually I liked it better than some of your others that seemed to have more passion and emotion than substance. It gives me a new lens to watch through.

flounder said...

generally I tend to lean towards talking about the fundimental idiology of conservatism rather than the hard facts and information because nobody trusts facts these days.

I like to force people to define themselves in whole before I debate their philosophy, this often leads to them opening up to reason rather than blocking it as a defense. It is a tactic that I learned through my reading of Jefferson.

Thank you for the compliment though.

Silence DoGood said...

Passion and emotion over substance?
ideology over facts?

You better watch out for that - it is how Obama got elected!

No one checked out his facts, promises, and substance. And this is from a liberal out here. I did not vote for him for that reason and others.

flounder said...

That's the point... Passion over facts got someone like Obama into office, the same thing is needed to get him back out!

I just happen to be on the right side.

Silence DoGood said...

This where we differ on this one. I stand on certain priciples. As with many of my liberal friends and many of the founders of this country, I detest the mob rule and ignorance of facts you seem to be encouraging. The Whiskey Rebellion (179?) was a good example of the fact that our young nation was going to be one of laws and NOT mob rule.

Is this the face of the "right"? Liberals often make fun of conservatives as not so smart. Why would you actually play into that myth?

I certainly do not believe it but you seem to be going that way. Come back to rational debate please. Or you are no better than this Obama you criticize.

Or are you saying that rational argument cannot defeat Obama?

flounder said...

Maybe you misunderstood.. I was trying to suggest that people need to become passionate first so that they are driven to check out the facts, this is why I have been trying to reach people through their fundimental philosophy and I encourage them to do the research themselves.

The movement to elect Obama was drivin by marketing and it worked. I'm working to get people interested in what these politicians are saying when they don't finish with "I approve this message".

So, in the interest of debate, how does a liberal define a liberal?

Custom Search