"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams
All of us have a great reverence for the Constitution. And rightfully so, as it is the greatest ruling document every put together by human beings. But at the end of the day, it is still a document put together by human beings, and as such, it cannot--by definition--be perfect (no document, of any kind, devised by human beings can be). To acknowledge the weaknesses of the Constitution is not to "hate" the Constitution--particularly when our Founding Fathers were wise enough to construct a process by which our Constitution may be changed (the brilliant--though seldom used--process of amending the Constitution).
So there is nothing undue in determining the areas in which the Constitution may have some weak points or some "holes". Doing so is the first step towards amending that Constitution, thereby strengthening it and making it a document that creeps closer and close to perfection (though it can never truly get there). And one of the biggest holes in the Constitution is one that is illustrated by the John Adams quote that I started this piece with. Our Constitution is a magnificent document for the governance of good, civilized people who have a moral backbone. But when it comes to immoral, or non-Christian people, the Constitution is inadequate for their governance (as, I would argue, any other document would be inadequate to codify rights for them or to govern them). No man-made document has the power to take bad people and magically turn them into good people--not even the United States Constitution has that ability. Our form of government and our Constitution--when placed into the hands of evil, immoral people--becomes just as destructive as a dictatorship or any other form of government would be.
As a people and a nation, we seem to have an obsession with "making sure all voices are heard". We seem to have this believe that if all voices and all perspectives--no matter how ridiculous, dangerous, or destructive--are represented, then we all benefit in the long run. But is this really the case? Let's say your young child came home from school, and you asked him, "What did you learn today"", and then your child responded, "I learned that 2+2=4". You would likely think to yourself, "Good, my child is learning basic math skills". But what if, instead, your child said, "We had one teacher tell us that 2+2=4, then another teacher got up and said 2+2=5...then another one said 2+2=7". What would you think then? You likely would think that your child didn't get very much of value at school on that day, and that he was exposed to a preponderance of harmful information that will not stand him in good stead later in life. You would wonder why those who advocated for the wrong information--information that has been demonstrated to be wrong and harmful--were allowed to "teach" that information to your child, when doing so can only result in negative consequences for your child later in life. You would know--instinctively--that there was no value in allowing the teacher to speak who claimed that 2+2=5. You would realize that there is no value in that wrong teacher being allowed to educate your child, or in that teacher even having the opportunity to influence the school or your child's education in any way. You would realize that some voices do NOT need to be heard.
Now, to take that example from the hypothetical realm and bring it back to the real world...Find a major city that has been under Democratic control for decades. It shouldn't be hard, they are all over the place. Now, if you dare, drive through that city. Not the "touristy" parts of the city--not the sports or entertainment districts that are meant for public consumption--but the real city. The ghetto, the hood...the part where the dangerous criminals and human garbage live and thrive...go there (if you dare). What you will see will shock and depress you. Then, once you safely leave and get back home, think about the crime, drug use, poverty, and destitution you saw...
...and then realize that these cities have been under solid Democratic control for, most likely, a period of time much longer than you and I have been alive. Don't believe me? Here's one source showing that the Democrats are in power in our most dangerous cities.
Here's another source.
And yet another.
Now, is it the Democratic policy that causes the poverty, violence, and crime? Or is it the lack of character of the impoverished, violent, and criminal citizens that leads to them voting Democrat? It's sort of a "chicken and the egg" question, as far as I'm concerned...but at the end of the day, it's the same end result. The end result being that--nearly without exception--Democratically controlled urban areas are dangerous, unsafe, crime-ridden, and corrupt. And as most of these cities have little or no influence from Republicans, Conservatives, or others from across the political spectrum...they have nobody to blame for their urban hellholes than themselves.
We live in an era when people are saying left and right that we need to rid ourselves of the Electoral College and allow the popular vote to decide the Presidency (the implications of this being that the major urban areas would have even more of a say in who becomes President). We live in an era where Democrats blame "redistricting" (or, as they refer to it "gerrymandering") for the lack of seats that they have in Congress and at the state level. Basically, we live in an era when Democrats and Liberals are demanding that changes be made so that these Urban Democrats can have more of a say in our State and Federal Governments.
But looking at the results in those areas where Urban Democrats and Liberals already have control, why on Earth would a reasonable person back any sort of changes that would give these people more of a say in America? They have already fucked up the cities in which they live and control beyond all recognition...why on Earth would we want them to have more of a say in America, and bring that depravity to us on a nationwide level?
And if an examination of the depravity of the cities isn't enough, then just look at the boondoggles that have resulted from major Liberal initiatives over the years, such as the so-called "Great Society", the New Deal (which prolonged the Great Depression, or perhaps caused a second Depression, depending on how you look at history), Social Security (which is the biggest single reason for America's financial problems), and most recently, the complete clusterfuck that is Obamacare.
Quite frankly, everything the Democrats touch turns to shit. And it's no recent thing, it's pretty much been the story of the last century of American History.
It is for this reason that I firmly believe Democrats and Liberals must be completely cut out of the political process in America. They bring nothing of value or positivity to the table, as evidenced by the complete shitholes that their cities have become, and the costly boondoggles that their signature programs have been. It will be a long road, of course...but we have the amendment process in the Constitution for a reason. Outlaw the Democratic Party...remove the right to vote (and perhaps even remove congressional representation) from America's major cities...take away the civil rights of those who insist on backing some form of modern Liberalism. It will not happen overnight...but it can happen.
And if America and Western Civilization are to survive, it must happen.
Whatever it takes in order for Liberals and Democrats to be cut out of America's political process and out of American society is something that we must be in favor of. The discussion and the action in order to get us to that point starts right here, on this website.
Buckle up...this is going to be a Hell of a ride!
No comments:
Post a Comment