On December 20, 2012 (last week), Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at the prestigious Georgetown Law Center Louis Michael Seidman was deemed divine by the anti-American, Communist-styled rag, New York Times. The NYT dutifully published his op-ed, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.” The Times propaganda process is always faithful to make moral sport of American social crises. No op-ed could have thrilled the Communist Democrats in Washington more.
Professor Louis Seidman, of Georgetown Law.
Seidman says that all the country’s problems are caused by the Constitution, “with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.” A most specious, sophomoric proposition, fully exemplary of academic inanity, the notion is based on a superficial, practically imaginary analogy, and represents quite the crippled syllogism. But, let’s give a clearer example. Seidman details:
Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.
The obvious but intentionally ignored truth is, Seidman’s proposition is for simply a different country. Utterly scoffing history, Seidman’s commentary pretends that the development of the greatest nation on earth had nothing to do with its Constitution, and that adhering to such a Constitution is now detrimental to the same country. This is juvenile thinking. This is childish, and willfully naïve. Such audacious pretense is always very dangerous, for it hides a terribly sinister intent. In this case, the intent is simply to change the country into a Communist society, as has been the dream of Democrats for nearly a century now. Such, a Communist country, is the alternative to the American Republic. To pretend that changing (or worse, discarding) the Constitution will not change (or worse destroy) the country is a fantasy appropriate only for the university campus–the first and longest held stronghold of raw Communism in America.
The fact that the liberals would suggest change while ignoring the obvious alternative they’re wanting to change things into, only shows how sinister they really are. It is an overt conspiracy. They have created the perfect oxymoronic conditions.
To the liberal, someone like Mark Levin is an orthodox nitwit. Levin is irrational and blind, or “obsessed” (to use Seidman’s term) with the Constitution. (And even Ann Coulter‘s humor-spliced conservative commentary earns for her no mollified diagnosis. Anyone who loves the Constitution is problematically old-fashioned, and in fact, blind.)
In a sense, patriots who love the Constitution are like Christians or Jews who actually believe the Bible. The Bible, of course, is much more than 2,000 years old, certainly. More like three, with Moses (even six, if we count oral tradition). That’s a lot older than the U.S. Constitution. But there is a similar regard for both the Bible and the Constitution among believers. We hold steadfast in faith to principles upon which greatness was achieved. We have faith that those principles are eternal, unalterable, and immutable. That’s why we cherish them. The alternative is destruction, and that rapidly.
Even American Indians are “obsessed” in the same way. We hold to our identity, no matter what the social sacrifice. And we do regard the Constitution with great reverence, for in the Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence, our identity as nations is preserved–with respect to the United States itself. The Constitution represents our standing before the United States government.
Ellen G. White, 1827-1915.
But, speaking of belief and faith, I must note, the Seventh-Day Adventist church (a 19th century American Protestant original) has always taught that the United States government will in fact trash the Constitution! In the words of a 19th century spokesman for the “orthodox” Christian denomination:
…our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government…
Thus wrote Ellen G. White, in 1885, in a series of Testimonies, Vol. 5, p.451. She also wrote, later,
Liberty of conscience, which has cost so great a sacrifice, will no longer be respected. In the soon-coming conflict we shall see exemplified the prophet’s words: “The dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Revelation 12:17.
These words are from The Great Controversy (1888), p.592.
It seems tragic that such prophecy would be revealed about the United States of America, but, this is the heritage of the Adventists. It is not an indictment of any one person, but of a government. The prophecy is ill. Not something to be hopeful about.
I for one have taken the position of patriotism, as long as it is meaningful with respect to the government. On Twitter, I made a remark about the country’s abject direction to some marines, and I implied that there was no hope through the political process. One of them got my drift, and said, “u can take that talk elsewhere…I will not engage in ur revolution bulls**t!” to which I replied, “So, you would turn on the American people, if the government told you to? Just asking. That IS coming, right?”
The Constitution is for the strong, and it encourages the weak to be strong. Liberals encourage only weakness and dependency. The Constitution created history. Liberalism is a parasitic response.
But the parasitic liberals, the reactionaries, have taken command. They are in command of the military. How shall the military protect the Constitution, if the government denounces it? How shall the military be loyal to the government? How shall the people be loyal to a past fantasy, or the present government which seeks to overthrow the foundations?
Sean Hannity today said, “Obama is on a rampage to destroy the conservative movement.”
But I say, it is Liberalism (Communism) that is the “movement.” Conservatism is the foundation. Conservatives seek merely to preserve the foundation. The “movement” against that is Liberalism (Communism, Leftism, Socialism, Progressivism, etc.) I say, don’t class conservatives with a social “movement.” We are not. We are the foundation. The “movement” is against us.
And it is apparently not stopping. It strengthens itself daily. Our government has indeed already repudiated the concept and sentiment of the Constitution. Its laws shall fail, and in rapid succession. And what will we have in place of it? Attempted tyranny.
Pat Buchanan says they’ll be an outright revolution if the government tries to take our guns.
This should all be very interesting.