I am not censoring anyone with half a brain. My blog is moderated simply because I don't have the time to "debate" with morons. There has been far too much of that already. We seem to spend all our efforts arguing rather than doing something about the mess we are in. I will continue to moderate for a while just to get a feel for the responses. However, unlike the politicians, I WILL NOT change my opinions simply because I think it's what people want to hear. I am 70 years old. I am a rabid originalist when it comes to the Constitution. I am a dues paying member of the Tea Party, unlike some here. I am an Oathkeeper and I am county coordinator for the Constitution Party. My heros are Justices Scalia and Thomas and anyone serving in the military. These are the people who are willing to put it on the line or go against the grain rather than just complain and talk.
I am too old to be in politics so I do what I can trying to influence others to see the light. We are light years away from the America of the revolution. Not technologically, that is a given, but spiritually and ethically. We have traded freedom to be ourselves for the security of being spoon fed from cradle to grave. There are still patriots willing to walk the walk. I pray that I can meet some of them and encourage them to keep up the good fight. Obama is not the problem. The problem is we let him happen. We are to blame not Obama. He is simply doing what any good despot would do. The sooner we realize that we are the problem and the ONLY solution the sooner we regain our freedom.
Comments
To greg williams:
An originalist is a person who believes words have meanings. The meaning of the words in the Constitution mean exactly the same now as they did when it was written. The Constitution IS NOT a living document. It is an explicit, precisely worded document that was to be used as a roadmap for governing the country. It can not be interpreted using today's lexicon.
The rest of your comment makes no sense. I teach and lecture on the Constitution. Having read most of the ratification debates, I am somewhat familiar with the history surrounding the ratification process. As for the Bill of Rights and the other amendments, I don't remember saying or implying anything that would lead you to believe that I don't "accept" any of the amendments. They are law whether I like it or not. That does not stop me from criticizing them if I find them objectionable anymore than it would keep me from saying Obamugabe is a lying, deceitful moron with delusions of grandure.
I also fail to see what my take on the amendments has to do with being an originalist. They should be discussed and interpreted in the language prevalent at the time they were ratified, as with all the founding documents. This is the problem today. Words no longer have fixed meanings. They are whatever people say they are. This is why it is imperative that the Constitution be read as written and not creatively modified to mean whatever a person wants it to mean.
I will give you a simple example. There was a play and movie titled West Side Story. It is a modern take on Romeo and Juliet. The lead characters are Tony and Maria. One night after a semi-touchy-feely on the fire escape, Maria breaks into song. "I feel pretty, oh so pretty. So pretty and witty and GAY!" Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that gay meant she was happy. She was not coming out of the closet. This and the other words must be read as the lyricist wrote them at that time. It makes no difference that gay has been stolen to mean something more sinister than being merely happy. Words have meaning. Once put to paper (or parchment) they never change as far as that document is concerned. That in a nutshell is originalism.
If you want a more detailed and explicit example of originalism, I would suggest the Heritage Foundations "Guide to the Constitution." While not 100% percent in agreement with my opinions, it is none the less avery accurate analysis of the Constitution and the amendments. Also you might want to read Abel Upsur's rebuttal to Justice Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution."
Philosophically and politically, I guess I am a Jeffersonian. He was far ahead of his time along with Samuel Adams, James Madison and several others.