« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

It isn’t supposed to be like this. It just isn’t…

How did a Free People get here?

I remember –vaguely– the excitement, the anticipation, as the nation (and, indeed the world) breathlessly awaited for the Lunar Module door to open, for an astronaut to debauch from the tiny “porch”, and alight on the surface of the moon.

My brother had a “toy turtle” at the time, and I contracted salmonella from the little cutie. So, I was curled up with my barf-bucket, under the end-table, in the manner of six-year-olds. But, we all watched Walter Cronkite  for several hours on that July evening in 1969 with historic and wide-eyed excitement waiting, waiting, waiting for Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin to set foot on our nearest celestial neighbor.

A 39-year old American, standing on the surface of the Moon.

Mankind was forever changed by the simple, yet awe-inspiring, works of a Free People.

Many years later, I worked with a man named Mahendra who was a refugee of Adi Amin’s Rhodesia. He and his father ran one of three or four body shops in the entire country. At the time of the Lunar Landings, the only TV around was in a local restaurant, and he said people had walked for days to watch the coverage of Man Landing On The Moon.

“It looked like ghosts on the TV,” he said. But imagine: Walking for days to see the accomplishments of a Free People –and be awed.

A Free People put men on the moon.  They then produced the technology by which remote African villagers could watch it take place live, as it happened. And their nation, the Nation of a Free People, wasn’t even yet 200 years old.

As a Free People, We’ve written amazing works of philosophy that continue to guide us and govern us. We’ve won a dozen wars of Justice, not conquest. We’ve cured diseases that have plagued mankind since the dawn of reckoning. We tamed mountains, conquered illiteracy. We packed the churches we built with our own funds, and kept them viable until very recently without government support. We have invented a storehouse of modern marvels. We have verily transformed the way mankind lives.

America is an amazing, miraculous place.

And here we are, almost 45 years after Neil Armstrong –a single, individual American strolled around on the Moon– sitting on yet another set of pins and needles. But these are far more painful…

This time, we cower in fear in our anticipation. We’ve chewed our nails to the quick with worry over what another single American might do. We wait in our sweat, our worry, our dread foreboding.

How will a single, old man in a black robe vote?

Will Justice Anthony Kennedy allow us to be free, or will he enslave us to generations of darkness and federal coercion? One single man, in a far distant city, who has never met me, will never meet me, will decide if the Constitution means what it says about the sovereign individual, or not. And thus, Justice Kennedy will decide the fate of my family, my kin, my decedents for ages to come. Another small step for a man… right down the slippery slope.

And I never got to vote for him.

This is tyranny, plain and simple. Tyranny. How the hell did we get here?

America isn’t supposed to be like this. It just isn’t

 

COMMENTS

  • ntrepid

    No, I don

    • Boston_Liberal

      Can you elaborate on your complaints with the 17th Amendment?

      Do you or do you not recognize any irony with agreeing with the OP about the SJC being “Tyrannical” and yet having a problem with an Amendment that gives voters more direct control over their federal government?

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        Behave or begone.

        • Boston_Liberal

          Also I was just asking a question. Where’s the misbehavior?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            If you wish to understand, read more, quiz less.

            We’re not here to be interrogated as part of an anthropological study.

            See this Goldberg classic

          • Bill S

            I found it in Google’s cache, here

            Oldie but goodie.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            It didn’t work, then it did… they must be at work over at NRO.

          • Boston_Liberal

            It was actually fascinating. It might be a good idea to come up with a shorter explanation of the phrase however as the phrase itself is nowhere near well known. A Google search for example lists Redstate itself as the first four search results. I think they’re the only results at that. Also to be clear, I have no intentions of misting anybody or trolling. To even assume so means you assume I already know what all conservatives are thinking and thus am asking certain questions just to be annoying. No one has that mental capability. I only ask questions so that I can find out the answers.

            I was particularly interested in the article’s description of conservatives “conservatives-as-other”. When it comes to real conservatives, not RINOS but died in the wool ones, I do sometimes get that impression. It seems like national demographics might be at play here. Strong conservatism thrives in small towns and sparsely populated states and doesn’t do so well in densely populated cities. The larger the urban metro area, the more moderate the Republican.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density

            Given the population density issues in individual states, as well as the overall trend for the entire nation its been pretty clear that over the nation’s entire existence people have been moving from small towns and to metro areas. I am genuinely interested in finding out how do die hard conservatives plan to thrive in today’s circumstances. Especially since there is such animosity towards moderate Republicans.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            We aren’t here to satisfy your curiosity.

            This is your warning.

          • briteness

            “We aren

      • ntrepid

        My point was in reference to the wise intent of this Republic being a democracy only as direct as one can operate within the rigid framework of the Constitution. With that proper understanding, no irony exists here as I believe Mr. Elihu Root (here via William Schambra at National Affairs (1)) has been proven very astute:

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          have been made more powerful since the direct election of Senators.

          When the Senate was chosen by the state legislatures, they could act more in accordance with the perceived needs of their state and their own conscious, and less with an eye to the camera.

        • Boston_Liberal

          Thank you for explaining your view to me. Mr. Root sounds like an intelligent gentlemen. I would point out that his view is just an opinion and not established fact. I would posit that our country has functioned much better since the establishment of the 17th Amendment.

          Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like this entire discussion focuses on the tensions of states rights vs federal powers. As a conservative, you make the technical and correct point that the states are granted certain rights by our Constitution and that at times those rights have been trampled on. I would absolutely concede that. What I’m trying to figure out is why is it taking conservatives so long to figure out that technical points alone are not enough to run and sustain an ideology?

          Over the course of our nation’s history, huge changes have occurred when the conflict between states rights vs federal powers have come to a boiling point. It seems like conservatives aren’t noticing at all that the issue of states rights itself has been earning itself a 227 year shellacking on the public relations front. I can think of 6 issues off the top of my head that made states rights look bad and the federal government look good… to the general public (left leaning moderates and liberals/progressives):

          1. Slavery
          2. Women’s Sufferage
          3. Desgregation
          4. Anti-Miscongenation Laws
          5. Sodomy Laws
          6. Anti-cohabitation Laws
          7. Immigration
          8. Gay Marriage

          I would argue that in each of those cases the federal government overstepped its constitutional legal bounds but that’s a technical point. The practical point is that the general public just doesn’t care. They just want the issues resolved so they can move on with their lives. Each case also built a legacy where history points to the feds as the valiant heroes saving the day from the evil states. There is for example no eloquent defense on the floor of any state legislature that can justify keeping people enslaved, women from voting, races separate or two people of different races from marrying.

          As for the 18th century philosophers, they lived in a time when most people lived on or near farm. Population density was very low in the US back then. It also took weeks or months for Senators or Representatives to travel from their home constituencies to DC. Today the population ratio is flipped. More people live in cities than small towns, and you can email federal politicians instantly (no assurances they will read or care what you write…). Given the long term population movements in our country and how its become apparent that large population states trend liberal and small population states trend conservative, are technical arguments about constitutional legalities the sum total that hard core conservatives have to contribute to the political arena? Or is it time to try something new?

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            I don’t see what the argument is. We have no constitution, it is merely window dressing to cover the naked will of the populace.

            Let’s do away with all pretense, we don’t need no stinking Senate, we just use the internet to put every measure up to popular vote.

            No use being bound by hoary old nostrums of 18th century old white men.

          • Boston_Liberal

            Its funny you mention that. Given that we do have an internet, IMO permanent legislatures are obsolete. Its just a matter of time before a nation around the world takes the step towards allowing its citizens to vote directly on bills and sunsetting their legislatures. Once one starts, it will spread. How far will it spread? That’s the great debate.

            Votes could be done from desktops, laptops, smartphones and tablets with a paper mail in option for those who refuse to vote online or can’t afford technology.

            Its not that we don’t have a constitution. Its that merely writing something down on paper is no longer good enough to enable certain practices and behaviors. The general public will no longer put up with it. What is written must comply with what will be tolerated.

          • gekster

            “Its that merely writing something down on paper is no longer good enough to enable certain practices and behaviors. The general public will no longer put up with it”.

            I have not seen people rioting in the streets over excesive paper use.

          • Boston_Liberal

            the repeated historical use of the federal government to override the will of the states is evidence enough for me.

          • gekster

            what you say does nothing to back up your statement.
            Here it is again.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            when the masses, satiated on booze and episodes of Jersey Shore and the Kardasians. decide to make Justin Beiber our dictator for life And ok’s the execution of anyone who sells soda drinks.

            We live in a Republic for a reason and I don’t think you have the slightest clue what that reason is.

          • Boston_Liberal

            …. because that’s how it was setup when it was created. It may stay that way, it may not. Time will tell.

            As Mr. Beiber is still a ways away from 35 years old, we have no idea what kind of man he will turn out to be yet. He seems pretty decent so far even if his fans are a bit annoying. My guess is we could do far worse for a president.

            Your expectations of soda pop executions is hyperbole.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Boston eh? A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            because conservatism isn’t an ideology. Unlike liberal ideology which is based on emotion, conservatism is a rational belief system based on logic, reason, experience, and observation. And it works.

          • Boston_Liberal

            How else do you explain the position of social conservatives then? Basing the foundation of our laws on entities that cannot be proven to exist (God). This is logic and reason? I see more emotion than rationality coming from their positions.

          • gekster

            There is a God.
            Prove to me there isn’t.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            For if Darwin were correct, your kind of thinking would have been “naturally selected” out of the gene pool Centuries ago.

          • gekster

            common sense strikes again.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            and I think I have posted this to Redstate before– atheism is as much a religion and belief system as Christianity. Atheists believe that there is no God, but cannot prove His non-existence any more than a Christian can prove His existence beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, each of us has to weigh the preponderance of evidence from his or her own life experience.

            The only soul who is truly free of a belief system is the lonely agnostic: he doesn’t know and doesn’t care.

            For my life’s experience, I vote that God does, indeed, exist, and I doubt that BL could convince me otherwise.

          • Boston_Liberal

            …. then for conservatives he’s been an incredibly unreliable ally.

            I do appreciate your humor by the way.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            nt

          • gekster

            God tells us to have faith,
            He won’t come down to help us win an election any more than
            helping someone win a ball game.
            He also tells us we will reap what we sow, and if you have been around longer than a couple of comments you would have seen
            that we have more than enough posters calling out to the GOP that what they sow they will reap.

            To quote someone I can’t remember,
            but I’m my friends wll jump in with the name,
            “It is not that God is on our side,
            but that we are on Gods side.

            And I did ask you first, prove to me there is no God,
            and your response of “if god exists” doesn’t cut it.

            (and I did like tnfriends response to you, as it shows God does exist)

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            neither conservatives nor those of faith. Still misting, I see.

            God sends the rain on both the just and the unjust., and the sun rises on both the good and the evil. The difference is that those of faith know that God keeps his promises, and our reward is yet to come. That is the promise on which we rely.

            As for God’s existence, this is a political forum where we occasionally are allowed the flexibility to stray into the religious realm. Rather than get into that discussion, however, I’d like to point you to a little suggested reading. The article 3FactsAboutGod and the entire site of apologetics.

            Your choice to ignore the evidence, but it’s there regardless.

          • barleycorn

            I’m with you in spirit Melody but I must insist that conservatism is an ideology:

            From Wiki:
            “An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one’s goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies),”

            From Merriam – Webster

            1. a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
            2. a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            The discussion at RightPlanet is almost 27 minutes, but well worth a listen. According to the article, the first definition from MW is “visionary theorizing.” Further, that the definition of ideologue is:

            1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
            2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

            Conservatism fits neither of those definitions. In contrast, and again from the article and Levin’s discussion …

            It really boils down to the inalienable rights of the individual, as opposed to the merciless will of the collective or the tyrant. For experience, reason, tradition and thought flows forth from the individual, and may be embraced by other individuals as a

          • barleycorn

            Even though they have similar spellings and are somewhat related words, they have very distinct meanings.

            Mark Levin is wrong and furthermore he is wrong headed to lead other conservatives down a pointless semantical rabbit hole.

            History has proven that our conservative ideas ( or ideology) are superior to the ideas of liberals. We don’t need to strain in an effort to further elevate ourselves in our own esteem.

            My original comment was made in the spirit of not wanting a fellow conservative to be laboring under a misapprehension. Had I understood why you wrote what you did, I would have MMOB.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            Different words indeed, but one leads to the other, does it not? (Ideology & ideologue, that is.) I agree there is some semantics involved here, but I do support the position that conservatism is based on reason, logic, experience, etc., while liberalism is largely based on emotion and theory. Thus the difference in characterization.

            Hey, if we all MMOB, we’d never have any discussion, would we? LOL.

          • Common_Cents

            this came across my email, source unknown:

            We live in an

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Get out.

          • Bill S

            .

  • cbartlett

    I don’t think our founding fathers could have ever forseen that the presidential election would come down to how a handful of “swing” states vote. Just one state – made up of people I will never meet or do business with or talk to – could possibly determine my fate for years to come. And the fact that “The Chosen One” will be able to determine the next one or two, or maybe three, Supreme Court justices for LIFEtime appointments means that state’s votes for the president has the potential to change the course of the country for my children and grandchildren. A set of very precariously balanced dominoes…..

    • Boston_Liberal

      Is your complaint with the electoral college or the concept of ‘swing’ states in general? Because even without an electoral college there would still be swing states.

  • aesthete

    for Kennedy.

    The reason for the current mess is not lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. We’ve had that since the Constitution has been in effect.

    The problem is with elected officials who don’t follow the Constitution. Anthony Kennedy deciding on Constitutionality is not tyranny. In fact, the SC might very well save us from tyranny, as they have in the case of gun rights and free speech.

    Obama and the Congress are the real tyrants.

    How did we get here? Mostly, it was elected officials who blatantly violated the Constitution and forced the Supremes to go along with them.

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      My assertion is that the entire milieu is tyrannical, and that the result of an 80-year march into an anti-individual statism comes down to a single vote, of a single non-elected judge. I don’t think you can make a cogent argument that the founders would look at the totality of the current situation vis-a-vis the “healthcare” debate, and not come the s similar conclusion as I: It is tyrannical.

      Five of the senators that voted for the final Orwellianly-named “Affordable Care Act” were appointed. The bill itself was dragged over the finish line by 5 votes, only after every arm was twisted, parliamentary rules were shredded, and Obama made wild promises about “executive orders” that were, on their face, unconstitutional to even propose. The bill itself originated in the Senate, which, because it raises internal revenue, should have originated in the House… And on, and on…

      There were almost no public hearings while the final language of the bill was being written. To this day, you probably can’t find more than a handful of legislators who actually have read the bill. I

      If this isn’t tyrannical, it certainly has that odor. Clearly, elected officials foisted this stinking pile of crap on the American people;– certainly my cat didn’t have anything to do with it. The Question I posed at the end of my post is self-answering and rhetorical, which you have demonstrated. But, it’s much deeper than that, and as a person that usually is given to intellectually robust and critical thinking, I am fairly confident you know this.

      The point of the post is to juxtapose the strength of the confidence of the go-go Space Age 60′s, with the supinely weak, self-flagellation we see in the American culture today. And illustrate, once again, that the past is often prolog.

  • barleycorn

    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

    So you see its never like “its supposed to be” unless men of courage make it so.

    Over the past 60 years too many American’s have played the fool as their republic was stolen from under their noses one little piece at a time.

    Here is another quote from Ronald Reagan from 1964:

    “Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be.”

    It continues today as Americans routinely accept less freedom as the price for more “security”.

    • barleycorn

      The first quote above came from a speech given on March 30 1961, exactly 20 years to the day before President Reagan was nearly murdered.

  • checkmate2012

    and agree with the sentiment of most of the comments above. I’m with you that our Constitutional system is broken and tyranny is here, Everything goes to a court for a decision. It’s sick.

    It makes me so very sad. I tried to pinpoint in my Destruction post as we have lost the fabric of our nation and O is making it worse with his total disregard for the Rule Of Law.

    I too watched the moon landing at a young age and although there is still a glimmer of hope and some signs that our country is exceptional, O has attempted to sqash it at every turn and is succeeding which blows my mind. This should not be a close race and may be our last chance to turn this damaged ship around.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    We got here because too many of us for too many years (I’m guilty as charged) left civic affairs to others. We let “others” run for dog catcher, school board, city council, county board, etc. We forgot what we learned in American Civics in 7th grade (and, for the younger conservatives, you probably never had that class, because the stealthy Progressives who DID run for school board made sure it got stripped out of of the curriculum).

    So, what to do?

    More blog posts?

    Or civic action?

    One’s easy. The other is a bit harder.

    Politically organize and unite locally. Inside our political party. At our respective local committee meetings. Then we have a chance to win both locally and nationally.

    Thank you.

    CW

  • proudmarinemom

    Tyranny sneaks up on a people because they are preoccupied with the enjoyment of freedom. Once that preoccupation has been interrupted, tyranny loses. Every time it’s tried.

    One small nitpick, curmudgeon: Idi Amin led the tyranny in Uganda, not Rhodesia. but Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia) differs very little from Amin, so it’s an understandable oversight.

    I agree with CW — get involved at the local level. Now.

  • davenj1

    but yes it is supposed to be like this. The Supreme Court is the last bulwark against a tyrannical government. You are ranting about Kennedy. But what if he votes to strike the mandate in Obamacare? Will your frustration still be there Friday morning or will there be elation? This cuts both ways. For every 5-4 Supreme Court decision that peeves conservatives, there are 5-4 decisions that peeve liberals.
    And, it sounds almost liberal- FDResque even- when anyone starts to complain about “unelected old men in black robes.” Someone else said it better: if you sort of want to guarantee that Justices write and decide cases more to your way of thinking, then elect the right person who will be nominating those Justices in the first place.
    For me, I am thankful there is a group of unelected judges nominated for life provided they correctly interpret the Constitution. That last part of the last sentence is the key.

    • Viet71

      The ACA will be upheld 6-3.

      I hope not. But my gut tells me Roberts and Kennedy will flip. Say it’s up to the voters.

      • davenj1

        Said earlier:
        Unanimous on tax question;
        7-2 on Medicaid expansion with blistering dissent from Scalia joined by Thomas based on federalism issues;
        6-3 on severability allowing Obama to take something “important” and give GOP some cover;
        5-4 or 6-3 to strike mandate. If 6-3, then it will be Sotomayor flipping. If 5-4, then Roberts gets the opinion. Again, in terms of principled, constitutional reasoning, Thomas should get the opinion.
        Depends on if it all comes as a single opinion or if they split the opinions/cases apart. Thomas won’t get opinion if he is one of 2 on the Medicaid issue if issued as a single opinion. Just hoping its not some plurality thing.
        Further prediction: If you are correct and they decide 5-4 or 6-3 to uphold the mandate, the words of Scalia in Raich decision will come back to bite him in the ass.

        • Viet71

          n/t

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      I have no brief with Kennedy per sey. I am talking about the whole rodeo, and how far we have fallen from our Glory Days of the the immediate Post-War era.

      We now seem more than happy to allow ourselves to devolve all of our freedoms to petty bureaucrats… and old men in robes… and piss-ant regulators of a nanny-state. Sad.

      Kennedy might well vote to strike down the law. I pray he does. He might not, tho’. But, that’s not the point: How in the name of God’s Green Earth have we allowed our freedoms to dangle by so thin a reed?

      • aesthete

        but IMO people like Kennedy and (earlier on) FDR are at least partly to blame for our chains.

        You are right, but I do wish that conservatives would go back to advocating for the SC as a co-equal branch of government. IMO, we’d be much better off today if the SC had been successful in swatting down Andrew Jackson’s eviction of the Cherokee, FDR’s Japanese internment, and the New Deal. An independent court loyal to the Constitution would have never embarked on the sort of aspirational law-making that the Warren Court (mostly FDR-Truman appointees) undertook, especially wrt abortion.

        • aesthete

          By Kennedy I mean JFK, not Andrew (though I’m not a big fan of either of them).

  • noncon

    Complain about the legislative branch in 2010 all you want, but it is wrong to complain about a judge refusing to be an activist judge, and then declaring that is an infringement on our freedom. The legislation was passed into law by our representatives, elected by a mjority of Americans. That is how our government works. Blame the American people, but Roberts actually stood up for a bigger principle. See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r105:1:./temp/~r105ZWLumd:: to remind yourself how bitterly conservatives fought against judicial activism when the court was liberal.

    I know, if we obey the constitution and they do not, we let them win. But you know what? Right wins in the end, by being right, by being true to principles.

    No judicial activism, even in this. And as Erick points out, the Supreme Court probably got Romney elected with this decision, because it reminds people that voting for their representatives is what matters, not putting all our trust in one judge.

    And do your really think FDR’s socialism with the majority of jobs being union and 90% tax rates were “our glory days”?

  • ntrepid

    Five days later

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Scottie Coursey

  • Pingback: Automobile Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: Mining

  • Pingback: odszukaj milosc swego zycia

  • Pingback: καταστήματα εξοπλισμού σπιτιού

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • Pingback: stills

  • Pingback: randka

  • Pingback: milosc we wroclawiu

  • Pingback: randki za darmo

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: portal randkowy za darmo

  • Pingback: girls in white dresses

  • Pingback: whisky

  • Pingback: Spyware

  • Pingback: see

  • Pingback: Browse Around This Site

  • Pingback: Look At This Website

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: breastactives breast enhancement pills

  • Pingback: project in rajasthan

  • Pingback: madam lux

  • Pingback: jobs working from home uk

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Carey Werst

  • Pingback: Minerva Stagnitto

  • Pingback: Becki Dufrane

  • Pingback: Store Fixture Installations

  • Pingback: Tyree Pascal

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: cv wzór

  • Pingback: Luanne Courtney

  • Pingback: Emanuel Swim

  • Pingback: Weston Divers

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: free cell phone lookup

  • Pingback: executive uniform

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: Mining

  • Pingback: air compressors

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy