I’m Tired Of Arguing With Ignorant People

btyy_ajcuaavevl-png-large

Lately I’ve been finding myself fighting both sides of the political spectrum; with those who support Hillary criticizing me because they believe I support a womanizing unqualified Trump, and Trump supporters hammering me because since I do not intend to vote for him I’m giving the election to Hillary who will be the final nail in the coffin to our Constitution.

Frankly I’ve had enough of it; ya’ll haven’t heard a damned thing I’ve been saying! Either it’s going in one ear and out the other, or you’re simply not capable of processing the reasons I’ve given why I do not intend to vote for either candidate.

I’m pretty sure that this close to the election most of you reading this have made up your minds as to whom you will vote for. What I would like for you to do is make a list in your head of all the reasons why you are voting for that particular candidate. Most likely it is because of one of two reasons; you are voting for them because of the things they promised to do throughout their campaign, or because you believe them to be better qualified than the other candidate. I actually had someone tell me that because Hillary has more political experience that makes her the better choice for president; regardless of how poorly she served while obtaining that experience.

The problem as I see it is that a vast majority of people do not know the primary purposes for which our government was established. They do not know that there are limits which were placed upon the things our government can do, and the vast majority of the things it does these days exceeds those limits. Throughout people’s lives they are taught that government is there to provide them with things and they have no idea that by their voting for candidates who make all these unconstitutional campaign promises they are culpable in electing criminals to office.

How many of you have actually read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including their preambles? I’m being generous and guessing that maybe half of you have read them. Okay, how many of those who answered they had read those documents have read the Federalist Papers in their entirety? How many have read Joseph Stories Commentaries on the Constitution? How many have read the anti-Federalist writings of Cato; Brutus; Centinel; the Federal Farmer; and Patrick Henry. How many have read Locke’s Second Treatise, or De Tocqueville’s Democracy In America? I’ll bet very few of you can answer that you have.

You see, I have read these things, over and over, and over again. I’ve also tried to read everything I could get my hands on from those who lived and participated in the Founding of our Republic. I have acquaintances that are far more knowledgeable than I am, but I would be willing to bet that as for understanding the mindset of those who established our Republic I am far more knowledgeable than 90% of the voting populace; and that’s probably being very generous.

What makes you think that your views on who would make a good president valid when you can’t even tell me what the reasons are for which our government was established, or the powers that were originally given it by the framers of the Constitution? Hmmm?

Having read as extensively as I have on the founding of this country I cannot for the life of me find one instance where the Founders mentioned that the purpose of government was to provide things for the people of this country such as affordable health care, or a college education. Yet those are things both candidates have addressed; each with their own plan to address these issues.

Do you think our Founders went to war with their government so they could get free health care, a college education, a retirement fund, or so that their government could create jobs? You want to know the primary reason our Founders fought for their independence, and later established this system of government? The answer is one word: LIBERTY. Their government had violated what they believed to be their Natural Rights and they fought to restore them.

It’s right there at the very beginning of our Constitution in the Preamble; “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (My emphasis)

In 1771, before the thought of independence ever crossed the minds of most of the Colonists, Samuel Adams wrote, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”

The very same Patrick Henry who enflamed the hearts of his fellow Virginians to fight for independence with his immortal words, “Give me liberty or give me death” would also tell the Virginia delegation considering adopting the Constitution, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Dr. Joseph Warren, who lost his life at the Battle of Bunker Hill during the Revolution, once said, “Stain not the glory of your worthy ancestors, but like them resolve never to part with your birthright; be wise in your deliberations, and determined in your exertions for the preservation of your liberties. Follow not the dictates of passion, but enlist yourselves under the sacred banner of reason; use every method in your power to secure your rights.”

Finally, James Wilson, one of but a few men who was present and whose name appears on both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, declared, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”

Liberty dammit, not benefits, entitlements or jobs; that’s what our Founders fought for and why they established our system of government.

Now, can you tell me how either candidate currently running for president plans to restore the liberty Americans have lost over the past 150 years?

I didn’t think so! That is because neither the candidates seeking office, or the voting public, care about that part of the job description for our government.

Liberty is defined as: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views, or, the power or scope to act as one pleases.

Liberty has but one restriction upon it; the equal rights of others. As Thomas Jefferson would say in a letter to Francis Glimer in 1816, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Liberty is the freedom to think, act, speak as one pleases so long as in so doing you do not restrict the rights of others. After all, that is the definition of freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

When our Constitution was presented to the people for their consideration there was a segment of the people who felt it did not do enough to preserve the rights they had fought so hard to retain just a few years prior. To appease their fears a Bill of Rights was promised if they would just accept the Constitution as is. Even then, there were those who felt this Constitution created a government that would eventually become destructive of the liberty they had gained.

In his speech to the Ratifying Assembly, Patrick Henry declared, “It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it.”

Yet the plan was adopted and a Bill of Rights was proposed, and duly ratified; placing certain rights beyond the scope of government to restrict or violate. In 1943 the Supreme Court ruled, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Can you get that through your thick skulls, because there is a lot of subtle information contained within their ruling? First of all it says that these rights are withdrawn from the vicissitudes of political controversy, placing them beyond the reach of majorities and officials. In case the word vicissitude is not in your vocabulary, it means the act of being variable. So if a right said and meant one thing when it was adopted, it cannot mean something different 200 years later. It also means that neither politicians nor a majority of the people can argue as to whether that right can be limited; they are permanent, or as the old saying goes, written in stone.

But then the SCOTUS continued by saying that these are legal principles to be applied by the courts. And this is where I take great offense at the actions of the Supreme Court. Both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are laws to be applied by the courts, not interpreted; with the search for hidden, or implied meanings found within the various Clauses and Amendments.

For instance, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is commonly known, was accepted by the Supreme Court, with their justifying it based on the grounds that since Congress can levy taxes they could levy a fine, or penalty, to those who did not have health insurance. They never came out and said that it was constitutional for the government to require that people obtain health insurance, only that the government can penalize you if you don’t.

This was not the SCOTUS has used twisted logic and perversion of constitutional principles to expand the powers held by our government; and it probably won’t be the last time either. How many government programs or laws have been ruled to be constitutional because the Justices interpreted them to be implied under either the General Welfare or Commerce Clauses?

You have to remember, the Supreme Court is part of the government. The nine black robed tyrants are human beings, and therefore capable of deceit and party loyalty. Why else would such emphasis be given to the fact that a Democratic President or a Republican President be allowed to pick new Justices to the Court? If the SCOTUS were truly impartial and unbiased; with the Constitution and Bill of Rights being their sole guide in forming decisions, it should not matter whether the president appointing Justices was a liberal or a conservative.

In Federalist 45 James Madison declared that, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” If they are few and defined, how come I find no mention of providing health care to the people within them? As far as that goes I find no mention of creating jobs, providing a college education to our children, or even providing us with a retirement fund, (Social Security); yet these are all things the public clamors for and more, allowing our government to grow far beyond the limited one envisioned by the framers of our Constitution.

Then there are our rights; those things that government cannot restrict. How many of our rights have come under attack; either by our government, or by those in society who feel that they are outdated or offensive? More than I care to admit; that’s how many!

Freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment has withered away to a frail remnant of its former self because today people are so sensitive that anything they disagree with is deemed offensive, and the speaker is told to silence their offensive rhetoric. If you recall, freedom is defined as, the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Therefore anyone who tells me that I cannot speak my mind because others find it offensive is violating my freedom of speech.

As recently as 1989 it was ruled by Justice William Brennan that, “If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” I see no mention of political correctness or people’s feelings in that quote; do you?

Same thing goes for all those who take offense at the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag. I find the flying of the national flags of other nations in the US offensive; after all this IS the United States of America, and if you wish to reside here you should have, as Theodore Roosevelt said, “…renounced completely and without reserve all allegiance to the land from which they or their forefathers came…” (Children of the Crucible Speech, 1917) But oh, that’s politically incorrect and bound to offend someone. But these same people do not care that they are offending those who truly understand what the Confederate Battle Flag stands for.

Oh the hypocrisy… You know, when I was growing up people had a phrase they used to tell crybabies and whiners. It went something like this, “Grow a pair of balls and quit being such a pussy!”

Then there is the 2nd Amendment and my right to keep and bear arms; another right I have been told that needs revising to require permits, background checks, limits on the capacity of magazines and ammunition, and even an outright restriction on private ownership of guns.

Ooooh this gets me mad. Do people even understand the nature of a right? Do they realize that you do not need a permit to exercise it? Do you need a permit to speak about politics, or to vote, even though you don’t know the first damned thing about our system of government? Why should a permit be required to carry a firearm for my own defense? The best way to solve the problem of people not being properly trained in the safe handling of firearms is to teach them in our schools under proper supervision in a controlled situation. But oh, the politically correct crybabies don’t want their children exposed to guns.

So what do we end up with; a society of people who, many of whom don’t know the first thing about the safe handling of guns and who abuse them to commit crimes. In the 1878 case of Wilson v State the court ruled, “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

Then there is the whole idea of requiring me to obtain a permit to carry a gun, and then only if it is concealed so as not to cause a general panic among those who are deathly afraid of guns. Bullshit, the right to carry does not say it must be hidden from view. In fact, in Bliss v Commonwealth, 1822, the courts ruled, “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

Our 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments have been gutted by laws fighting terrorism, but we all say it’s for the best to keep us safe from terrorists. Never once do the people who say these idiotic statements take into consideration that most of the terrorist groups we face today are either creations of our own government or its failed foreign policy of intervention in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

I could go on and on and on until I turn blue in the face; but you people won’t get it. You have drunk the Kool Aid, fallen for the lies, and believe that your government is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing.

People today don’t want to think; and I mean truly take the time to dig and find the truth. Thomas Edison, the same guy who invented the phonograph, the motion picture camera, and the long lasting incandescent light bulb, once said, “Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”

Then Isaac Asimov, the famed science fiction writer, is quoted as saying, “The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

How can you debate a person who refuses to accept fact? How can you prove a person wrong in a debate when they present no facts of their own; only the things they hear on TV from the news or spewing out of the mouths of the very people seeking to destroy their liberty?

You can’t. To attempt to do so is the very definition of the word futile.

That doesn’t mean I won’t stop trying; it only means that I’m getting fed up with arguing with a bunch of ignoramuses who don’t know the difference between shit and shinola; (An old saying my dad used to use).

Believe me, I was once as ignorant and blind to the truth as you are now. But I had the courage and the determination to find the truth; and once I found it the world took on a whole new perspective. But you’ll never see it because most of you still have your heads buried in the sand.

A few final quotes and then I’ll be on my way. The first comes from Ben Franklin, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The second comes from author George Orwell, who gave us the epic novels 1984 and Animal Farm, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Finally, the third comes from Founder Dr. Benjamin Rush, who said, “Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights.”

Don’t expect me to shut up anytime soon; I’m in this for the long haul. As long as our educational system is failing to teach our youth the truth about the history of their country, and its system of government, I’ll be here to attempt to correct their shortcomings and attempts to produce future generations of Americanus Ignoramus. (Thanks to Michael Gaddy for that name by the way.)

closed-minds

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to I’m Tired Of Arguing With Ignorant People

  1. Uneducated asshole (Brandon) says:

    Holy shit this is a long entry. Coffees cold and I got to get ready for work. About 20 paragraphs in and I’m in full agreement. Uneducated people feel very entitled to have opinions on things they know nothing about. I look forward to reading more tonight. Cheers

  2. Neal says:

    Long? I’ve written much longer…;)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.