THE AMERICAN WAY-PART 2-RACISM

The Liberal Way:

Liberals believe you are a racist if:

• You didn't vote for Obama
• You think the law applies to Obama
• You believe affirmative action laws are immoral and harmful to all concerned
• Same for welfare
• You like country music
• You like NASCAR
• You think we should secure our borders
• You support the Tea Party
• You are a conservative

The American Way:

While calling republicans and conservatives racist may serve to silence discussion and drive a wedge through this country based on skin color, it is, in fact, historically inaccurate. But then, being a democrat/liberal means being unencumbered by the facts. A cursory review of some history will show these democrat- liberal-progressive- elitist snobs to be a bunch of lying bastards.

America did not invent slavery but we did end it. It was a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that put forth the Emancipation Proclamation and conducted a bloody civil war to end that scourge on American history.

It was the Democrats, at their 1868 national convention, that honored the first grand wizard of the KKK.

Not one Democrat voted for the 14^th Amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves.

It was liberal/progressive heroine Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who developed what she called the “Negro Project.” In implementing this plan Sanger wrote: "[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

In 1957, it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who sent the 82^nd Airborne to Little Rock, AR. to force Governor Orval Faubus, a Democrat, to integrate Arkansas' public schools. (Fun Fact: In 1956 Martin Luther King, Jr. publicly announced that he voted for Eisenhower.)

Democrat George Wallace, Jr. served 16 years as governor of Alabama. In his first inaugural speech in 1963 he stated: “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was signed into law by LBJ. Conservative senator Barry Goldwater, speaking in opposition to the Act, stated, in part: “I wish to make myself perfectly clear. The two portions of this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action in the area of so-called- '"public accommodations'" -and in the area of employment--to be precise, Titles II and VII of the bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government, namely, that of a constitutional government in which 50 sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal Government.” BAM! Boy did we get stuck with the wrong Barry as president.

Title II outlawed discrimination based on race in hotels, restaurants, theaters and all other “public accommodations.” This violates our freedom of association which courts have ruled is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition and it also violates our due process protections regarding liberty and property contained in the 14^th Amendment. Title VII prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race. We've been over the employer/employee contractual relationship before so I won't waste your time being redundant.

The racism of contemporary Democratic/liberal elites is manifested in a subtle and yet more insidious way. The have convinced generations of minorities they are victims of a racist American society. The Democratic Party has marketed itself as their advocate and protector. Through the welfare apparatus they have created a permanent condition of dependency among a large segment of the country. Democrat President Lyndon Johnson summed up their plan with his legendary eloquence: “I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” What a bunch of assholes.

True racism, being prejudicial of people based solely on their race, is morally bankrupt and an intellectual absurdity but that doesn't mean there should be a law against it. Not in America. America values freedom and the sovereignty of the individual. We have adopted free market capitalism as our economic system because it is most compatible with those values. Racist business owners and employers that act on their racism by discriminating will be punished because capitalism is a moral system that involves the voluntary commerce between consenting people. As Thomas Sowell observed: “Prejudice is free, but discrimination has costs.” Who among us would go into a bar or restaurant that advertised “No blacks allowed?” I don't know anyone. The place would be out of business in short order. Similarly, an employer that discriminates by hiring people based on criteria other than productivity is cutting his own throat. We don't need affirmative action laws because the free market is colorblind and will always be biased toward productivity.

Conservative Americans want all people to enjoy the blessings of liberty and the dignity of work that facilitates our independence. Liberal politicians fear and loathe independent people. They are a threat to their power. Dependent people are not free but they do vote Democrat and that is all liberal politicians care about.

THE AMERICAN WAY

The liberal/progressive ideology is not new in America. It has been a scourge in this country for well over 150 years. In the middle of the 19^th century there was Horace Mann, followed by John Dewey in the early part of the 20^th century, progressive socialists both, that gave us the train wreck known as public education. Woodrow Wilson was a big time progressive and of course FDR with his New Deal and LBJ with his Great Society have inflicted deep generational damage to the country.

During my lifetime, liberalism has continued to spread like an aggressive cancer. The cesspool of academia has provided a fertile breeding ground and facilitated liberal dominance in the media, our culture and the body politic. We are, in my opinion, now heading toward the ultimate manifestation of this depraved ideology.    

After the Constitutional Convention, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin what form of government had been established. “A republic,” replied Franklin, “if you can keep it.”

We are not a strict democracy where majority rules. We get to elect our leadership but they are bound by the constraints of the Constitution. It was intended that we be, in the words of John Adams, “A government of laws and not of men.” Considering what is going on in this country today, Franklin's cautionary response appears prescient. Every day now, it seems, we see the president or someone in his administration break the law, ignore the law or, without bothering to get the consent of the legislature, change the law. That so many American citizens, along with a complicit media, not only tolerate such lawlessness but actually endorse it is scary and terribly sad. In a rare moment of honesty, Obama said that he wants to “fundamentally transform” America. This is revealing. One would not want to “fundamentally transform” something they love. It is clear to me that Obama and the liberal elites have a deep- rooted animus toward this country and they are doing their best to change what it means to be an American.

The idea of America, I think, includes two aspects. Individual sovereignty and the law. Our culture was once predicated on freedom and individual sovereignty, conditions proclaimed as man's unalienable right in the Declaration of Independence and codified as law by the Constitution. Liberals, in general, and Obama in particular are able to corrupt the culture because the Constitution is not self-enforcing. It requires politicians of high moral character who respect their oath to uphold it. Today most Democrats are quite willing to subvert the Constitution and most Republicans are too scared and weak to hold them accountable. The American Way is in serious jeopardy.

By means of examining current events and legislative issues, I will attempt to illustrate how the Liberal Way is antithetical to freedom and individual sovereignty and, hopefully, provide a reasoned and compelling argument in support of our founding principles, which will convince readers to embrace “The American Way!”

This review is not intended to be a rigorous examination of every Supreme Court decision. I want people to read this without dying of boredom. Besides, on any particular issue, I could site Court decisions both in support and in opposition to my position. Supreme Court rulings have the force of law but that does not mean my interpretations are illegitimate.

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Thomas Jefferson

As a man of ordinary understanding and common sense, I believe the Constitution needs to be interpreted within the context of the Founder's original intent. Fortunately, the Founders were prolific writers, bold and clear in stating their positions. From the Federalist Papers, Common Sense and countless personal letters, to the recorded history of the Constitutional Convention, their intentions were clear. They had recently won a war against a king and they were terrified of reimposing a strong centralized government on themselves. But they also recognized the need for a federal government strong enough to protect individual rights and freedom from enemies, both foreign and domestic and to “form a more perfect Union.” My Constitutional philosophy leans heavily on those parts of the document that, in my opinion, best illustrate their brilliance in achieving both these competing goals. The Ninth Amendment- “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” and the Tenth Amendment-”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” make it very clear that only certain powers were delegated to the federal government. The Ninth Amendment refers to Article I, Section 8 where very limited and concise powers are enumerated. And no, taxing hard working Americans so the government can pay for the birth control for some graduate school skank did not make the list.

Liberals, armed with neither ordinary understanding or common sense, prefer to search for interpretations in “metaphysical subtleties” which leads to inconsistent and ridiculous positions. To Wit:

MINIMUM WAGE

The Liberal Way: Barack Obama says, ”It's time to give America a raise.” He is promoting legislation that would raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. “As Americans, we believe that honest work should be rewarded with honest wages. That certainly means that no one who works full time should ever have to raise a family in poverty....most workers who would get a raise when Congress passes this bill aren't teenagers taking on their first job. They average 35 years old,” he says. He lauds those few states that have already passed laws raising their minimum wage. He shows his business acumen when he explains, “Profitable businesses...pay higher wages too, not out of charity but because it reduces employee turnover, boosts productivity and improves the bottom line.”

The American Way: Article I, section 10 of the Constitution prohibits States from “impairing the obligations of contracts...” Through the years courts have seen fit to diminish the potential of this clause but they have also ruled that a right to enter into contracts free from unreasonable government regulations is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sometimes whacky and often inconsistent jurisprudence aside, there can be no disputing the Founder's view that private property is considered sacred and a man's labor is his property. To quote Madison, workers have “free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which...constitute their property in the general sense of the word.”

I know to challenge Obama is considered racist but I wish someone would ask him a simple question. If $10.10 an hour is good, wouldn't $20 an hour be better? How about $50? Heck, why not just sign an executive order making it $100 and we can all party like rock stars! It's ridiculous. Even an economic midget like Obama knows there is a point where an artificially high cost of labor will result in reduced job opportunities. He just doesn't know what that number is. Neither do I but I know a great economic system that will find it. It's called the Free Market. A minimum wage that is higher than the competitive market wage level will result in an increase in unemployment and the greater the difference between the artificial wage and the competitive market wage, the higher the unemployment rate. The cost of labor, just like the cost of material goods, is subject to the law of supply and demand. Wages will rise as the demand for labor increases. If Obama really wanted to help low-wage workers, he would stop punishing those that actually create jobs.

In 1995, the congressional Joint Economic Committee published a review of 50 years of academic research on the minimum wage. The study concluded that effects of increasing the minimum wage included:

*Increasing the likelihood and duration of unemployment for low-wage workers;

*Encouraging employers to cut worker training;

*Increasing inflationary pressure;

*Encouraging employers to cut back on fringe benefits;

*Increasing teenage crime rates; and

*Encouraging employees to hire illegal aliens.

More specific to Obama's plan, the Congressional Budget Office recently released a report showing that an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could help lift 900,000 workers out of poverty but would cost approximately 500,000 jobs! Gee, thanks comrade!

Once again, dipshit politicians commission a survey, paid for by us, with the hope that it will validate their idiotic schemes, then ignore it when it concludes that their ideas are idiotic. It would make more sense for Obama to promise low-wage workers magic beans and fairy dust. It would do them every bit as good as raising the minimum wage and in fact would do them much less harm.

ACCEPTABLE MEANS

It is becoming more apparent every day that liberals in general, and Barack Obama in particular, believe the end justifies the means.
 

In September of 2012, Obama was trying to get reelected. One of his campaign narratives was “GM is alive, Osama bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda is on the run.”

On September 11 the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked and four Americans were killed. The historical significance of the date is obvious and we now know that Obama was informed that same day that it was a coordinated attack by Islamic terrorists. The attack went on for more than eight hours. As President and Commander In Chief, Obama has an obligation and duty to protect the people and the interests of the United States yet his response was to protect his desired end of being reelected. He needed to maintain the perceived veracity of his, “Al Qaeda is on the run” narrative so his administration initiated a cover-up by means of blaming some obscure anti-Muslim video. To this day no one in the Obama administration has been held accountable and none of the terrorists responsible for the attack have been caught or killed. But hey, Obama got reelected. The end justifies the means.
 

Obama wants to socialize our healthcare system. He knows that most Americans have yet to embrace socialism so he called it something else. During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised that all debate and negotiations regarding his healthcare bill would be televised on C-Span so all Americans would know what was going on. That was a lie. The bill was developed in complete secrecy with no Republican input. Republicans were given just hours to read the 2000-plus page bill before they were required to vote on it. This led to the crazed Nancy Pelosi saying, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it...” - The bill passed with not one Republican vote. He promised us that the typical family would save approximately $2500 in annual premiums. That was a lie. The typical family is seeing huge percentage increases in their premiums. He promised that if we liked our insurance plan, we could keep our plan. A lie. He promised that if we liked our doctor, we could keep our doctor. A lie. Obama wanted socialized healthcare so he cut backroom deals, gave out exemptions to the politically connected and lied repeatedly to the American people. But hey, he got his Obamacare. The end justifies the means. 
 

The IRS targeting conservative groups, red lines that Obama drew then said he didn't, Fast and Furious, rule by executive fiat. I could go on and on but you get the idea.
 

The end justifies the means is not an American philosophy. It is more indicative of the governing ethos of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. In America, the ultimate end is always freedom and the sovereignty of the individual. As the great Milton Friedman said, “Desirable or not, any end that can be obtained only by the use of bad means must give way to the more basic end of the use of acceptable means."    

CHANGE? YOU GOT IT!

In the words of John Adams, America was to be “a nation of laws, not of men.” Barack Obama and his minions have destroyed that ideal. In his efforts to “change” this country he has adopted the concept that his progressive ends justifies his lawless means. In so doing, he, along with his contemptible Attorney General, have demonstrated their disdain for the rule of law and our concept of the separation of powers. It is clear they have a deep-rooted animus toward the very framework of our constitutional republic.

Liberals don't seem to have much of a problem with Obama ruling by executive decree but I wonder what they would say if things were reversed. Suppose, just for fun, that in a shocking and unforeseen moment of clarity, the American people suddenly understood the need for reason, integrity, competence and a love of freedom in their leaders and they elected me president of the United States. Awesome! If the American people had the good sense to elect me then this fantasy assumes they also voted for substantial Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. Now, for an indeterminate time, I will govern by the new paradigm as established by Obama.

First, I would encourage the Republican leadership in the House to form a new alliance. Let's call it the Nancy Pelosi Caucus. Their job would be to don hideous masks and pass legislation in support of my agenda. Debate would be rendered superfluous. When the Democrats and media types start whining, the leader of the Nancy Pelosi Caucus can tell them, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” The first thing on their agenda would be the repeal of the Affordable Care Act- (I've noticed the liberals have stopped calling it Obamacare). The second thing I would like them to do is pass the Affordable Bible Act. As I am governing by the Obama paradigm, I am not terribly concerned with constitutional constraints, but that's not even an issue with the ABA. Now that the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John “WTF” Roberts, has ruled that it is quite acceptable for the federal government to compel Americans to buy a product, the ABA would surely pass constitutional muster. Yes, it is our birthright, as Americans, to have affordable access to bibles. And by affordable access, of course, I mean that all Americans are compelled to purchase a bible. I'm sure the Democrats will be apocalyptic over this law but I will demonstrate my willingness to compromise and “reach across the aisle” by granting waivers to select groups. In fact, I will grant waivers to any religion that doesn't think it's okay to strap explosives to their chest and blow themselves up in a crowd of innocent people or condones the beheading of anyone that disagrees with them.

Over in the Senate, a once august assembly referred to as the greatest deliberative body in the world, they will now be operating under Reid's Rules of Order. Reasoned debate and measured deliberations? I don't think so. The Republicans will broaden Reid's Rules to cover all Senate business. Why even waste time talking. Just vote. Fifty-one votes wins! Hey, libtards, you lose again, you bunch of losers!

Now that things will be moving expeditiously in the legislative branch, I can get on with the business of wielding executive power. Remember now, under the Obama Doctrine, the chief executive is still called the president but he now has the power of a king or dictator. The president can change codified law at his pleasure. Under the Obama regime, when he did this, his administration and media types simply called it “tweaking” the law. No worries, it's just a little “tweak.” Well girl, I'm just a tweakster for your love! I will be tweaking away on the thin ice of a new day! The possibilities for good here are endless but let me mention a few of my priorities. I would “tweak” the tax code by establishing a ten percent flat tax. This should allow us to get rid of 90 percent of the IRS leviathan. Most of the remaining staff could be organized into a new department. Let's call it the Department of Jack-Booted Thugs. Their job would be to levy and collect confiscatory taxes on any individuals, institutions or businesses that have anything to do with windmills, solar panels or electric cars. We've been subsidizing this garbage for years. Time to re-coup our losses. They would also engage in “heightened scrutiny” of community organizers, race pimps and anyone having anything to do with George Soros. Perhaps this will strain credulity, but the Department of Jack-Booted Thugs will be run by three low-level staffers out of the Omaha office with no connection to or knowledge of by anyone above middle management.

A top priority of mine will be to tweak abortion law. I would make all abortions illegal after the first day of pregnancy. Coupled with a newly instituted three day waiting period, I'm sure many libtards will cry foul. Well let me just say, and I want to be very clear with this, If you like your abortionist, you can keep your abortionist, period!

America, when led by someone who loves freedom and recognizes the sovereignty of the individual, can once again save the world.

 

BREAD & CIRCUSES

The rise of the oceans has begun to slow and the planet has begun to heal. Thanks to Hillary and Barry pushing the “reset button” with the Russkies, those commie bastards are now our new BFF. There is peace in the Middle East, health care is free and everyone loves us! I think now is the time the Dear Leader would like us to obsess over our bread and circuses.

So, lets talk some football! 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh thinks Clay Matthews is a dirty player. Back in the fifties there was a defensive back named Emlen Tunnell who had a reputation for clothes-lining people. Of the Claymaker's allegedly late hit on the 49ers quarterback, Harbaugh said, “I was standing there and was kind of struck....I'm seeing Emlen Tunnell here.” What a coincidence. After about 80 close up shots of Harbaugh's reaction after every play, I was kind of struck: I'm seeing Forest Gump with a scorching boil on his ass here. Stupid and irritated is as stupid and irritated does, Jim.

The Mighty Packers blasted the Washington Redskins last weekend. It's early but I'm getting that Championship Season feel with the Pack. Not so for the Redskins. Not only are they stuck with Master Splinter for a coach but now they got the Indians after them again bitching about their team name. About two dozen protesters showed up at Lambeau on Sunday to let Packer Fans know that they consider “Redskins” to be a derogatory term. The protest was organized by the Wisconsin Indian Education Association's Mascot and Logo Task Force. (I bet those meetings are a blast.) According to Brandon Stevens of the Oneida Tribe, “We're actively and proactively creating an avenue of education and seeking out remedies to see how we can come to an understanding where the offender isn't the one dictating what the intent of the mascot is.” Consulting my Libtardese to English dictionary, a rough translation of this jibberish is, “We're going to be throwing hissy fits until we get everything we want.”

Now comes the first jackass out of the box. Sports Illustrated's Peter King says he will no longer use the “Washington team nickname.” Wow! Check out Pete's prodigious social conscience! Before I develop a debilitating case of social conscience envy I need to respond so here is what I'm going to do. I will no longer be using the name of that Sports Illustrated writer. From now on I will refer only to Sports Illustrated's ELF. (Elitist Liberal Fool) There you go ELF. We have both engaged in the same empty symbolism and accomplished nothing. But I bet you feel better about yourself. I know I do.

Jackass No. 2: NFL Commissioner Rodger Goodell said, “If one person is offended, we have to listen.” What if one million people are not offended? Will they listen to them also? I think the NFL owners need to call an emergency meeting to fire this idiot. Do they really want someone this breathtakingly stupid running their league?

This sort of crap is happening more and more often in this country. A few malcontents dictate societal standards for all. In this case the claims of the offended are demonstrably false. They say that Indian mascots demean their culture and they feel personally disrespected. But team names have never been intended to impugn anyone's culture or ethnicity. Names and mascots of this nature are chosen to represent what the team aspires to be. Warriors, Minutemen, Vikings, Seminoles, Fighting Illini, Patriots and so on. Team names are meant to conjure images of a fearsome and formidable foe. They are a source of pride for both the team and their fans. Nobody wants a nickname that encourages laughter and derision. For cripes sake, no team would ever call themselves the “Fighting French.”

The owner of the Redskins said he will never change the name. Good for him but the grievance culture of Obamaland has so elevated the status of the perpetually offended that I put the over/under for a name change at three years. Accepting the inevitability of this change, I think an effort should be made to get in front of this thing and avoid the dreaded “Golden Eagles” or “Senators” or “Red Storm” suggestions that are sure to pop up. If we all commit to this effort we can get a much better name into the social conservation. From now on I will be referring to the Washington football team as the Washington “Cracka's.” Will you join me? This name is a winner on many levels. First of all, doesn't it just fit? Washington Cracka's. Just sounds right. Also, it's not offensive to anyone who counts. Oh sure, maybe some white supremacist will bitch but really, who cares. Besides, those hillbillies have nothing to complain about. It's not a racist term. As explained by Trayvon Martin's girlfriend to Piers Morgan, “Cracka” should not be construed as a pejorative by white people: “...that's a person who act like they're a police...,” she said. Well, I guess it's settled then. Go Cracka's!

WRONG AGAIN BARRY

So, just like that, our constitutional scholar president has invented another “right.” Barack Obama recently stated: “...in the United States of America, health insurance isn't a privilege – it is your right.” Of course, he made no mention of the corollary to this assertion. To wit: If Americans are born with the right to health insurance, than somebody, somewhere is born with the obligation to provide it. Liberals respond with the tired platitude, - “It's a societal obligation.” But, in Obamaland today, our society consists of two roughly, in numerical terms, equal groups. Those that pay taxes and those that don't. I think it is important to remember, and this applies to all the sundry liberal programs, that when liberals talk about “societal obligations or responsibilities” they are referring to only half of the people.

Liberals also never want to contemplate how securing their invented “rights” might infringe on those rights that are actually enumerated in the Constitution. Examples abound how the implementation of Obamacare is diminishing individual liberty, privacy rights and religious freedom. A true right never places a positive obligation on another. We have the right to “the pursuit of happiness” but that does not mean somebody is obligated to make us happy. And while we have the right to speak, nobody is obligated to listen to us.

Obama went on to excoriate Republicans that oppose Obamacare. “They're actually having a debate between hurting Americans...just because they've been sick – and harming the economy and millions of Americans in the process... A lot of Republicans seem to believe that if they can gum up the works and make this law fail, they'll somehow be sticking it to me. But they'd just be sticking it to you.” I expect this type of vitriol from the Solidarity Singers and other assorted malcontents in Madison, not from the president of the United States. This nonsense illustrates another thing about many liberal politicians that I find irritating. They live with the self-righteous delusion that their willingness to spend other people's money somehow makes them more benevolent and caring than the rest of us. Not true. In fact, their profligate spending on “entitlements” only serves to cultivate a culture of dependency. Dependent people are not free people but they do vote Democrat and that's what matters to liberals in power.

ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

Many liberals describe the constitution as a “living document.” They fabricated this term because if they said what they really believe, that the document means whatever they need it to mean in order to validate whatever ridiculous scheme or policy they come up with, well, that would just sound silly. This “living document” theory holds that the Constitution has to evolve with the changing times which allows for a new or contemporary interpretation. Take the second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A liberal can read that and conclude that the federal government, at a minimum, has the authority to regulate all guns and even impose an outright ban if they deem it necessary. How is this possible? For liberals, the first part of the amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is the operative phrase here. I'm sure liberals are positively giddy with the Framers use of the term “A well regulated militia.” If there is one thing liberals like, it's regulations. Regulation implies government involvement and “well regulated” connotes a lot of government involvement. And militia? Well, that was their army back then and now we have a huge military to protect us. We have no need for armed citizens. Of course, they are wrong on both counts. The militia and the Continental Army were two separate and distinct entities. The Second Continental Congress created the Continental Army in June of 1775. Long before this, local militias were being formed amongst the individual colonies. In the lexicon of the revolutionary period “well regulated” was understood to mean efficient or effective as opposed to government authorized and controlled. The concept that government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force was not something the Founders subscribed to. Having just recently extricated themselves from the tyranny of King George, the Founders had a profound fear and mistrust of a strong central government. The dirty little secret that liberals just cannot accept and are loath to even contemplate is that militias were never intended to function under the auspices of the federal government. They were intended as the final check on oppression, whether foreign or domestic, and to do so in a “well regulated” manner depended on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Like many living things, the “living constitution” can sometimes be made to do tricks. A favorite of the lefties' is the assertion that the constitution provides for a “wall of separation between church and state.” This trick works particularly well with young people, who after after 12 years of public schooling, are well versed in the plight of the polar bear and have a profound appreciation for the moral superiority of organic gardening but know nothing of American history in general or our founding principles in particular. Many liberals actually think “separation between church and state” is in the constitution. It's not. It is a metaphor used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to some Baptists in Connecticut. It is amazing to me how liberals are perfectly willing to ignore 99.9 percent of everything Jefferson said but will take one line from an obscure letter and use it to twist the intent of the First Amendment. But again, they get it all wrong. Looking at Jefferson's tenure as governor of Virginia, it is reasonable to conclude that Jefferson's wall should be looked at in the context of federalism. Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of the wall with state governments and religious institutions on the other. Jefferson understood that the First Amendment was meant to limit the federal government, not religion. Just as the First Amendment restricts the government from messing with the press, it also restricts them from messing with religion. That does not mean that the press can't question the government or that religious beliefs can't influence government policy.

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, I consider myself a man of ordinary understanding and I subscribe to this bit of Jeffersonian wisdom: “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”