This is not my idea of progress . . .

“. . . His views on contraception, gay rights, and even that of higher education all would shove years of progress into the trash bin. . . .”—Daniel D. Grota, Separation of church and state, Rick Santorum blew it, 3 March, 2012 Frontiersman www.frontiersman.com

I believe that Mr. Grota also “blew it” when it came to the issue of the Constitution.

I do not believe that I swore an oath to uphold, defend and to preserve the same constitution that he did. My Constitution is the supreme law of the land that values life, liberty, family, the unborn, our culture, our language and the preservation and defense of our sovereignty. Our Constitution is what provided us with the freedom from tyranny that made the United States the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. Mr. Grota’s constitution decries those attributes and that achievement.

“years of progress” . . . well, if that “progress” is measured in terms of aborted babies, I guess “progress” was made with the lives of 54 million Americans who were sacrificed to the liberal need to change our society from one that was known for its sanctity of life to something much, much darker and draconian. The current call for infanticide is just another step in devaluing life and removing each of us as a creation of God to something whose value is determined by the despot of the moment. A sacrifice that brought us massive illegal migration to fill the job void of these unborn Americans, because of the liberal desire to kill rather to reinforce morality, personal responsibility, and duty—there was a time when getting a girl pregnant was a certain way find one’s self in wedlock.

I guess that “progress” is measured in the number of unwed mothers due to the intense liberal media, liberal entertainment industry, and the passage of laws that prevent exercise by the parents over their children that contributes to the number of unwed teen mothers, and the statutory rape of minor children by adults who are egged on by liberals who say “aw, they will just do it anyway . . . “—no, they won’t if they understand the idea of personal responsibility, morality, integrity and honor. However, we let 13 year old girls get raped by older men—statistically, 12 and 13 year old girls get pregnant by sex with 22 to 40 year old men—and the crimes go unreported so that Planned Parenthood can make a buck and continue the profitable destruction of morality in this country.

If “progress” is the destruction of the family, I guess there is “progress”. The liberal indoctrination of our children in the idea that marriage is something that you throw away if you get tired of the person or angry with them for whatever reason goes unfettered in movies, ads, and television. The State will take care of the female with child. The male has little moral responsibility any more. This has lead to the disaffection from marriage by many women and men. No responsibility or commitment.

Then, there is the ‘progress’ that is the hypocrisy demonstrated in the perversion of marriage by courts and legislators who accede to the liberal and homosexual agenda that demands marriage between homosexuals in churches, even though religion bars such and the 1st Amendment bars any interference by government in religion.

I guess that “progress” is the imposition of a 1st Amendment “right” to view pornography and to display homosexual porn prominently in our public libraries where our children can see this garbage, along with homosexual perversions in public during public parades. I guess that “progress” is the complete nullification by liberal courts and legislators without principle of our duty to protect our children from such objectionable material and conduct.

I guess this “progress” that is referred to is ignoring the continued attack on the 1st Amendment by the homosexual activists and liberals who agree with the agenda. Hate speech? Not as long as the 1st Amendment stands. This is not liberal Europe without a Bill of Rights, even though the liberal courts are going hell bent for leather to rewrite the Bill of Rights.

I guess “progress” is the liberal attack on the Second Amendment across the country through the blatant attempt to disarm the law abiding citizen and to control the purchase and carry of their firearms. Why is it that the liberal always requires the law abiding citizen to “retreat” in the face of an attack upon their lives and property?

I could go on with this, but you get the idea.

I did not swear an oath to defend, protect and preserve the same ideals as did Mr. Grota. Either the pendulum begins to swing back to what our Forefathers actually intended, or, there will be another Great American Revolution. I will not be on Mr. Grota’s side in that one.

Our rights are now . . . selective

A recent decision of the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Chicago’s hand gun ban.

The decision of the 7th Circuit in favor of Chicago in maintaining its hand gun ban revolved around the idea that the Second Amendment does not have to be obeyed by States and their subdivisions of government. According to the 7th Circuit, States, counties and cities are exempt from obeying the Constitution—but only where Second Amendment rights are concerned.

The Chicago decision puts the 7th Circuit at odds with the 9th Circuit (!), which ruled last year that the Second Amendment applied to the States and lower subdivisions of government.

This decision brings into sharp focus the self-deluding mindset that sets the liberal apart from the conservative. To liberals, the Constitution is perverted to fit their world view, without respect to what the Framers intended. If the liberal mind cannot conveniently find the context under the Constitution that supports their goal, they invent penumbras to enable their ideological desire.

One has to remember that the individual rights enumerated in the Constitution merely affirm individual rights conferred upon a free people by our Creator. These rights were not conferred by man, to be given or revoked at the whim of any political power or despot.

The assault upon talk radio demonstrates that the First Amendment does not protect political speech in the liberal mind, but only serves to protect the policies and ideology of the party in power. Under a Democrat regime, talk radio must be “fair” and “equal” in its presentation of the issues.

Can you imagine our Forefather’s reaction to a demand by the Crown for “fairness” in the presentation of their arguments for independence from England?

The Crown’s idea of fairness was the bayonet and hangman’s noose.

President Obama’s, Sen. Harry Reid’s and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s idea of “fairness” is to silence the opposition once and for all. How far they are willing to go is demonstrated in the unrelenting assault upon the Second Amendment and the perversion of the First Amendment into an instrument of political repression.

During the closing days of the presidential campaign, then Candidate Obama stated those rights that he considered “individual” rights. He excluded the Second Amendment in that dissertation.

The recent selection of appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court further demonstrates Pres. Obama’s subtle intent to scuttle any impeding Constitutional authority. By appointing a judge in whose opinion the Constitution is a work in progress ensures that the liberal agenda will be interpreted favorably, no matter the wording of the Constitution.

Awhile back, I wrote on Pres. Obama’s incredible refusal to divulge proof of his citizenship qualification required by Article 2 §1 of the U.S. Constitution. My point was that if this requirement could be ignored, then so could other articles of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

The First and Second Amendments and Article 2 are under assault in the Democrats’ expression of power.

It was a liberal Supreme Court majority that did most of the damage where the Ninth Amendment was concerned.

How long before any of the 1st through the 15th Amendments become inconvenient to those in power?

Obviously, the First and Second Amendments already are.

How long before the “Crown” resorts to the bayonet and the hangman’s noose to silence opposition?

The intent of the Framers of the Constitution and the arguments of that creative process have been well documented leaving little doubt as to the limitations imposed upon government intended.

There can be no compromise where the Constitution of the United States is concerned. It means what it says, and it only means what is stated.

The government cannot restrict that which was conferred by our Creator. To do so is to confirm the reason and need for the Second Amendment.

Regardless of party label, beware the political power that acts to silence the opposition.

Above all, beware the President who ignores the Constitution.

Educate your children as to the meaning and rights affirmed by the Constitution. Every family, and every citizen should have a copy of the Constitution.

There is no other document in the history of this world that confers upon a people the power to prevent government excess. The balance between the peoples’ freedom and government power
is maintained by the Second Amendment.