Every now and then I come across a story so unbelievable, it’s simply laughable beyond all comprehension. Here’s the latest.
Progressive socialists have revealed themselves to America for who they are and regardless of the media manipulation, lies, deceit, and coercion their agenda is failing — as it has worldwide.
So what’s their next step? Well, according to a piece in the Washington Post by E J Dionne, “Its time for Progressives to reclaim the Constitution.” Really?? Dionne advocates for progressives to enshrine themselves in the fundamental document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution.
Excuse my vernacular, but I just had to get up from ROTFLMAO.
So let’s understand this absurd proposal: Mr. Dionne is advising progressives to embrace the very thing that their love child Barack Hussein Obama stated he wanted to “fundamentally transform.” And let’s not forget the recent 9-0 smack down of Obama by the Supreme Court — the interpreters of our Constitution.
Dionne writes, “Formulations such as “I am a constitutional conservative” or “I am a constitutionalist” are tea party habits, but they are not confined to its ranks. Many kinds of conservatives contend that everything they believe is thoroughly consistent with the views and intentions of our 18th-century Founders. Wielding pocket-sized copies of the Constitution, they like to cite it to settle political disputes. Writing in the YG Network’s recently issued conservative manifesto, “Room to Grow,” Ramesh Ponnuru argues that there is a new and salutary “popular interest in constitutionalism. One plausible progressive response is to see Ponnuru’s exercise as doomed from the start.”In other words use the typical progressive socialist Alinsky-based response of ridicule and derision.
Instead Mr. Dionne advises, “Progressives should take Ponnuru’s proposal seriously and think constitutionally themselves. In doing so, they would challenge conservative claims about what the Constitution really demands.”This is what you can expect now from progressives — a revisionist history and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Funny thing, James Madison writing under the pen name Publius did a pretty good job of presenting and defending the Constitution in a series of articles known as the Federalist Papers.
But truth for progressive socialists is like light on a vampire, and Dionne lays out their real objective: obfuscate, redefine and challenge the intent of the Constitution to suit their purposes and agenda.
Dionne cites a recent article called “The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution” which purports “that at key turning points in our history (the Jacksonian era, the Populist and Progressive moments and the New Deal), opponents of rising inequality made strong arguments “that we cannot keep our constitutional democracy — our republican form of government — without constitutional restraints against oligarchy and a political economy that maintains a broad middle class, accessible to everyone.”
In other words, one of the foundational principles of the Constitution is mandating “the widest distribution among the people, not only of political power, but of the advantages of wealth, education and social influence.”
So in the progressive mind, the Constitution makes the case for wealth redistribution — something that the Congressional Progressive Caucus proposed as an amendment – wait, isn’t that a communist principle?
When liberal progressives realize their agenda is failing, their tactic is to remake language and definitions. Who in their right mind believes the central theme of the U.S. Constitution is about “shared self-rule?” The Constitution is our rule of law that prescribes the structure, duties, and responsibilities of our federal government. In the first ten amendments, referred to as the “Bill of Rights” it prescribes the rights of the American individual and constrains what the federal government can do and defines its enumerated powers as it relates to the individual and the sovereign States. And of course as our American society has matured, we have added other amendments, and even repealed certain amendments.
So let us not be fooled. In order to “get about the business of remaking America” and “fundamentally transforming America,” progressives shall not conduct a full-out assault against our rule of law, our Constitution. This is no different from State Deparment advisor, Mohammed Elibiary, making the insidious statement that our Constitution is “Islamically compliant.”
This is why I wrote Guardian of the Republic, to put in simple terms what it means to live in a Constitutional Republic and explain its founding precepts. If we allow these real life “Deceptacons” to succeed they will begin to teach this foolish drivel in our colleges and universities — and high schools — that the Constitution is about shared prosperity and that it must be re-interpreted to accommodate inequalities. So how the heck do you explain the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments — which by the way, the Democrats stood vehemently against — some things never change.
Dionne concludes, “The idea of a “Constitution of Opportunity” is both refreshing and relevant. For too long, progressives have allowed conservatives to monopolize claims of fealty to our unifying national document. In fact, those who would battle rising economic inequalities to create a robust middle class should insist that it’s they who are most loyal to the Constitution’s core purpose. Broadly shared well-being is essential to the framers’ promise that “We the people” will be the stewards of our government.”
Mr. Dionne conveniently overlooks the fact that the Constitution is a continuation of the Declaration of Independence, which promotes the unalienable rights of each individual, granted by our Creator, of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are each granted equality of opportunity.
What Mr. Dionne and his progressive ilk are trying to promote is perverting the Constitution to establish a government guarantee of happiness — an equality of outcomes. This fella’s belief in a “Constitution of Opportunity” will result in only one opportunity: for all of us to share in socialist misery.
Perhaps some will find this analysis of our Constitution boring — but if we don’t take heed, it will be perilous. Expect to hear the new rhetoric of “Constitution of Opportunity” emanating from the leftist progressive socialists. You have been warned.