The Democrats' Declaration of Indpendence

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bonnie, Dec 10, 2004.

  1. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Democratic strategists keep holding post-election powwows on C-SPAN, but in their introspection never adds up to very much. They usually end up saying in one form or another: we need to fool people better. At some level they know that the problem the party faces is not that the American people don't understand theri positions but that they understand them too well. So what options are they left with? since changing philosophy is out of the question in their minds they are left with changing their rhetoric: let's make the American people think that we're revising our radical views without actually doing so.

    During the presidential campaign,Democrats rejected the suggestion tha they were out of touch with mainstream America even as their candidate bragged about non-American support. That kerry had to cite endorsements from foreign leaders as a political prop was a tacit admission of the party's estrangement form America: the less support the Democrats could find inside the country, the more they turned to support for their views from outside
    it.

    Listen closely eough to what the Democrats say and it becomes clear that their first problem is not with modern conservatism but with America itself. They simply don't agree with America's founding philosophy, which is why they find basic American customs like reciting the Pledge of Allegiance distasteful and why their judges are constantly trying to rewrite the founding documents of the country.

    The movement to smuggle foreign jurisprudence into the Supreme Court opinions which picks up speed each year, is a de facto- left wing Constitutional Convention. that is, the Democrats wouldn't dare call openly for a Consitutional convention to write a new Constitution resting on Liberal European foundations but they are in effect holding on anyways through the courts. Juducial activism is an ongoing Consitutional Convention, which has the additional advantage for Democrats of allowing them to subject the Constitution to foreign editing and revision without risking the wrath of the American people. (Justice Stephen Breyer let the cat out of the bag about what they are up to when he said, "Our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think, will be challenging for the next generation.")


    When the Democrats say something is "un-American," they usually mean someting very American that they don't want in America anymore.

    Under this twisted tinking, even America's founding documents are "un-American." The Democrats will no doubt say that the principal who has banned the teaching of the Declaration of Independence is violating their philosophy. No, she's enforcing it.

    Principal Patricia Vidmar at Stevens Creek School in Cupertino, California, has told a fifth -grade teacher to stop exposing his students to the Declaration of Independence, some of George Washington's writings, Samuel Adams' "The rights of the Colonists," and William Penn's "the Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."
    Vidmar gets it: seperating Church and State in the Democratic mind means seperating Americans from America.

    The Democrats' America wasn't started in 1776 but more like 1966. The policies of the Democratic Party amount to a declaration of independence from pre-radical America. they have suspicion, and often contempt, for antything historically American that doesn't conform to liberalism. becuase the Declaration of Independence contains what the left regards as an embarrassing article of faith--that human rights come not from secular govenments but form God--it is unfit matter for a public school. vidmar is just carrying out an attitiude--we don't want young children learning about the religious boobs who founded this country..............

    www.spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=7490
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. There is NO move to "smuggle in foreign jurisprudence" It is prudent for the leader of the free world to abide by agreements his country has entered into as well as long standing custom. These two elements make up about 95% of what we call international law. Republicans consistently refuse to acknowledge that the "international laws" we follow, we follow because we agreed to do so in the spirit of world unity in the form of treaties. There has been NO move to use the laws of other nations in American jurisprudence either. Simply because we compare what were doing to what they're doing doesn't mean we are using their laws as basis for legal decisions here.

    I suppose we could choose to renege on the treaties we've signed, to hell with world unity and peace, let's go back to wars of conquest every five years, maybe drop a few nukes, kill a few million people, that might make you anti-UN types happy.

    acludem
     
  3. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Yes and we all know how you feel on the subject as well, but you also neglected to address the meat of the article, I guess that's no surprise either. :salute:
     
  4. Merlin
    Offline

    Merlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Ponchatoula, La.
    Ratings:
    +61
    AMEN to that brother, when do we start? Maybe tomorrow? Lets get the old Enola Gay out of retirement and load her back up. Along with about 2 dozen of her sisters!!!!
     
  5. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    We're not talking about international law. We're talking about the Supreme Court using foreign local laws as precedent. The laws of France are not the laws of the U.S. and that's the way we like it.
     

Share This Page