Reaching the Point of No Return

Reaching the Point of No Return

We are rapidly approaching a point of no return in American politics. Never have there been such radical differences in the direction that the separate parties are attempting to lead us.       

The secular humanists—you may prefer ‘progressives’, ‘liberals’ or ‘Democrats’, but henceforth I intend to call them just what they are; Secular Humanists—desire to lead our country away from the foundation laid by our forefathers. That foundation had a basis in English common law, bolstered by the Judeo-Christian ethos. It distinctly delineated right from wrong and suggested that its citizenry be gently taught to freely and voluntarily go beyond simple obedience of those laws so as to not infringe upon the rights of others.

Read this next part slowly, because I believe it is one of the fundamentals of our Constitution: Freedoms never experienced by any civilization from the beginning of time were deliberately provided in our founding document. Why? Was it because the founders believed that man is inherently good and continuing day by day to get better? No, I don’t think the founding fathers were of that opinion. Those freedoms were set in place with the firm belief that the people of America would never purposely choose to separate themselves from the beneficence of a loving God nor reject His easily understood rules for the conduct of a civilized society. They rightly believed to do so would be the epitome of folly.

For close to two hundred years, that prophecy held mostly true. However, something happened in the sixties that started first a slow, almost indiscernible erosion of God’s authority and the rule of law. That erosion was slowed temporarily in the eighties, but then rapidly picked up speed again in the nineties and continues until it threatens to sweep away everything good, honest and worthwhile in its path.

The enemy of our society, the republican form of governance and of capitalism itself is—Secular Humanism.

 

The Nuclear Option

 

Harry Reid and the Democrat-controlled Senate adopted the so-called “Nuclear Option” on November 21, 2013.  That’s a date America will have cause to remember in years to come.   It will work to the advantage of the Progressives in the near run.  They will be able to obtain a quick approval of all the ultra-liberal justices that have been nominated for Federal courts by President Obama.  It will be only a formality to bring those nominees before the Senate for confirmation hearings.  No Democrat Senator has yet had the courage to vote against Harry Reid without the Leader's explicit permission—that would be to vote against something that is a shoo-in so that they can tell their constituents, “I voted against gun control”. This is specifically permitted by Reid so that Progressives can hang onto the seat that might otherwise be threatened.  

No, in this instance, why not just bring in a list of the names of nominees for a quick vote of approval?  Maybe the 50 Progressives and so-called “Independents” (who hold quorum with the Progressives; indeed, one “Independent” is an avowed Socialist) can just give Harry a proxy to vote for them.  That would shorten the confirmation hearings to a few minutes for the whole group.  Read the names, have Harry Reid say, “I and the other 50 members whose votes I am authorized to cast approve the nominations of these 120 judges.”  As was the case in the drafting of the ACA, Republicans need not attend, because you will not be allowed to have an input.  

As always, there is method behind Reid’s madness.  Or Obama’s genius—whoever came up with this idea.  You see, some challenges to the (Un) Affordable Care Act will be brought before the second-most powerful court in the United States—The Appellate Court of the District of Columbia.  It is imperative that the three extremely liberal justices Obama has selected to fill openings on that court be confirmed soon, so that they can hear appeals of the various supposed illegalities of Obamacare and rule in Obama’s favor BEFORE elections next November, when (hopefully) conservatives can perhaps regain control of the House and Senate. 

Why is employment of the “Nuclear Option” such a departure from the way things have been done since the adoption of the Constitution?  To understand that, we need to be informed as to the rationale behind determining how members of the two houses of the legislature would be selected:

 

Article I, section 3, of the Constitution states:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

The framers believed that having state legislatures elect senators would strengthen the states' ties to the national government and increase the chances for ratification of the Constitution. They hoped that this arrangement would give state political leaders a sense of participation, calming their fears about a strong central government. They also wanted to provide a filter between the Senate and the passions and pressures of the populace. As the authors of the Federalist Papers explained, election by the state legislatures "is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems" (Federalist No. 62). (Beautiful language—would that our education system made it possible for us to be able to fully comprehend it!)

Question: What is the Great Compromise?

Answer: Two plans were put forth during the Constitutional Convention to create the new branches of government. The Virginia Plan wanted a strong national government with three branches. The legislature would have two houses. One would be directly elected by the people and the second would selected by the first house from people nominated by the state legislatures. Further, the president and national judiciary would be chosen by the national legislature. On the other hand, the New Jersey Plan wanted a more decentralized plan amending the old Articles yet allowing for a somewhat stronger government. Each state would have one vote in Congress.

 



The Great Compromise combined these two plans creating our current legislature with two houses, one based on population and elected by the people and the other house allowing two senators per state being appointed by state legislatures.

Why did the framers of the constitution set up the Senate that way?  The smaller states were afraid of being run over by the more populous.  Virginia was by far the bigger with a population of almost 750,000.  Several states had fewer than 100,000 citizens.  By allowing each state only two senators, regardless of the population, and giving that body responsibility for confirming Presidential appointments, a balance was achieved to protect minority rights. 

Because of abuses by some states of the rules regarding interim appointments of Senators, etc., the 17^th Amendment in 1912 changed the method of choosing Senators from selection by State legislatures to popular election—just like the House.  This change, widely hailed by many when instituted, has the effect of making those Senators more beholden to the Senate Majority (or Minority, for that matter) Leader than to the state that he ostensibly represents.  That leader can be more instrumental in effecting his re-election than close ties to the electorate of his state.

Good move for the states?  What do you think NOW?

Certainly, the Democrats employing the nuclear option makes future elections a great deal more important to each party.

 

Solomonic Wisdom

 

Admittedly, I’m the guy who has said from long before his first election that Barack Obama is not a friend of America, nor is he a fan of this nation.  Have you ever heard him volunteer a good opinion of America--not just respond with what he knows Americans would like to hear?  This man desires calamity for our nation.  Why?  I can’t answer that.  Perhaps the reason is to be found somewhere in the twenty-plus years he spent in the church of Jeremiah Wright in Chicago.  Wright is a virulent anti-white, anti- American whose sermons were often nothing more than diatribes against this country, its white founders and the band of (mostly) white leaders—up until the election of Obama.  Could a person whose views are dramatically different from those of Wright spend more than twenty years sitting under that man’s preaching and remain unaffected?

Something that has become painfully obvious in the past ten years is that many, if not most, of his Progressive party are also America-haters; nothing would please them more than that America should receive a “come-uppance”, as it were.  You see, many of these people believe if you have any money, you had to have stolen it because you, unlike these members of the intelligentsia, are not smart enough to figure a way to earn money honestly.  Ergo, any money you have was gained through theft and/or deceit.  It is therefore their duty to take that money from you and redistribute it to the “less fortunate”.  In their lexicon, “less fortunate” is a euphemism for people that an honest person would call lazy, shiftless and irresponsible.  This does not describe all the poor, by any means.  But there are a significant number of leeches who are perfectly capable of making a living for themselves who have no intention of ever seeking a real job as long as welfare and unemployment exist.  For the Progressives who support that attitude and behavior, anything short of a Secular Humanist government of Social Justice (Socialism) is totally unacceptable. 

Do you think that is overstated? 

Let me ask you . . . in this government crisis that seemingly everyone agrees will have horrific consequences for the nation if our House and Senate do not fund our government and agree to raise the debt ceiling—who is offering solutions?  The President says he should not have to offer anything to the Republicans by way of compromise.  “After all, I won the election, and the election was about Obamacare, and the American people voted for it.”  A debatable premise, but there it is.  Harry Reid, Progressive leader of the Senate, says the Senate will not bring any compromise that the Republicans have offered up for a vote on the Senate floor.  The Republicans must accept whatever the Progressives give them.  

Of course, few true Progressives will be familiar with the biblical story I am about to introduce.  It seems Israeli King Solomon was asked to mediate a quarrel between two women, both of whom claimed to be the mother of a small child.  They asked the king to intervene and declare which of them was to receive custody of the child.  Christians will recall that King Solomon ordered the child to be cut in two with a sword, and that each woman was to be given half the child.  One woman immediately said, “No, Lord.  Let her have him.”  The second woman agreed to the King’s solution, saying, “Now neither of us will have a child.” Solomon in his wisdom knew that the real mother of the child would love him so much she would rather someone else rear him than that the boy should die. 

Does that give you anything to think about in the current dooms-day dalliance over Obamacare and the debt ceiling? 

If you do not love your country, it will be of little consequence to you should the nation have to suffer through another terrible depression.  After all, you are the President, or the Senator or Representative.  The depression will not harm you.  And you can rejoice in the knowledge that the other side did not get their way!  So what if millions of poor and unemployed continue in hopelessness and despair as their leaders sacrifice them on the altar of Secular Humanism and socialism?  

If you think that is not what is happening, you are not just blind, but willfully so.

 

Every Republican should be out front, on TV, radio and in print this week with a simple message:

"We have twice voted to fund every agency and program of the U.S. government (save Obamacare) in a single CR. We will proceed now to pass CRs for each department and agency of the U.S. government, separately and individually.

"And if Harry Reid's Senate refuses to pass a single one of those CRs, who then is shutting down NIH and the FDA?" –Patrick Buchanan, in a Townhall article.

U.N.’s Agenda For the 21st Century – Very Interesting, But Disturbing

by Mark A. Cohen

I'm no expert on the transparent and gigantic U.N. Agenda 21 movement yet, but from my research so far, it sounds like a wonderful idea. Save the world for future generations, they say. How can anyone argue with that? However, while reading ICLEI and many other documents supporting the idea of changing the world for the benefit of those not yet born, I feel sick, and I think I now know why.

Carbon dioxide, this movement says, is a poison and must be purged from our environment via incredible reduction goals with no regard to how this is to be done. It features a subtle push to indoctrinate our descendants into a supreme worship of the United Nations and its sustainability culture – over and above patriotism for one's own country. The Agenda for the 21st century, like many far-left radicals, assaults superior nations' successes as evil, militaristic and violent, material, and too focused upon production and consumption. It counts on local governments and their power to suggest in detail, how to rearrange society and its infrastructure, for what they believe is in the best interests of mankind. Those most convinced of business' propensity to pollute must ask, "Who the heck are these people, what is at the heart of their desires, and why do they know best?" In other words, "They are not the boss of me," and, "Who put them in charge?"

The environmentalists believe in empowering the U.N. as a global government, over-regulating and threatening personal freedoms (such as property rights) for the relentless purpose of reducing earth's carbon footprint. Sorry, I pledged my allegiance to America, and, much as I love her, not to Mother Earth. I think that carbon dioxide is a gas and not a threat, and that global warming is not man-made, but a blip in the climactic ups and downs of this planet.

This movement is socialist in nature, favoring in every respect, the community over the individual. For that alone I must oppose it – although I assert that their goal, of maintaining the earth for the future - is a respectable one. We hear the lie every day: Conservatives support dirtier air and water. No, we don't. But we don't like to be forced into doing anything, and as Americans, we all like our freedoms and choose over and over again to protect them.

Many on the right call Agenda 21 a conspiracy and a power-grab, but, although it might be both, I choose to resist those temptations - at least for now. I'll try to dig deeper into Agenda 21 and report back to you what I find. If you find yourself curious, please check out the Agenda 21 links provided in this blog post. Each one will link to others. The amount of information on the web is enormous, so a handful of links will get you started. After you get started, Google: Sustainability [your city], [your state] and if they are implementing or plan to implement Agenda 21 in your area soon, you will find out.

AGENDA 21 LINKS:

Video: Agenda 21 explained (you may not agree with everything in this video)

Documentation:
The Earth Charter

Robert Muller

Report on Agenda 21

agenda21today.com

From The Left to the Right (Agenda 21, post #1)

From The Left to the Right (Agenda 21, post #2)

SUGGESTED VIDEOS

The Government Can

SUGGESTED TV SHOW - for your DVR

Red Eye

BLOG ROLL (Political):

Merlin

Gotta B Right

Conservative Blogs Central

Denver Tea Party

Coffee4Conservatives

Libertarian Party Platform

BLOG ROLL (Open Source Hacking):

azcrumpty

BLOG ROLL (Writers):

C.K. Fardoe

BLOG-PING SITES:

FeedPing,

PingMyBlog,

AutoPinger

Keywords: Conservatism, Conservative blog, Mark A. Cohen, From The Left to the Right, Global Warming, Agenda 21, sustainability, ICLEI, ICMA, The Earth Charter, Ecological Footprint, Urban Adaptation, Secular Humanism, Democrats Against Agenda 21, Property Rights, Red Eye

Keywords: "Conservatism", "Conservative blog", "Mark A. Cohen", "From The Left to the Right", “Global Warming”, “Agenda 21”, “sustainability”, “ICLEI”, “ICMA”, “The Earth Charter”, “Ecological Footprint”, “Urban Adaptation”, “Secular Humanism”, “Democrats Against Agenda 21”, “Property Rights”, “Red Eye”

Mark A. Cohen is currently seeking representation for his memoir, From The Left to the Right.

Mark A. Cohen is a member of and helps run the Parker Writers Group

Mark A. Cohen is a member of the Castle Rock Writers

Mark A. Cohen currently sits on the committee which will host the 2012 Castle Rock Writers Conference.

Mark A. Cohen spoke for about 30 minutes at the Douglas County Republicans’ First Friday Breakfast in Parker, CO, held at The War Horse Inn, on Dec. 2, 2011. He will speak this summer, but these speeches are, as yet, unscheduled.

Click on the logo below to get to the main CBC site:

Or, you can find From the Left to the Right on Conservative Blogs Central (it’s now on page 3) by clicking this text.

You might also find From the Left to the Right on the left hand side (after clicking this text) under ‘navigation’ (scroll down a bit) – or, look for/search for/find the text ‘from the’

From the Left to the Right - Follow this link to Facebook

Hyper Smash