Posted on 09/21/2016 9:09:24 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Yeah, it was a good read. You write well and should keep it up!
I was reminded of how the founders would write in defense of their own ideas.
That is, of course, nonsense and a surrendering of the language to the socialist.
The idea that "might makes right" or "the guy with the biggest club should run everything" are "radical ideas" using the dictionary definition of the word is frankly a bit weird as these ideas are as old as mankind.
Now the idea that people have rights that are not dependent on the whims of the rulers and that governments derive their power from the freely given consent of the people rather then the club of the rulers were both ideas that were new and different, therefore they were "radical" by the standards of the day.
The only thing more inane than this guy’s opinion is the idea of anyone paying attention to it.
The way I see it: What is of God is not radical, whereas that inspired by Satan is radical, especially by the definition of the word “radical” with respect to complete and utter social “reform”, which the Founding Fathers did not aim for. Letting Obama, therefore, define such ideas as the Founding Fathers had as “radical” is instead letting the socialists change the language.
In fact if you go by the dictionary definition which is "Of or going to the root or origin" then God is the most radical being there is as He is the root or origin of all things.
You may allow the socialist to define words or take them as their own, I will not.
Who did Saul Alinsky dedicate “Rules for Radicals” to? It was not God, but God’s enemy. If Obama was confronted with that fact during his diatribe, it would have put him into stutter mode; but he was in a Communist-derived venue when speaking his lack of mind (the UN).
“Radical” originally meant “proceeding from the root”, hence a projection away from it and not the root itself. It’s more related to “radius” than “radix”. And “radical” in politics means an extreme deviation from the norm and advocacy of policies to upheave society utterly.
To allow the socialist to define the Founding Fathers’ notion of God-given rights as “radical” is what is allowing him to redefine them. Hence my rejection of the notion as promulgated by Obama.
That is your choice and your privilege but it also means that we have no way to talk about the issue because we are not talking the same language.
I don’t understand. Are you actually agreeing with Obama? That’s allowing him to redefine the word. With all due respect. He’s calling normal “radical”.
Maybe to the Tsar it was a “radical idea”. To Americans, and the English for that matter, um no.
What a dipstick. This crumbum is a “constitutional scholar”?
The Unique Idea of the American Constitution
Our Constitution embodied a UNIQUE IDEA. Nothing like it had ever been done before. The power of the idea was in the recognition that people’s rights are granted directly by the Creator – not by the state – and that the people, then, and only then, grant rights to government. The concept is so simple, yet so very fundamental and far-reaching.
America’s founders embraced a previously unheard-of political philosophy which held that people are “…endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights..” This was the statement of guiding principle for the new nation, and, as such, had to be translated into a concrete charter for government. The Constitution of The United States of America became that charter.
Other forms of government, past and present, rely on the state as the grantor of human rights. America’s founders, however, believed that a government made up of imperfect people exercising power over other people should possess limited powers. Through their Constitution, they wished to “secure the blessings of liberty” for themselves and for posterity by limiting the powers of government. Through it, they delegated to government only those rights they wanted it to have, holding to themselves all powers not delegated by the Constitution. They even provided the means for controlling those powers they had granted to government.
This was the unique American idea. Many problems we face today result from a departure from this basic concept. Gradually, other “ideas” have influenced legislation which has reversed the roles and given government greater and greater power over individuals. Early generations of Americans pledged their lives to the cause of individual freedom and limited government and warned, over and over again, that eternal vigilance would be required to preserve that freedom for posterity.
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
loveliberty2
Excellent. Thank you for posting. The last sentence was the one that really resonated with me and bears repeating :
“Early generations of Americans pledged their lives to the cause of individual freedom and limited government and warned, over and over again, that eternal vigilance would be required to preserve that freedom for posterity.”
Perhaps you read some of the other excerpted essays from Part III of that 292-page volume at the NCCS.net link provided, including one entitled, Do We Have a Living Constitution?--a dangerous myth "Progressive" regressives created and continue to promote as a ruse for subverting the principles and ideas underlying the Framers' intended purpose of preserving liberty for "We, the People" by limiting arrogance and power of politicians such as those we have recently endured.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.