Do you believe we should work harder to perfect our Democracy? Clyde

************************

John Sterling wrote:
Clyde: I feel personally challenged to work harder to preserve our constitutional liberties. We are NOT a Democracy (as I am sure you are aware). Indeed, the attempts by the liberal left to transform us into a democracy (which would be then influenced by the media which the left completely controls) will result in totalitarianism.

The hope of America, politically speaking (because you know that I believe America's only hope, ultimately, is spiritual) is to hold the line against erosion of the fundamental principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and in the U.S. Constitution. The words are being used to twist the original meanings beyond recognition because people are largely ignorant of their true (original) meanings.

Words are mere symbols of concepts. If the people do not understand the concepts, then it matters not what words are used. If the words may have their meanings shifted over time so that the concepts they used to represent are lost, then new concepts come to be attached to the old words. Because the people are unaware (or uncaring) concepts like separation of church and state" or "separate but equal" take on new meanings (or no meaning at all).

Take the phrase, "separate but equal" for example. It was used at the foundation of our country to express the concept that the three federal branches of government had separate responsibilities but were equal in power. When the Civil rights arguments were being advanced in the late- 1800's (The Slaughterhouse cases) the term was being used to apply to Blacks. They were made "equal" under the law but required to be kept separate. In the 1950's/60's school segregation cases, "separate but equal applied to the educational facilities available to Black children. So, the term was "kidnapped" from its original meaning and applied to a concept quite unintended by the founders. Many other examples abound.

My mission (should I decide to accept it--:) is to try to educate people that the law as it was intended is still the law that is the best for people. My mission is to give people (with inquiring minds) the correct historical foundation from which to understand the concepts of law and liberty. (As defined by the founders- NOT the Democrats) It may be a losing battle, but it is a battle I am called to fight. I cannot answer for anyone else, but for me (and my house) we will serve the Lord and be true to the oaths which we have sworn to the best of our ability.

My secondary mission, as a lawyer, is to defend people in modern courts of law who are in technical violation of some "modern" law- which law may be in violation of the principles of law and justice which define our American heritage. I may be dis-barred, or jailed for contempt, but I want there to be a record of my arguments in favor of the historical notions of Truth, Justice, and the American way!

My particular passion, and probably the best contribution I can make, is in the area of principled public policy. Lawyers, judges, politicians, an activists are to be constrained by both the letter and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. I hope to expose the fallacies and the outright deceit of the liberal left and misguided moderates who reject the fundamental principles in order to advance their own political power. Anything I can do consistent with that aim (and subject to the severe time and money constraints that I have) I will do.

I have previously used the analogy of a person who discovers a small bear cub in the woods. Taking the cub home and nurturing it, the human contemplates keeping it as a pet. As the animal grows, it loses its "cubby" ways and begins to assert itself in a most bear-like manner. The nature of the beast does not change-- it is only manageable because it is small. When it grows to its full proportions, no one can tame it.

Like any analogy, it is imperfect but it creates a mental image to which many can relate. The people need to stop acting like consumers of "public" goods (like pigs feeding at the public trough) and start acting more like the managers that they are supposed to be. The question is: how may we convince our brethren to rise to the occasion? I submit that it will be through both education and spiritual renewal. Neither alone will suffice for the people must be animated by a sense of moral outrage and moral duty and that will not happen through education alone.

Also, I do not believe that the results will be attainable quickly. It has taken four (or more) generations for us to degenerate to the present status and it will probably take a couple of generations to reverse. Remember that 20 years or so prior to our own Declaration of Independence, the nation was swept by a huge spiritual revival called "The Great Awakening." Had the national conscience not been "awakened" to the moral dilemma; had they not been energized by a sense of moral strength and duty, we would not have had the courage of our convictions to rise up against the tyranny of King George.

I am part of a small group of businessmen, professionals and educators who are training others in the fundamental principles. We are using every media source available to us. I am in the process of organizing a non-profit foundation for education and public policy and we will work with others already reaching out. I intend to concentrate on the Internet technology to produce and distribute inter-active educational software for schools (public and private) and colleges. I am just starting to work with others to develop curriculae in civics and law.

I also have some friends interested in producing short (15-30 minute) video shows which contain lessons of liberty. They will portray heroes of the past and carefully explain the reasons why these men and women thought liberty was more important than life itself. These will be offered to schools, churches, individuals and even can be used as motivational teaching tools.

I am also working members of the print media to offer quality newspaper alternatives to major regional centers. The need exists for conservative reporting of the news and the only national paper doing a credible job is the Washington Times so talks have begun with them to make their paper available as weekly regional paper.

So you see, things are happening. The truth needs to get to the people (through the media) and they need to be inspired to act in accordance therewith (that's the spiritual aspect.) First must come an "awakening". Timing is everything.

Permit me to illustrate with an example from the so-called "re-productive rights" fight.

The Liberals chaffed under restrictive State laws for years but every time they tried to do away with abortion laws, they were met by popular resistance. The public simply did not want to eliminate, or weaken the abortion laws. The liberals sought, and finally found a sympathetic venue in a Connecticut court. The issue was whether a state law prohibiting contraceptives to MARRIED COUPLES was an invasion of marital privacy. The court held that it was. (Griswold v. Connecticut)

Next, the liberals took their victory for privacy for reproductive privacy for MARRIED COUPLES and found a promiscuous woman in Texas for whom they could advocate on the basis that it was discriminatory to deny a SINGLE woman the same privacy in matters of reproductive choice. History has shown the JANE DOE was, of course, a set-up, just like the clinic in Connecticut, to push the envelope. Taking legitimate-sounding arguments and applying them to similar, yet distinctly different fact patterns, the liberals were able to advance their agenda.

Now, the current generation is convinced that "reproductive freedom" is a woman's choice and a guaranteed constitutional right. It is NOT, and a careful reading of the opinions will prove what I am saying. (Roe v. Wade is, fundamentally, about a DOCTOR'S RIGHT to exercise professional discretion in terminating a pregnancy. IT IS NOT about a woman's RIGHT to CHOOSE!) No matter. The law is what the Supreme Court says it is. Unless held to a high standard of legal analysis and constitutional interpretation, no principle of law is safe from being re-interpreted by the liberals.

John