What is right?
What is wrong? Is there a distinction between the two? It’s been said that
nothing is either right or wrong but the thinking makes it so. An example of
this is the difference between throwing someone off a building because they are
gay and protecting that same gay person’s civil liberties. These are two
different cultures; two different ways of looking at right and wrong. So,
depending on what culture you live in depends on what is considered wrong.
Here, in The United States, we have two different cultures that reside side by side. There
is the conservative side that believes in self-sufficiency, self-reliance,
smaller government, fiscal responsibility, the right to life, Christian values.
Then, there is the liberal side that believes in big government that controls
the population through regulation and laws. The many provide for the few that
require help. In other words: from those according to their ability to those according
to their need (which, by the way, is a Communist ideology). Liberals believe
that it is a woman’s right to end a pregnancy simply because she doesn’t want
to have a baby. Which is right and which is wrong? Or, are they both right and
wrong?
The Constitution
of the United States became binding upon ratification by the ninth state, New
Hampshire, on June 21, 1788. This document is the Law of the Land, permanent,
binding and concise in meaning. It is not a ‘living document’ meant to
represent the political agenda at any given time. It was written so as to be
very difficult to change. The only way to change the Constitution is by an amendment which has to be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the States.
The Constitution
states that federal law supersedes any law of the States. Article VI is clear
on this. Federal law is supreme and if any State law conflicts with Federal
law, Federal law holds.
Article II
explains how the President is elected. After the election of Donald J Trump in
2016, the liberal left has bemoaned the use of the Electoral College, saying
that it is not fair. The Electoral College is set in stone in the Constitution.
This is to make it fair to all states, from the least populated to the most
populated. The States argued during the construction of the Constitution about
how to make each State fairly represented. This is why the House of
Representatives is filled by population and the Senate is filled with only two
representatives from each state, and, the Electoral College was set up to
represent each state fairly in any election for the high office.
The Bill of Rights;
the first ten amendments to the Constitution are the most important. Each one
states certain inalienable rights to each citizen of the United States. Each is
concisely written so as not to be misunderstood. There is no interpretation to
be used.
Amendment One provides
several rights protections: to express ideas through speech and the press, to
assemble or gather with a group to protest or for other reasons and to ask the
government to fix problems. It also protects the right to religious beliefs and
practices. It prevents the government from creating or favoring a religion. The
Supreme Court has stated that burning the American Flag is protected under this
amendment. Burning a flag, rioting, destroying property, etc., is not speech, a
gathering, or asking the government to fix a problem. These are actions.
Actions are not speech. The Supreme Court, in my opinion, was wrong in their
decision to allow flag burning as freedom of speech. Rioting, looting,
destruction of property, etc., are against the law and are in no way an
expression of ideas through speech or the press.
Amendment Two
protects the right to keep and bear arms. “A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the entire amendment as it was
written. There is no room for interpretation. Although the liberal left would
like to believe that this is an outdated right because we have law enforcement
officials to protect us, this was not meant for that reason. This was written
because of what the Colonists had just fought a long war to overcome. There is
no debate. This has nothing to do with hunting or feeding your family. It has
everything to do with protecting yourself, your family, your community, your
country from tyranny; to keep this nation free and safe from enemies, both
foreign and domestic.
The Third
Amendment prevents the government from forcing homeowners to allow soldiers to use
their homes. Before the Revolutionary War, laws gave British soldiers the right
to take over private homes.
The Fourth
Amendment bars the government from unreasonable search and seizure of an
individual or their private property.
The Fifth
Amendment provides several protections for people accused of crimes. It states
that serious criminal charges must be started by a grand jury. A person cannot be tried twice for the same
offense {double jeopardy) or have property taken away without just
compensation. People have the right against self-incrimination and cannot be
imprisoned without due process of law (fair procedures and trials.) This
amendment is one of the most important, in my opinion, and the most abused, by
citizens and law enforcement. OJ Simpson was charged with murder and acquitted.
Then, he was charged with a civil crime of wrongful death. Are these two crimes
different? Only in the way they are prosecuted; same crime, different wording.
In a legal search, personal property can be taken as evidence. Is that property
returned or compensated for if the accused is found not guilty (innocent and
not guilty are two different things). As for being held without due process,
this is for citizens of the United States. War criminals, foreign nationals,
illegal immigrants all have cried out, and the liberal left has joined in the
cry, that they are entitled to due process under the Constitution. They are not
held to the Constitution. They are not citizens of this great nation. War
criminals, especially, cannot be expected to be protected under the
Constitution. They are fighting against that law and the destruction of that
law.
The Sixth
Amendment provides additional protections to people accused of crimes, such as
the right to a speedy and public trial, trial by an impartial jury in criminal
cases, and to be informed of criminal charges. Witnesses must face the accused,
and the accused is allowed his or her own witnesses and to be represented by a
lawyer. Here again, war criminals cry out that they are treated unfairly
because they are not allowed protection under this amendment. Why should they
be protected by the very thing they are fighting to destroy?
The Seventh
Amendment extends the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases. I have not
researched if there are any cases that have not been protected under this
amendment. As far as I know, every accused has been given the right to a jury by
trial.
The Eighth
Amendment bars excessive bail and fines and cruel and unusual punishment. Here
is an amendment, an inalienable right, that seems to have gone by the wayside
without a murmur from the citizens of this great nation. Fines are exorbitant
for some of the smallest offenses. Some people are charged high bail fees while
others accused of the same or worse crimes are let go on their own
recognizance. I understand the idea behind a flight risk. But, through personal
experience, I have seen the unfairness of the judicial system on fines and bail.
As for unusual punishment, once again, there are cries from the left that
minorities, illegal immigrants, and war criminals are treated unfairly in their
punishments. Is this the case? I would have to research hundreds, if not
thousands, of individual cases to make a determination on this. The left would
cite a few minority cases as the norm and this would be an injustice to the whole.
Yes, there are cases where justice is unfair. The scales are tipped against the
accused. Lady Justice is peeking from behind her blindfold at times. But, I
believe, for the most part, that justice is equal for all according to the
crime committed as far as race, color, sex, national origin, etc. are
concerned.
The Ninth
Amendment states that listing specific rights in the Constitution does not mean
that people do not have other rights that have not been spelled out.
The Tenth
Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in
the Constitution. If it isn’t listed, it belongs to the states or to the
people. The one thing a person must realize with this amendment is that Federal
law supersedes state law if there is a conflict.
Why, you ask,
did I list out and explain the Bill of Rights? Because this is where the
conservative right and the liberal left differ and it becomes a matter of right
and wrong. The left, it seems, only use these rights if it benefits them. The
Second Amendment, for example, is only used for protecting government
officials, celebrities, and other high ranking citizens. The everyday Joe
doesn’t need to protect him/herself. The First Amendment, as long as a person
agrees with the left, free speech is fine; disagree and you are castigated and
your right to free speech is muffled. The press has become a liberal opinion
publication instead of reporting facts. Sensationalism and being the first to
report on something is more important than actually investigating to make sure
the rumors are true. And, when called out on false reporting, it comes down to
free speech. Rioting and destruction of property is now an expression of free
speech if it is for a liberal cause (I don’t, personally, recall any
conservative march or protest that became violent and caused property damage).
So, what is
right and what is wrong? It all depends on the way you think. To the liberal
left, the socialist/communist ideology is right even if it infringes on the
rights of the people. To the conservative right, the Constitution is the
supreme law and there is no interpretation thereof. Personal freedoms, the
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the American way; at
least to the right. The left seems to think that the only way is to force
everyone to their way of thinking regardless of how someone feels.
I don’t care if
you are white, black, brown, yellow, red, pink or polka-dotted. It doesn’t
matter to me if you like the same sex or the opposite sex. You are from Russia,
Indonesia, Mexico, Asia, Guatemala, the UK… as long as you aren’t trying to
destroy my rights, liberties or my country I have no problem with you. If you
come from a country that is known to harbor, train, export, or finance
terrorism against my country, then stay out of my country. The President has
every right, in fact, has the responsibility, to keep those who may do this
country harm out. It really doesn’t matter if Achmed is an Oxford scholar and
distinguished dignitary; if he resides in a country that is known to produce
terrorists, then the possibility of him being a terrorist is greater than
someone that resides in a country that is not known for that.
The liberal left
would like everyone to believe that every living soul on the planet is a
friend. That we should allow all immigrants, refugees, the tired and poor of every
country, into our borders regardless of where they come from. This is sheer
idiocy. I put to you a question: if there were a hundred M&Ms in a bowl and
two of them were poisoned, would you know which ones not to eat? Would you eat
them anyway? The liberal left would like us to do just that. Without knowing,
for sure, that refugees and immigrants from the Middle East are not terrorists,
we are to allow them into our country; even though the terrorists have stated
quite clearly that they will infiltrate into peaceful, non-Islamic countries as
refugees. Their goal is to fulfill the Koran’s law of destroying the infidels in
any way possible. So, what does the left want to do? Invite them in.
The liberal left
would like everyone to believe that a woman, who consciously indulged in
unprotected sex and became pregnant, should be allowed to end the life of the
unborn child that she, and her partner at the time, conceived. The Supreme
Court, in 1973, decided that it was a woman’s right to end a pregnancy. Is this
right? Is it the moral thing to do? For the liberal left it is. It is just fine
to do away with a self-inflicted inconvenience simply because she wants to. In
the case of rape or incest it would be a different matter, but, in the case of
consensual sex, what was she expecting when she had sex with that guy; a Sony
TV or an Xbox?
The conservative
right, on the other hand, believes that a child, unborn, has the right to be
born, to live. Life starts at conception, not twenty eight weeks later.
Pro-life, pro-choice, how about having the common sense to practice celibacy
unless you want to have a baby? Make your choice before you get pregnant then
you wouldn’t have to end a life.
I realize that
the liberal left would counter all points made here in some way or another;
that is, if they even read it or reply to it. That is what they do. Ignore what
goes against their way of thinking or dismiss it as racial, anti-woman, or some
phobia.
Just my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment; good, bad or indifferent. Feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks, JDE