Sunday, February 5, 2017

What is Right and What is Wrong?

     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