A part of the reason why it is so hard to reach the liberal left with the truth about government, and the Constitution, is because they have a warped view of government, politics, and reality. . . but you knew that.
Their perception, however, may even be farther off than even you may have thought.
Let me give you a couple examples before we visit Congressman Joe Garcia's idiocy about border security, and communism.
A couple years ago a leftist wrote in my comment section, after reading my opinion of how the liberal democrats are following the historical path of communism, and after I agreed with Allen West's comparisons of liberal democrat policies to policies of past Soviet regimes, left the following:
The Soviet Union wasn't "lefty". It was a hard line, right wing, authoritarian regime, not unlike North Korea. That's not the type of government any western Liberal advocates. When you make that sort of claim, it's just propaganda.
While speaking with a young man of the age of 29, after he spewed a number of leftist talking points, and proclaimed my image of the political spectrum was backwards. He said:
The 100% government is supposed to be on the right. It's the rightwingers that want to use government to force a woman to not be able to have an abortion if she wants, and use government to control marriage. The religious right wants the church to control us, our thoughts, our decisions, and to force us to not act in the way we want. Democrats want government out of our lives on that, which makes it obvious that the 100% government lunatics are on the right.
Another once told me:
You already have communism in your life. Police services, and other emergency services, being government agencies, is communism. If you were true to your rightwing ideology, you'd want them to be run by for-profit companies.
When I ran for city council in Murrieta back in 2010, after a debate at the clubhouse of a senior community called The Colony, a man walked up to me and said, "You say you are for smaller government. So what do you plan to take away if you are elected? Parks? The Senior Center?"
The definitions have been so warped by the teachings of liberalism, that people don't even know what the truth is anymore.
Limited Government is not defined as a government that "takes things away," as perceived by the older gentleman at The Colony. A limited government is one that functions within the limited authorities granted. A small government is one that does not exceed those authorities granted, remaining within the limitations established by the rule of law.
As for all of the "rightwinger" stuff, in reality, the Constitution does not lean to the right. In fact, it is dead center. Though I identify myself with The Right, and even go so far as to call myself a conservative, in reality I am a Classical Centrist (or a Classical Liberal), because I hold the opinion that government must operate within the definitions originally assigned by the United States Constitution (including any amendments).
To answer the 29 year old, I don't want to force women not to have an abortion. I want to protect the life of every American "person," and that includes the unborn. However, that said, using Constitutional standards, I recognize that the federal government was never granted any authority to make law regarding any health issue, including abortion, therefore it is a State issue. The States need to decide that issue for themselves. As a pro-life advocate, I would hope that all fifty States would outlaw the genocide of the unborn through abortion, but at the same time, I would accept it if some States outlawed abortion, while others upheld it. The States, after all, through our voice and our vote, are individuals just like you and me, and are supposed to be making that decision for themselves. The federal government is not authorized to force the States to do one, or the other.
That goes for marriage, too. In fact, my question has been, "Why is government involved in marriage in the first place - be it homosexual, heterosexual, inter-racial, or whatever? I support traditional marriage, and history shows that when homosexuality becomes normalized in a society, it is a sign that the civilization is reaching the twilight of its existence. However, from a limited government point of view, technically marriage is a State issue. But going back to my question earlier about government's involvement in marriage in the first place, shouldn't the churches make those decisions, as we would see in any free market atmosphere? Should they then be able to reap the benefits, or the consequences, for their decisions? Instead, the democrats have politicized marriage, controlling the definition, and by politicizing the issue, are now controlling speech regarding the issue. Calling homosexuality a sin, for example, is now considered hate speech, and pastors are now at risk preaching about it. Pastors are fearful to speak on the issue, when before it was no problem, because the issue has been politicized, and in line with a warped definition of the First Amendment, churches are told they cannot have an opinion on political issues. Therefore, since homosexuality is now a political issue, all preaching on the topic must stop.
Remember, government's involvement in marriage was created by the democrats so that they may control marriage, just as they are doing today with this issue. After the Civil War marriage licenses surfaced so that the democrat-dominated governments in the South could disallow whites from marrying blacks. In the 1930s, marriage licenses again surfaced, this time to control marriage in relation to the entitlement programs that were emerging due to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal.
As for the claim by the 29 year old that Christians desire a theocracy, I have never heard any Christian that has called for an established church that controls everything like it did in old Europe at the time of the founding of the United States. That is something completely created by the liberal left in order to attack Christianity as a whole.
Propaganda.
So, that all said, let's get back to Representative Garcia's claim that border security is an example of communism.
The liberal left has created an "all or nothing" political environment. In other words, if you believe government control is wrong on a single issue, then you must believe it is wrong on all issues. That line of thinking led Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to call the TEA Party Republicans a bunch of "anarchists." And that line of thinking led Democrat Florida Representative Joe Garcia to proclaim that low crime rates in border cities with lots of federal immigration workers is proof that “Communism works.”
Garcia made the comment while discussing online comprehensive immigration reform with supporters. The Democrat attempted to point out how, for all their talk about limited government, many Republicans are fine spending loads of government money on border security.
Congressman Garcia obviously has no clue, like the examples of the liberals I quoted above, regarding what the definition of limited government is, or what the United States Constitution says on the issue.
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government "shall protect each of them (the States) against invasion."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 allows the federal government to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution."
The American Heritage College Dictionary defines "invasion" as "An intrusion or encroachment." Crossing a national border illegally is intruding or encroaching into a country, against the laws in place that were necessary and proper to carry out the constitutional authority to protect the States from invasion. Border security is an integral part of protecting any nation from invasion. Therefore, the federal government's authorities in the Constitution includes using "federal immigration workers" in border cities to protect the country from an invasion by illegal immigrants.
Not exactly "communism," as Garcia claims. Communism would be using a government program like Obamacare to enable the central government to control healthcare, in violation, I might add, of constitutional authorities granted. Communism would be using the government to control gun ownership, pursuing the ultimate goal of gun confiscation, as we are seeing right now with the liberal democrats. Communism would be the government control of private industries through government dictates, regulations, and the government purchase of portions of the industries, such as we have seen in the automobile industry, banking industry, credit industry, Wall Street, and health insurance industry, while Barack Obama has been in office (and in reality, the methods being used mirror fascism even more than they do communism).
Finally, we must ask why Representative Garcia would make such a statement. Is he comparing liberal leftism to communism? Is he proclaiming that the liberal left has more in common with communists, but with his statement he is trying to create a "gotcha" moment with the GOP?
Garcia was quick to recoil after others made the same observation. He is of Cuban descent along with many of his south Florida constituents, and he told the Miami Herald he never meant to espouse Communism — and was instead taking a tongue-in-cheek shot at his GOP opponents.
“This is an absurdity, accusing the son of Cuban immigrants of believing in Communism is just ridiculous,” he declared.
If he has such a problem with communism, then why is he a democrat?
The democrats, as I explained to the 29 year old, are not only the ones that believe in big government, but they are proud of it. . . they just try to hide it, because if voters knew what the democrats were really about, they would never be voted into office.
That's the good thing about what has been going on during the Obama presidency. . . the reality of who the liberal left democrats are has been poking its head out, and Americans are recognizing the socialist tint of Democrat Party politics. The problem is, the Republicans refuse to shed light on it, expose it, and draw attention to who the democrats are.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Dem Congressman "We've Proved that Communism Works" - Daily Caller
Dem Congressman "We've Proved that Communism Works" - Daily Caller
No comments:
Post a Comment