By Douglas V. Gibbs
Since my recent appearances on television and radio over the Immigration Issue in Murrieta, I have received a lot of "thank you" notes, and criticisms. Criticisms have ranged from accusations of me being involved in order to advance my radio career, to me being a "rightwing simpleton spreading lies." It is not possible for me to share all of the accusations, or responses. . . but the following response I sent out, I think you will find interesting.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
To answer your points:
Separation of Church and State IS NOT in the Constitution. The Constitution forbids Congress from making laws making a single religion the established church for this country, which makes sense when you consider the Church of England, and the tyranny the colonists, before coming to America, experienced with that established religion. The other part of the First Amendment regarding religion tells Congress that they cannot pass law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. That part seems to always be forgotten. The term "separation of church and state" was taken from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists where he used the words "wall of separation between church and state" in order to explain to them that the federal government could not get involved with their plight between them and the Puritans in Connecticut. Religion, according to the Constitution, the founders, and more specifically, according to Jefferson in his Danbury letters, is a State issue, and is to be dealt with at the State level.
You keep calling me a rightwinger. I am a classical centrist. As I told you before, the Constitution sits dead center on the political spectrum. The problem is that mainstream politics has moved so far to the left that the assumption is that the Constitution is a "rightwing" document.
Activist judges are those that legislate from the bench, regardless on if their decision would assist my political beliefs, or not. Separation of powers, as established by the first sentence of each of the first three articles of the Constitution, do not allow the branches to act in a manner other than the powers granted to them. Article I, Section 1, for example, grants ALL legislative powers to the Congress, which means any time judges affect law, including striking down law, they are acting legislatively, which is unconstitutional. I have written, as a matter of fact, extensively on the concept of judicial review, which is not only unconstitutional, but a power the courts granted to themselves. The judges are supposed to apply the law to their cases, not interpret the constitution as we are erroneously told. If you allow the judges to interpret the law, we stop being a nation under the rule of law, and one by the rule of man. . . something that John Locke warned collapses societies.
My wife's family followed the laws, went through the process, and they assimilated into our society. My father in law immediately took English classes to improve his ability to communicate, and my wife refuses to call herself a Mexican-American. She is an American.
Disease is a reality, I understand that, but our country has eradicated many diseases, and our children are relatively safe from many diseases that are no longer here in the United States. The immigration process and laws are in place largely to protect our population from those diseases. To embrace illegal aliens who are sick with these diseases, without any health screenings, is insane. Understand, in Murrieta, Riverside County offered the use of one of its mobile hospitals to the border patrol and the White House refused the offer, releasing these people into our city with no health screening.
The systems in Europe are collapsing. Greece is a great example. Spain, Portugal, and Italy are also on the verge of economic collapse because of their big government policies. Economically, the central government spending the amounts of money they have been is unsustainable. Immigration running rampant in Europe has also caused problems, which is why those countries are beginning to tighten up their immigration policies, and brought Germany's Merkel to the conclusion that "multi-culturalism is a failure."
War is not a result of the kind of government you are criticizing, but the result of evil characters around the world creating problems. Peace is not achieved by standing by and watching these people bring Hell on Earth. Peace is achieved by strength.
The U.S. Constitution, if you break it down and understand it, is a time tested system of limited government, and placing limitations on a central government is the essence of liberty. It is simple, but not outdated. But, your failure to understand it, and believing the propaganda put out by those that oppose it, has led you to believe otherwise. I invite you to attend my online classes, or do your own investigations, into the original intent of the document with an open mind. If you began to understand the actual foundation of the American System, based on the Constitution, you may find yourself pleasantly surprised.
The Tea Party is not attempting to bring down government, but to return it to its roots. Though I am not necessarily the member of any Tea Party, I understand, and sympathize, with their complaints. Theirs is one of frustration, and calling for the government to return to what has worked wonderfully in our history, leading us to becoming the most prosperous nation in the world.
I am amazed you are challenging me regarding my granddaughter's illness. She contracted hand and foot disease, of which prior to this illegal alien invasion there had been zero cases. As the influx of illegals has increased, so has the number of incidents of reported cases of hand and foot disease. The correlation is obvious. It is not only not a genetic disease, by the way, but even if my wife's family possibly could be a factor, then why would there be no cases for fifty years, and then suddenly, at the same time we are overrun with illegals, it would appear in one member of the family who just so happens to be exposed in Murrieta to the illegals?
I still don't understand your "hate" remarks. I hate nobody. Heck, I am conversing with you, aren't I? If I hated everyone that disagreed with me, why would I even take the time?
You made a comment about our "democracy." We are not a democracy. We are a republic. Democracies are transitional systems to oligarchies, and the founders were very critical of democracy. Adams quipped that there was never a democracy that did not commit suicide. The system you call "moving forward" is nothing new, and was one the founders were trying to protect us from. Big government in the early colonial days starved colonists to death, and collapsed a number of societies. Individualism, self-reliance, personal responsibility, and limitations upon government is what made the American Colonies, and ultimately the United States, prosperous, and the shining beacon of freedom.
I am sorry your hate for me is so strong that you cannot open your mind at least a little to consider my argument. It is interesting that you accuse me of hate, while you are the one that wrote "the only good Tea Bagger is a dead Tea Bagger." I hope that is not a direct threat. You accuse the "Right" of preventing good government, when it reality they are trying to return us to good government. Good government is one that stays out of people's lives, and leaves local issues to the local governments, leaving the central government the authority only to handle external issues as originally intended by the Constitution. I will keep you in my prayers. As for making my living on these simpletons, I make no money doing radio, appearing on these television segments, or with my writings. I have been a sand and gravel truck driver in order to keep my bills paid.
Blessings,
Douglas V. Gibbs
Constitution Radio, KCAA AM1050
Author, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com
www.constitutionassociation.com
1 comment:
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders' avoidance of any expression suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.
That the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, federalism) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.
Post a Comment