polifrog
(a repost)
Bill Randall has mounted a campaign based on principles stemming from religion, the Constitution, and morality.
Frequently the preacher within Bill Randall emerges on the campaign trail when referencing The Ten Commandments. Just as often his respect for the words within the Constitution as they are written, as well as the ideals enshrined within those words, become vivid talking points for Randall. The Randall Campaign has embraced these two and produced an appealing morality all too often absent in modern politics. As important as the morality though, is the fact that they are principles, a yard stick, by which one can measure Bill Randall's actions against and if elected, his political leadership.
The positive results of this were on display during the primaries between Bernie Reeves and Bill Randall. Although, Reeves and Randall agreed on much, there were a handful of points on which they parted.
One of these was the sudden and unfortunate BP disaster in the Gulf. Prior to the BP gusher Randall and Reeves were indistinguishable from one another on the topic of oil drilling. Drill here, drill now. That ended with the threat of oil inundating the NC coast. Bernie Reeves' position conveniently shifted from pro drilling to no drilling. Bill Randall, on the other hand, stuck to principle; continued his pro drilling stance and despite his muddled government/BP collusion press conference won the primaries.
That is not to say Bill Randall's pro drilling stance won the primaries for him, but it is to say that the episode helped to define Randall as a man of principle who, when confronted with a politically expedient choice, chose principle. Many conservative voters battered with the disappointment that was the listless conservative congress under the first 6 years of Bush found Bill Randall's reliance on principle refreshing. Conversely, Bernie Reeves seemed imbued with the odor of the stale unprincipled conservatism of the Bush years.
In truth, Bernie Reeves got caught on the wrong side of Conservative Party history. The Conservative Party is being rewritten before all our eyes with something more powerful than Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, but Reeves missed it. The party is being reformulated through an injection of Tea Party morality based on fundamental principals that candidates are expected to govern by. Where the Contract With America had a half-life (it came to an end when its to-do list was completed), Tea Party morality is as permanent as the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party is in its essence a repudiation of moral relativism seeping into the Conservative Party and gives voters that essential yardstick by which to judge a politician's performance. This will prove more effective than Newt's Contract With America.
And this is one of Brad Miller's primary difficulties come this November 2. This election comes at a time when Americans are coming to the conclusion that they elected an illusion to the presidency and in return they received disillusion. Currently many Americans question their president's religion. They question... who is this man? National politics is normally just background when electing representatives. Not this year.
When North Carolinians go to the polls this November, will they be comfortable with a moral relativist like Brad Miller? He is a man who believes, on the one hand, that a woman's right to choose supersedes her child's right to live and her right to choose extends to the moments before her child's birth, while, on the other hand, he supports removing all our health-care choices through ObamaCare. The conflict does not stop there; Brad Miller claims to be guided by lessons learned from his church. Clearly Brad Miller must separate the act of governance from his biblical guidance, and if that is so he is not guided by Christian belief.
Not only is Brad Miller not guided by biblical teachings, but he does not seem to rely on Constitutional text either. Where does he find the Constitutional right to force anyone to purchase anything through ObamaCare? Does he not see that ObamaCare conflicts with the tenth amendment? How does he divine a right of privacy that allows a woman to choose to kill her own child, while at the very same time he ignores the obvious wording of the second amendment? Where does he find a limitation on free political speech through incorporation? None of these interpretations are in our Constitution.
Yet these interpretations of our Constitution are no different than the those that allowed the atrocity of slavery to exist within America. Politicians like Brad Miller who are willing to interpret Constitutional "rights" such as infanticide in and out of existence are worse than their slave rationalizing brethren. At least slaves got life.
Brad Miller can point to neither The Ten Commandments nor can he point to The Constitution as a moral anchors. Brad Miller has no principles; he has no morality by which he can be judged. And when the North Carolina electorate visits the polls, will they be keen to reelect a politician (Brad Miller) who has no moral yardstick by which to gauge his performance?
No. North Carolina is ready for a political cleansing.
out
Monday, September 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Politicians like Brad Miller who are willing to interpret Constitutional "rights" such as infanticide in and out of existence are worse than their slave rationalizing brethren."
ReplyDeleteYou fail to grasp the rationale of politicians who believe in the constitutional "right" a woman has to make choices about her own body. You think that a government bureaucrat should be given the authority to tell a woman what choices she MUST make pertaining to an issue that is at its core, one of the most personal issues conceivable? You write about preserving liberty and maintaining small government, and on this issue, you are not only wrong, but inconsistent and contradictory.
"You think that a government bureaucrat should be given the authority to tell a woman what choices she MUST make pertaining to an issue that is at its core, one of the most personal issues conceivable?"
ReplyDeleteNo, I believe that it is government's duty to protect individual liberty and that our constitutional rights only extend to the point that they interfere with another citizen's ability to express their constitutional rights.
For example, when a citizen exercises their right to free speech that citizen's speech is limited by liable laws.
Why dos this concept not apply to the "right to choose"? Expressing one's "right to choose" infringes on the right of the aborted, to free speech, to bear arms, to redress, to religion, and,yes, even to the "right to choose". In short, a woman's "right to choose" interferes with all the constitutional rights of another individual. Most importantly life.
This is a trampling of individual rights beyond even that of slavery, another creation of those who wish to interpret rights in and out of existence. As mentioned in the post -- slaves, at least, got life.
Just as it was our government's duty to stop the trampling of the rights of slaves, it is the duty of government to protect the rights of the aborted.
Exterminating an individual or group should not open an avenue to ignoring their constitutional rights. If it does, I would hate to see where such thinking leads.
In this issue I am neither wrong, inconsistent,or contradictory. These qualities you listed are all crated by those attempting to rationalize a right that not only does not exist, but deprives others of all their rights including that of life.
You are one sicko. Women absolutely have the right to decide; thank goodness. You people always slay me in your "logic" and I use that term loosely. You claim that the government has eroded our rights as citizens, yet you beat yourselves silly wanting to remove a woman's right over her own decisions. I would ask you how you would feel if you became pregnant as a result of molestation, but then, you're way too old to get knocked up anyway.
ReplyDelete"You are one sicko."
ReplyDeleteHmm. There is nothing sick or twisted in believing all humanity is endowed with rights. The sickness lies within those who wish to have the "right" to remove another person's life. I am not the one who wishes to kill children and call it my "right".
...
"You claim that the government has eroded our rights as citizens, yet you beat yourselves silly wanting to remove a woman's right over her own decisions. "
Just because our government has eroded the rights of the unborn to the advantage of some women to gain their votes does not equate to a right any more than eroding the rights of slaves to the advantage of slave holders equates to a right. There is no "right to choose" to be removed, only an false interpretation.
And yes I believe a woman has a constitutional obligation to give birth even in cases of molestation, because no citizen has the right to molest the rights of another.
Unfortunately, though, Brad Miller believes some of us have more rights than others.
Logic can be a powerful thing.
“No, I believe that it is government's duty to protect individual liberty and that our constitutional rights only extend to the point that they interfere with another citizen's ability to express their constitutional rights.”
ReplyDeleteOur disagreement is here, with respect to the aborted being treated as a citizen. You believe that the aborted is a citizen, and that its rights are being denied by the mother. I do not believe that an unborn child is a citizen, and I can say with certainty that it is less a citizen than its mother.
In that respect, I do not buy into your argument of the unborn rights being taken, as the unborn cannot bear arms, cannot speak, petition the government or be granted redress. By what criteria is citizenship defined?
To my initial point, I believe that the trampling of individual rights takes place when a government forces upon its citizenry (commence the unborn as a citizen disagreement) laws which limit the personal liberty that group is endowed with. That choice is one that I will never know, but what is not lost is my ability to understand the personal nature of such a choice. A choice that the government would restrict to the detriment of Liberty.
Do I think abortion is good? Certainly not. I know, however, that government intrusion in the personal lives of citizens is by nature an act which defies the very principles of liberty.
“In short, a woman's "right to choose" interferes with all the constitutional rights of another individual. Most importantly life.”
What is life if it does not come with liberty? A wiser and more brave soul than I once said, “Give me liberty or give me death.”
I hope you excuse the time I've taken in responding, I wanted let some of your statements ferment.
ReplyDeleteI find the conflation of citizenship, Patrick Henry, and this statement: "...I can say with certainty that it is less a citizen than its mother." truly disturbing.
First, although I encourage seemingly off topic ideas in the comments section for their often enlightening results, I fail to see what citizenship has to do with this issue.
For example, there are plenty of legal immigrants (without citizenship) in this country and no one argues that they have no constitutional rights. There are a few limitations, of course, such as not being able to vote, not being able to serve in some offices, etc. The point is that citizenship is not a prerequisite to constitutional rights and liberty. It is for this reason that detainees where sequestered in Guantanamo
Secondly, when Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or give me death," he was not demanding liberty at the cost of another person's death, but rather his OWN ... if necessary. He would never have demanded that another be forced to pay the price for his liberty as you so easily seem to do. It should also be taken into account that he requested liberty while still under the tyranny of the King of England.
Lastly, you said:
"I do not believe that an unborn child is a citizen, and I can say with certainty that it is less a citizen than its mother."
Our nation unfortunately has a history with this line of reasoning and in the late 1700's discovered we had individuals we could consider 3/5 a man -- slaves. How many people have to be enslaved, tortured, and exterminated before this line of reasoning is banished from humanity?
Hitler took 6 million, Stalin another 25 million, Mao more than 60 million, and scores of others killed men women and children by arguing as you did "I can say with certainty that it is less a citizen."
Unfortunately, you take my argument to its logical conclusion, a place I avoided as I simply could not imagine accusing a fellow American of making my point.