Search this Site

  • Google

    WWW
    selwynduke.typepad.com

« The Jihadists in America | Main | Pagan Propaganda: The Other Attack on Christmas »

December 23, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Shaun

Great article Selwyn,

I might also add that the Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to force citizens to buy goods or services from private companies but, it looks like this will happen after the vote coming up tomorrow. Constitutionality should be taught mandatorily in our schools and discussed between teachers and students.

Shaun

Robert Berger

The federal government has tried to force
people to do many things, or to deny them the legal right to do other things.
Where in the constitution does it say that US citizens may not drink alcoholic beverages ? Yet prohibition was the law of the land for some years.
The founding fathers, most of whom enjoyed imbibing, would never have approved of this.
And firthermore, I'm neither irrational, or of the left. I'm a non-conservative.
I'm no left-winger. Ironically, left-wingers think I'm too CONSERVATIVE for them.
And Selwyn, people like you are not conservatives. You're reactionaries.
You want to turn back the clock on all the social and economic progress America has made in the last several decades, in the
delusional attempt to return "Freedom", "morality", "family values", "traditional values", "religious freedom", and "decency" to this country.
But these are nothing but buzz words to disguise you true agenda, which would be poisonous to America if you got your way.

John

Berger, tanks for proving Duke's point. Where in the constitution does it say you can't drink alcoholic beverages? The nation created an AMENDMENT saying you couldn't! That's what Duke was talking about. It then created another amendment repealing prohibition. It was a mistake. But it was instituted legally-not through judicial fiat.

You don't even know enough to argue your own incorrect position. Please educate yourself before commenting again.

W. Tieff

You just keep getting it wrong, don't you Robert?

Prohibition was legally enforced after the Constitution was Amended by a ratification process involving all 47 or so individual States (at the time), whose leadership voted for their constituents' wishes. There was quite a lot of anti-liquor sentiment, fueled early on by women's groups (women's sufferage was gaining popularity) led by spikey, media-savvy characters such as Molly Hatchet. The "times" were deemed too rowdy for sensibilities, and the elimination of booze seemed a "progressive" fix for such unpleasantness.

Don't you see? "Progressive" prejudices of every little inconvenience to society have a tendency to coalesce into populist movements that seek to legislatively limit our freedoms of choice and association.
And at the same time, such populist movements have a tendency to disregard long-established mores and morality in favor of "interpretive" solutions that, on the surface, appear to defend individual liberties, yet in reality merely serve to distance the People from their governance.

The Left really likes Band-Aids. Progressive poultices and Socialist sutures seek to remedy all the ills of society.
But a conservative's viewpoint would be more along the lines of the old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"......
And the best way to advance that wisdom would of course be, as you so elegantly put it, a "delusional attempt to return "Freedom", "morality", "family values", "traditional values", "religious freedom", and "decency" to this country."

Buzz words they certainly are, yet there is no need to "turn back the clock" because the morality and values those buzzwords represent will NEVER GO AWAY no matter how much social or technological advancement takes place. The morality of mutually beneficial exchange and association, and the value of private ownership of property just happens to be the basis and foundation of our Republic's constitutional law. Law that is established to Secure the Blessings of Liberty, Provide for the Common defense, and Promote the General Welfare and prosperity of our Nation, the United States of America. If that "agenda" is poisonous, then pour me a glass!

Any "interpretation" of Constitutional legislation must adhere to the above principles. Beyond that, the States are free to enjoy the trial-and-error of forming a More Perfect union.

Hope this helps to clear things up for you, Robert.

Walt

Selwyn wrote,

"You are exhibiting something ex-KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov spoke of when he talked about the effects of subversion. That is, you are detached from reason."

In the book "The Screwtape Letters", Screwtape, giving instruction to Wormwood, his demon in traning, advised his understudy (I quote loosley) "you must keep your man focused on jargon and far away from reason. In the area of reason the Enemy has the advantage."

Philip France

Thank you Selwyn for taking the irrational and delusional Robert Berger to the proverbial woodshed and for calling him out for his penchant for vomiting his odious and putrid rantings on the pages of your website.

It is time for all of us to rise up and confront this evil and wicked disparaging of the righteous and Godly foundational principles of our Republic.

Let us reclaim our liberties now with our words and our thoughts, rather than with guns and swords and let us place irrational lunatics like Robert Berger and his ilk in the pillories of public shame rather than behind bars.

Or worse.

Merry Christmas to the family of readers at www.selynduke.com, including all of his lunatic agitators.

To all, tidings of comfort and joy.

Robert Berger

I'm no "irrational lunatic". I know exactly what I'm talking about.
The question of Prohibition illustrates exactly what I'm trying to prove to you, despite your obtuseness.
Did prohibition do any good for America?
Are you kidding? All it did was provide a field day for gangsters like Al Capone.
It was a futile and stupid thing to make alcohol illegal by a ridiculous and totally unconstitutional amendment which a bunch of self-righteous idiots wheedled the US government into passing.
See what I mean? Theoretically, any group of people with any cockamamie idea could get the US government through the supremem court make virtually anything illegal, even the most innocuous things.
Suppose some group of extremist religious wackos got it into their heads that barbecues are an abomination and against the will of god, and organized a campaign to make barbecues illegal.
And like the despicable "reverend" Fred Phelps, they went all over the USA protesting against barbecues and holding up signs saying"God hates barbecues", and If you barbecue, God will damn you to hell!" "God will barbecue YOU!"
Theoretically, these nut cases could wheedle the government into making barbecues illegal and arresting,
prosecuting, imprisoning and possibly executing any one caught having a barbecue.
These imbeciles would say"Where in the constitution does it say we may hold barbecues?". Get my point?

Walt

So Robert, would it not have been better if Prohibition were tried at the state level before they enforced it nation wide? Perhaps we could have dodged a bullet if we would have stayed within the constraints of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. Unlike Roe v Wade, prohibition was actually an amendment to the Constitution, that over rode the 10th amendment; a proper execution of a poor law.

On another note, you must admit the world would be a much better place without the dregs of alcohol abuse. Prohibition in theory was an attempt to better the human condition, and it did not fail because the theory was wrong but because of wicked people. People willing to destroy the lives of others and break the law for the love of power and decadence...men like Joe Kennedy.

As to the rest of your post...huh?

yoyo

Walt, talk about evasion! Robert gives you concrete examples and you elide, slip and slide over his points rather than address them. Phil just abuses Robert in the nastiest terms. Both of you by your own words would end up in bed with Al Capone AND Fred Phelps. By Walts arguments if fred can convince just one more moron than 50% who choose to vote he has the right in any particular state to cripple or torture at will, states right rule OK?

The sole reason for a federal government is to keep you a coutry rather than a set of fiefdoms.

Walt

There you go again Yoyo..." By Walts arguments if fred can convince just one more moron than 50% who choose to vote he has the right in any particular state to cripple or torture at will, states right rule OK?"

You assume a pure democracy in the terms of your argument; none of the states are pure democracies, rather constitutional representative republics. In such a state neither the electorate nor the representatives have the right to, at their "will", "cripple or torture" (aren't you going to extremes with those type of words?...BHO warns against extremists).

Otherwise, I did not skirt Robert's questions at all. Please, specifically pose the point that you imply he made that I did not address to your liking.

I believe the power should be close to the people just as the Bill of Rights makes note. With the majority of the power at the state level, each state can make laws that their leadership deems best. The laws proven good will be copied by the rest of the states and the bad ideas will be rejected by the rest of the states (egg. Massachusetts socialized medicine). Small mistakes in law will be absorbed and corrected on a small scale (at the state level) rather than the whole nation suffering with a bad law in your centralized government ideal.


Philip France

Yoyo,

How is demonstrating to Robert that he is wrong abuse? Selwyn spent an entire artcile reinforcing my points (and elaborating on several more).

Happy New Year to all.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

June 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30