Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
This sums it up Nicely.. And my last post involving the buffoonery that this election represents
|
There is, or should be as ScottW said, an obvious truth to your attachment. But it is a bit of a distraction, or misdirection.
This election is not about whether or not Hillary or Trump will shape our communities. And it is not a personality contest between Hillary or Trump. And portraying it as an argument over which is the most moral or "qualified" is a distraction from what it is more importantly about. Your attached note is partially correct in that WE shape our communities, not Hillary or Trump. But making that distinction distracts us from the fuller distinction, as well as connection, between WE and government.
We can only shape our communities if government doesn't prevent us from doing so. And not only that, but if it stops actively shaping our communities for us.
So, then, it is critical that WE prevent the government from doing so rather than it preventing us. WE must see to it that government is limited to the functions that WE have prescribed for it.
WE have been given the gift of a Constitution that properly limits government in order that WE can shape our communities. That document begins "WE the people . . .," not we the appointed Judges.
Insofar as WE have allowed our representatives in congressional and executive branches to abandon their limitations in that document, and insofar as appointed Judges have replaced our power to judge what is best for ourselves, and allowed the Constitution they have sworn to defend to be abandoned, it is WE who have progressively been limited in our once unalienable power to shape our lives. And the government has more and more been freed to do so.
If WE wish, truly wish, to stop that trend and to regain our power to shape our communities, we must use the remaining power given to us, the power to vote, to put in place the best chance to appoint Judges who will again abide by their oath and put us back on course to a great country in which WE the people decide on how, and in which way, WE shape our lives and our communities.
The campaign is most importantly about which candidates, not only for President, but for Congress are most likely to abide by their Constitutional oaths, and who will more likely appoint Judges who will do the same.
And, yes, as your attachment says, and the Founders also said, WE must have sound morals. That morality is civic and is about the soundness of our dedication to be WE the people who vote not for personal or group entitlements or special "rights," but for the freedom to create our own entitlements. And that morality firstly insists that WE THE PEOPLE protect our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is WE who created the document which guaranties our rights. So WE are obliged to protect it or lose those rights.
Otherwise, WE will ultimately submit to the overriding power of government. And if we choose not to submit, we will have to start all over with some new revolution and formation of some new founding document. But why do so when WE already have a uniquely good one? If WE do not read and understand that document, and take on the responsibility of protecting it, then WE are no longer the united people who have the ultimate power, but we are just little separate grubbers fighting each other and seeking the permission of and gifts from government. The great WE with unalienable rights will just be we the various supplicants seeking the rights that government may give us. And it will be a central and unlimited government who will shape our communities.
Threaded Mode