The more I read and research, the more I begin to understand the Liberal mind.
Understand, mind you. Not empathize with.
I am beginning to understand how Liberals view the term 'equality.' In a twist of hypocrisy, equality seems to mean 'sameness' from a political philosophy that spouts 'diversity' from its lips like a fountain of poison.
I've also come to understand that there is no principle or tool sacred enough or good enough that it cannot and will not be twisted beyond recognition into something it was never intended to be, into something that delivers as much evil as it does good.
Television is a prime example. Philo T. Farnsworth's intent for TV was for it to be a tool for education. It is that. But as a source of entertainment it has brought untold societally destructive, mentally barren, emotionally disturbing content into our homes. Internet is another. As an amazing resource of information, the internet has allowed people to be informed in a way never dreamed of by Thomas Jefferson and co. What has become its single most popular use? Pornography.
The same warping of good THINGS can be done with good WORDS.
When the founders were drafting the Constitution and the Declaration, they chose their words carefully, often debating for hours or day on end over the wording of this phrase or that. They wanted these documents to be so clearly and concretely understood (concrete, not shifting sand the way liberals would like to convince themselves it is) that no one could possibly misinterpret what they intended. But language is language, and humans are humans. Language can be used to twist meanings, it can be abused and misinterpreted in any number of ways, especially as our language grows and expands well beyond the vocabulary of 222 years ago. And humans will always use language to twist those meanings to serve their own purposes or philosphies.
But the Constitution is not a document written on sand. It cannot be. Because there is one thing that never changes, that is as hard and lasting as diamond. That is Human Nature. And the Constitution must stand as a barrier to the nature of man to seek power and authority and tyranny.
Human nature, over and over, for thousands upon thousands of years, and still, and always, will lead men in power to abuse that power. And the larger and more powerful we make our government, by giving it more and more control over the daily administration of our lives, the more likely it is that our leaders will abuse that power, that tyranny will prevail, that freedoms will be lost. Is it happening?
Can you really deny that it is not? Can you name one aspect of your life in which the government, in one form or another is NOT involved?
The majority of our members of congress are so far removed from the lives and loves and needs and wants of the people they serve, they cannot possibly govern us effectively. Ted Kennedy never held a private sector job. He never served in the military. He lived his life either in public office or sequestered on Kennedy family properties. He is an example of the loss of actual equality in this country.
Equality. What is it? ARE all men created EQUAL?
In one aspect it's a ridiculous statement. All you have to do is look around you, at your neighbors and friends, your church congregation, at the grocery store. Obviously we're not equal. We plainly have differences in natural skills and physical attributes, development, emotional stability, strength, intelligence, self-motivation. For the most part these attributes are innate, but can be manipulated and developed through hard work.
But in these, people CANNOT be equal. We can't force citizen A, who lacks the genetics for large muscle development, to go to the gym more so he'll be as strong as citizen B wo has the right genes. We can't force a guy with the mental capacity of a 6-year-old to learn calculus. But we could, it seems, force things in the other direction. We COULD force the muscular guy into a sedentary lifestyle so he becomes as weak as the other. We could fail to educate or even surgically remove the ability of the mathematician to use calculus.
And in a way isn't that what we're doing? Isn't that what the President wants? He calls it 'spreading the wealth.' He is taking the achievement of the productive and giving it to the non productive to create his version (the liberal version) of equality.
But this is not the equality to which the Declaration and the Constitution refer. This is NOT and should not be the goal of society. Such a definition of equality gives 'rights' to some at the expense of the Rights of others to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The equality guaranteed by the Constitution and by God is this:
Equal in the sight of God (and the meaning and implementation of that is God's alone);
Equal in the sight of the law;
Equal in the protection of their rights (Don't lose sight of what they are--Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.)
Equal Justice before the law, NOT equal advantages throughout life. Equal opportunity, NOT equal results.
To remain a free society, we must be equal, ALL of us:
'at the bar of justice'
'at the ballot box' (unless you're a member of a union that refuses the right of secret ballot)
'in educational opportunity' (NOT educational provision)
'in the oppportunity for employment' (again, NOT provision of employment)
'in practicing religion'
'in expressing our views'
'in the press'
'at public and government meetings'
'in the opportunity to purchase goods and services'
'in the opportunity to prosper as a result of our own labors'
'to protect and defend our lives and property'
(Let's take a moment here to distinguish between 'opportunity' and 'provision,' which are two words liberals often lump together. 'Opportunity' means that the option is there IF you are willing to work hard enough for it. Every person in this country has the opportunity to become fabulously wealthy if they are willing to do what it takes to get themselves there--which means a LOT of personal study, hard work, sacrifice, and risk. Not everyone is willing, therefore not everyone is entitled. 'Provision' means to provide for. We do NOT have a responsibility to provide education or health care or welfare to anyone. We do have the responsibility to provide everyone with equal access to the opportunity, through personal study, hard work, sacrifice, and risk, to provide these things for themselves.)
The Bill of Rights were specifically written to make it quite clear which rights were viewed as protected by the equality statement, because there were members of the delegation who were anxious--and rightly so--that these basic rights might not be interpreted as such in the wording of the Constitution if not explicitly stated so.
So how are we doing? Are we all equal before the law?
As an example, Teddy Kennedy murdered a girl in 1969 but was charged only with 'leaving the scene of an accident.' If the exact same thing had happened to Joe Q. Public, he would have been charged with crimes ranging from drunken driving, to vehicular homicide.
Another example, President Obama has repeatedly chosen people to fill his cabinet who have been found to be tax cheats. After claiming 'errors' in their tax preparation methods, they went on with life (some being appointed anyway) without even a slap on the wrist from the IRS. Would that happen to us?
Liberals like to claim that we have a right to health care. How equal are we in that arena? Congress enjoys premium health care and retirement benefits that they have no intention of extending to the American people. (Never mind that they are Constitutionally forbidden from even attempting to do so.)
How equal are we in what Congress does and what they expect of us?
Al Gore is a fine example of the hypocrisy of our elected leaders. While not currently in office, he exemplifies so very many who are. He wants to see massive legislation enacted that would severely limit our freedom as consumers and homeowners in the name of the environment, but does he live by these restrictions himself as an example to all of what we can do? No. His estate in Tennessee is one of the largest single users of both water and electricity in that state. He drives huge gas-guzzling SUVs and pruchases 'carbon credits' to 'offset' his groteque wastefulness.
Oh, yes, my friends. THAT's equality. Pfsh!
I don't want to leave you with the impression that I hate the rich. I don't. I actually love the rich. Because of the rich my husband has a job, I have a home, my children have clothes on their backs and the refrigerator is full. Because of the rich I have hope that someday, if I work hard enough, I can be rich, too. Because of the rich, this country has progressed from a backwoods agrarian economy to the most vibrant and innovative nation in history.
No. I don't hate the rich.
I hate hypocrisy.
In speaking of equality, my liberal friends will be quick to point out the lack of equality provided for in the Constitution for women and slaves.
My answer is this:
Equality for ALL was in the constitution well before votes for women or freedom for slaves were specifically enacted. In an unfortunate irony, a level of freedom never before seen on earth occurred at the expense of the perpetuation of slavery. It was a sacrifice for which we honor those slaves who suffered for an additional 80 years in order that freedom might ring for others and create a nation that would provide their descedants with an unprecedented level of freedom, unknown by their African relatives throughout the world even today. Without the slavery compromise, the Constitution, even the United States, would never have come to be.
On voting, the original voting law--in a society in which the smallest unit of society was the family, rather than the individual as it is today--called for one vote per household, with the husband or some adult male of the house being the one who would cast the vote.
On the surface it sounds sexist, and in a way I suppose it was for those few women who were actual heads of household.
But consider this: If your vote depended on a discussion of the issues with the members of your household before that vote was cast, how much more informed would we necessarily HAVE to be as a voting public?
I would also argue that the era of family, as opposed to our current era of the individual, most women enjoyed a greater familial relationship with their husbands, and would never have considered that their rights were being compromised or that their husbands were abusing their husbandly power in casting the household vote. I would argue that women enjoyed considerably more respect from their husbands in those times than now, that families who must, by necessity, work for a common cause are more strongly united in every way, and that the right of a woman to vote individually would have been an almost completely irrelevant point. I would argue that we have far digressed as a society when we have the need for individual votes for women. I would treasure the necessity of sitting down with my husband and family and discussing the issues, studying the facts and politicians, before deciding upon and casting our family vote.