The Pink Flamingo is terrified of extremes. I see the growing extremism and irrational behavior of the tea parties as just that. It did not start out this way, but it is getting there. The very real problem is the fact that the people involved in the tea parties are failing to weigh the biased information they are receiving from their tin-plated gods like Glenn Beck.
If something is not done to put some of these people in check, and explain the facts of life to them, via American history, we are in for a very terrifying ride, abjectly terrifying. How long will it be before some idiotic tea party twit who is seriously unstable does something like what happened in India over the weekend?
Am I comparing the tea parties to Islamic extremists? No, I am not. I am saying that when emotions run high, it provides an opening for men and women who are less than stable to act out in their euphoria of the moment.
I am also more and more convinced that the whole tea party thing runs contrary to the GOP. The only thing that may save the GOP is the fact that the Dems are even more corrupt and pathetic than the the libertarians who are promoting the tea parties. Anyone who thinks the tea parties are out there to help the GOP is living in some strange fantasy world. Their ideas are a mix of Glenn Beck revisionism, Ron Paul’s idiocy, and conspiracy theories. Throw in some abject ignorance about what is really going on in the world and a refusal to look at reality and well, we have a problem!
The Pink Flamingo has decided to feature a very long comment from a Tea Party “patriot” from South Carolina, Working Tommy C – who will not use his real name because he cherishes his privacy. Unlike the rest of us who throw our true identity out for the world to see, he hides behind the mask of privacy. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it.
One of the things Working Tommy C. advocates is the end of Lindsey Graham’s political career. Evidently he is celebrating the possibility of Don’t Cry For Me Argentina’s possible run for Senate against Lindsey in 4 years. Can you imagine advocating Mark Sanford for Senate?
So, here is his defense of abolishing various sand sundry Constitutional Amendments. I guess what I find so sad is his abject ignorance of South Carolina history. Then again, giving Working Tommy C. the benefit of the doubt, there is a tremendous amount of idealism here. Way too much – and very little reality. The poor thing does not realize how abjectly corrupt state governments are.
There is a good reason for this. In South Carolina, we – and I do mean WE – worked very hard to clean up the state, which was quite corrupt until the middle of the 1970s. It is rather sad. This idealism does not allow for the fact that state governments have been – and always will be – abjectly corrupt. Take New Mexico (please). Look at Illinois. Do you want all 50 states doing the same thing – and appointing something like 63 Democratic Senators? (I think not).
The poor thing does not know the history of the corruption that went on when state legislators (and governors) appointed United States Senators. When appointments were made, bribes were made. Deals were cut, and corruption was the name of the game. One of the reasons behind the 17th Amendment was to end the abject corruption of the day.
Case in point: New Mexico in 1877 and Arizona in 1881. Because of the corruption of the state legislatures and appointed officials I give you the Lincoln County War and the Cochise County War. Many good men were killed. Fortunes were ruined. Lives were destroyed.
It was all about LOCAL political corruption.
Sorry, your argument about allowing state governments to run things doesn’t hold water. Didn’t do so for George Washington, either!
“…Yeah, a growing number of very reasonable people want to see the the 17th and 16th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution rescinded. The problem is that those two progressive amendments, in particular, have led to multiple abuses by the central government. A lot of us would also like to see amendments to the Constitution such as a balanced budget amendment and a term limits amendment.
Despite your ambivalence on the matter, amendments are themselves, by definition, changes so I’m not clear what your problem is with our desire of further changes–especially ones that are restorative in nature bringing our government back in line with original intent. We do love the Constitution but realistically recognize that there are certain improvements which could lead to a restoration of the document that is mostly ignored when it inconveniences the corrupt politicians (just ask Jim Clyburn if you do not believe me).
So yes, we love the Constitution and if it were actually strictly enforced according to the way it is currently written, we’d have few or no complaints. As things stand now, however, we will not naively pretend that it is being respected except in the basic building blocks of the governmental structure outlined there.
We want a LEGAL government. If improvements in the document making it stricter and more strictly interpreted and thereby returning power to the states and the people, respectively, were passed to make it once again the Supreme Law of the Land in practice as well as is written, then we all, if we respect the fundamental concepts, should be for those changes, prima facie. That is TRUE power to the people.
The Constitution itself, in contrast to the implication of your straw man argument, is not a sacred document. It is not unalterable and perfect in every respect. It is, in fact, designed to be changed if necessary, according to set procedure as deficits are recognized. Which changes are necessary or good, are another argument, however.
Right now, it is seen by people who truly respect the concept as being the best acknowledgment and best implementation of our inalienable rights–not in current PRACTICE distorted by the flagrant exemptions set forth by the Supreme Court but AS WRITTEN–or as it SHOULD BE implemented. We want to return it, generally speaking, to being implemented AS WRITTEN.
If your child needs an operation to remove a cancerous tumor, you still love your child but you don’t mind altering him to remove that cancer even though that would change the child you love forever.
There are deeper elements of humanity involved here that have existed before any law was ever written. You don’t seem to be in touch with that basic dignity we have as human beings that should always be acknowledged and respected by government. Those are the inalienable rights, such as equality under the law and consent of the governed, of which our Founding Fathers spoke. The Constitution ACKNOWLEDGES those liberties, it does NOT create them.
Essentially, everything you and others may complain about being perpetrated by the government of Obama/Soros (or George Bush, for that matter) is made possible by ignoring the Constitution. This is, in turn, enabled by Senators who are glorified representatives instead of representing the interests of the states from which they are elected (using, in Lindsey Graham’s case, earmarks of $305 million in taxpayer funds during FY2007 alone to get re-elected).
Originally the senators were chosen by the legislatures of the states (not appointed by the governors as you erroneously state). And, of course, the state legislatures are, in turn, elected by the people of the various areas of the state.
This was intended as a balance to the direct election of representatives in the other house. Once the progressives starting screwing up the Constitution around the turn of the 20th century, the real damage to our country began. Very few amendments have passed since then due to the Federal government simply ignoring the Constitution and making Federal law instead, even in clear-cut cases when the beginning of the Bill of Rights, states, “Congress shall make no law . . . ”
And yes, there was and would be, corruption at the state level as well but would you not rather have such matters at the state level vs. the federal level? In almost all cases, the closer the governance, the easier it is to monitor for and expose corruption.
We can’t control the U.S. Senators right now and they have access to ungodly amounts of OUR money on which to get re-elected. If everyone paid proper attention, we might not have a problem there but again, corruption and voter apathy combine to destroy our system of government.
I’d rather have U.S. Senators under a tighter leash and subject to actually representing their states vs. the current situation. One side-benefit a lot of people don’t think about is that by returning to the original method of legislatively appointing U.S. Senators we’d have 100 fewer Federal seats having huge amounts of money being spent on them(where there is no corruption at least). More time and money and attention could therefore be spent on local races and local governance.
And, of course, the 16th Amendment is what funds all the corruption. The numbers of IRS abuses under any administration are legion so I won’t spend time discussing those.
As for the 14th Amendment, I’ve never had any problem with it–in and of itself and what it does according to the letter of the law which is very limited and narrow in scope. I, and many, many others only complain about the activist interpretation of it known as “incorporation” which has been used to make the Federal government the sole arbiter of what is and is not permitted under the Constitution, flagrantly violating our most basic inalienable rights in many cases.
Enforcing the availability of abortion in the states is just one example of such abuse. But then, if you never really want to do anything about an abusive Supreme Court as a member of the Republican Party, just keep your blinders on as you’ve been doing so far. As those around you wake up to see what is going on, they’re just going to laugh all the harder at your statements and unsustainable belief system….”