Dear America,
it was a telling statement, an innocent, rambling thought that just spilled out for all the world to hear...if watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, that is. And no, it wasn't so much what Chris said, it was broad-casted from an all too familiar face sitting alongside him -- the constant and politically correct puppet of the Left, Juan Williams.
I will have to paraphrase it, unfortunately; for it hit me so hard over the head, it took a minute or two to find my balance or a pen. But it went something like this -- oh, and the subject that set it off? Gay Marriage -- so here ya go: 'you can't say in one state you can and in another you can't.'
Oh Juan. juan, juan, juan, juan juan.
Have you no recollection of the most acute semblance of common sense thrust upon mankind since the discovery the world was round? Have you no shame, man? Oh how far we have fallen from the vision and foresight of our founders...The level of sensitivity and prudence for every living breathing detail of our lives was carefully thought out and outlined for posterity and beyond -- and pretty much left intact and untouchable -- and what have we done? We've unraveled nearly every bloody thread. poof! our republic was here just a minute ago...
Ya see, this is why we never should have messed with the Senate chamber -- turning over direct control of the election process of a State's representative body to the people. Who's great idea was that? [purely rhetorical; many thanks to the progressives hellbent on achieving fundamental transformation, early 20th century style...and basically upending the checks and balances of the federal government, while losing all representation of the sovereignty of the state, just like that...geesh.]
The whole idea back behind the U.S. Senate -- originally a decision delegated to the individual state legislature, and not through the process of the popular vote -- was to elect representatives fully committed to the interests of the state. The House of Representatives was intended to be the voice of the people; the Senate, the voice of the State; with the President being in full control of the limited voice of the federal government. The Judicial branch then wraps it all up in a tidy little bow.
Enter the Seventeenth Amendment. Thus, we arrive at the day cementing the loss of State Sovereignty; thus, the detached body previously only interested in the interests of the state, is decidedly decimated. poof!
And from here on out...America has never been the same. All things usurping the interests of the state became vogue. It was a new day, a new deal, donning new threads, and all re-imaging and re-imagining the power of the federal government. Vanished into thin air -- boundaries.
But back to the fool rushing in to make her review of the comment expressly produced by Juan...
The original thought anchoring our Republic was centered upon maintaining a real, true balance in between branches -- with no aspect of government superseding the other. Here is Alexander Hamilton:
The thing is, what is so wrong with states keeping a certain allegiance to what the will of it's people really, really want? Whether with regard to it's natural resources, it's people, it's ability to produce and trade it's share of goods and services -- it's stance on social/cultural beliefs -- why not, why can't the state have the power to demonstrate and define the things of importance and relevance? Or why have state lines at all? [oh you laugh...]
Proven by the electorate time and time again, a majority of states are not ready for same-sex marriage.
More important, states have rights, too.
Don't we already do that with each state deciding it's own tax code? Isn't giving total freedom and jurisdiction over federal law -- as in giving states like Washington and Colorado the authority to sell an illegal substance, like pot, like candy at the Five and Dime -- exemplifying such an idea? Haven't we gone through enough with the fight to keep our Right to Work states?
Matter of fact -- originally -- according to the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People." At first blush, that would have worked out well, no?
It was James Madison who gave us great clarification on such, saying:
But Juan, allow me to get to the real thing clamoring for attention. It comes from an American historian, John Fiske; but prepare yourself, for it's quite stunning -- it may just blind you for a moment [and for avid readers of G...I beg of you, please don't shun me for the season over season repeat...how garish, gaudy and gauche is that, right?]
Well, I'll be...we've plum been there and done der that, haven't we now? [guessing we can take the country girl to the city but we can't take the hillbilly out of the girl.]
We've been robbed. We've been robbed of our most interesting and valuable features. Oh woe is me, what is to come of us now?
Me thinks I need a piece of fluff to read -- you know, to get my mind off all the stupidity of man (as in man in the general, not necessarily in the particular). Anywho, having just recently watched the modern adaptation of the Clare Boothe Luce book, The Women -- I'm hungering to read it from the genuine article. Consider it on the official Christmas list -- currently making that little item wish number eight, if keeping tabs. [ While crazy is as crazy does, this wish might actually be a doable and durable good for us all to get our hands on...you, too, can buy it here]
Now talk about a woman ahead of her time -- scratch that -- making her own time...in fame, politics, talent, industry, and all with an overwhelming sense of knowing herself. It might just lead me to a double header for the wish list for one day -- enjoying the company of this woman over dinner. [I know, I know -- maybe in heaven we can get together once or twice...] An ambassador and congresswoman for the ages; don't we just love how conservative women just do it already, no fanfare required, as I undress and digress all at the same time.
That's it then, Juan. It's all I have to say to you this morning.... Mr. all-about-town-and-totally unaware-you're-wearing-your-country-inside-out. [maybe it's not your fault...perhaps you're just throwing it on without thinking for yourself. It's a fad! Hopefully, it will pass]
Make it a Good Day, G
oh this is rich. from yahoo! news today..."59 is the Age women should stop wearing red lipstick..." get a load of this comment from 'Franky": "After a certain age - women don't give a flying f-k what others think they should wear" -- it got 4258 thumbs up at last count (63 thumbs down). I love my country!
it was a telling statement, an innocent, rambling thought that just spilled out for all the world to hear...if watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, that is. And no, it wasn't so much what Chris said, it was broad-casted from an all too familiar face sitting alongside him -- the constant and politically correct puppet of the Left, Juan Williams.
I will have to paraphrase it, unfortunately; for it hit me so hard over the head, it took a minute or two to find my balance or a pen. But it went something like this -- oh, and the subject that set it off? Gay Marriage -- so here ya go: 'you can't say in one state you can and in another you can't.'
Oh Juan. juan, juan, juan, juan juan.
Have you no recollection of the most acute semblance of common sense thrust upon mankind since the discovery the world was round? Have you no shame, man? Oh how far we have fallen from the vision and foresight of our founders...The level of sensitivity and prudence for every living breathing detail of our lives was carefully thought out and outlined for posterity and beyond -- and pretty much left intact and untouchable -- and what have we done? We've unraveled nearly every bloody thread. poof! our republic was here just a minute ago...
Ya see, this is why we never should have messed with the Senate chamber -- turning over direct control of the election process of a State's representative body to the people. Who's great idea was that? [purely rhetorical; many thanks to the progressives hellbent on achieving fundamental transformation, early 20th century style...and basically upending the checks and balances of the federal government, while losing all representation of the sovereignty of the state, just like that...geesh.]
The whole idea back behind the U.S. Senate -- originally a decision delegated to the individual state legislature, and not through the process of the popular vote -- was to elect representatives fully committed to the interests of the state. The House of Representatives was intended to be the voice of the people; the Senate, the voice of the State; with the President being in full control of the limited voice of the federal government. The Judicial branch then wraps it all up in a tidy little bow.
Enter the Seventeenth Amendment. Thus, we arrive at the day cementing the loss of State Sovereignty; thus, the detached body previously only interested in the interests of the state, is decidedly decimated. poof!
And from here on out...America has never been the same. All things usurping the interests of the state became vogue. It was a new day, a new deal, donning new threads, and all re-imaging and re-imagining the power of the federal government. Vanished into thin air -- boundaries.
But back to the fool rushing in to make her review of the comment expressly produced by Juan...
The original thought anchoring our Republic was centered upon maintaining a real, true balance in between branches -- with no aspect of government superseding the other. Here is Alexander Hamilton:
"This balance between the national and state governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits, by certain rival-ship which will ever subsist between them."
The thing is, what is so wrong with states keeping a certain allegiance to what the will of it's people really, really want? Whether with regard to it's natural resources, it's people, it's ability to produce and trade it's share of goods and services -- it's stance on social/cultural beliefs -- why not, why can't the state have the power to demonstrate and define the things of importance and relevance? Or why have state lines at all? [oh you laugh...]
Proven by the electorate time and time again, a majority of states are not ready for same-sex marriage.
More important, states have rights, too.
Don't we already do that with each state deciding it's own tax code? Isn't giving total freedom and jurisdiction over federal law -- as in giving states like Washington and Colorado the authority to sell an illegal substance, like pot, like candy at the Five and Dime -- exemplifying such an idea? Haven't we gone through enough with the fight to keep our Right to Work states?
Matter of fact -- originally -- according to the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People." At first blush, that would have worked out well, no?
It was James Madison who gave us great clarification on such, saying:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former [federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce...The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary, course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." Federalist Papers, No. 45, pp 292-93 -- pulling the quotes from both Hamilton and Madison from The 5000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen.
But Juan, allow me to get to the real thing clamoring for attention. It comes from an American historian, John Fiske; but prepare yourself, for it's quite stunning -- it may just blind you for a moment [and for avid readers of G...I beg of you, please don't shun me for the season over season repeat...how garish, gaudy and gauche is that, right?]
"If the day should ever arrive (which God forbid!) when the people of the different parts of our country shall allow their local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington, and when the self-government of the states shall have been so far lost as that of the departments of France, or even so closely limited as that of the counties of England -- on that day the political career of the American people will have been robbed of its most interesting and valuable features, and the usefulness of this nation will be lamentably impaired."
Well, I'll be...we've plum been there and done der that, haven't we now? [guessing we can take the country girl to the city but we can't take the hillbilly out of the girl.]
We've been robbed. We've been robbed of our most interesting and valuable features. Oh woe is me, what is to come of us now?
Me thinks I need a piece of fluff to read -- you know, to get my mind off all the stupidity of man (as in man in the general, not necessarily in the particular). Anywho, having just recently watched the modern adaptation of the Clare Boothe Luce book, The Women -- I'm hungering to read it from the genuine article. Consider it on the official Christmas list -- currently making that little item wish number eight, if keeping tabs. [ While crazy is as crazy does, this wish might actually be a doable and durable good for us all to get our hands on...you, too, can buy it here]
Now talk about a woman ahead of her time -- scratch that -- making her own time...in fame, politics, talent, industry, and all with an overwhelming sense of knowing herself. It might just lead me to a double header for the wish list for one day -- enjoying the company of this woman over dinner. [I know, I know -- maybe in heaven we can get together once or twice...] An ambassador and congresswoman for the ages; don't we just love how conservative women just do it already, no fanfare required, as I undress and digress all at the same time.
That's it then, Juan. It's all I have to say to you this morning.... Mr. all-about-town-and-totally unaware-you're-wearing-your-country-inside-out. [maybe it's not your fault...perhaps you're just throwing it on without thinking for yourself. It's a fad! Hopefully, it will pass]
Make it a Good Day, G
oh this is rich. from yahoo! news today..."59 is the Age women should stop wearing red lipstick..." get a load of this comment from 'Franky": "After a certain age - women don't give a flying f-k what others think they should wear" -- it got 4258 thumbs up at last count (63 thumbs down). I love my country!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment