Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman & Constitutionalism

Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman & Constitutionalism
By: Margo Diann Nissley-Abshier, ND
06/16/2011

To: John
From: Margo
Re: Michell Bachmann debate

If you didn’t hear the debate, here is the link to access it. Bachmann is very much a Constitutionalist. No, in my opinion, Paul is not the “closer to perfection” candidate on the Constitution. I definitely believe that Bachmann and Santorum match my concept of Constitutional proponents better than Paul. From what you have sent us, libertarians don’t believe in the Constitution anyway. Haven’t you said that no one has a right to impose the Constitution on current generations? Either law is based on God’s law, or law is based on capricious and arbitrary humans who change opinions like the wind, or from generation to generation, as libertarians prefer. That doesn’t promote free markets, it makes them unstable and unable to grow consistently. That’s why the Constitution is relevant today, because it stands upon Biblical principles, based on God’s laws as per Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, the major text for law used in the USA from 1769 until about 1900. More than any other source, the Bible was quoted in Founding documents; comprising 34% of the quotes. The next most quoted source (8.3%) was Baron Montesquieu who said: “Society, not withstanding all its revolutions, must repose on principles that do not change…The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would without doubt have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these, next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive.” The next most quoted source was Blackstone’s; 7.9% of the quotes.

On June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote: The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite… And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity…Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.

Margo

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/2764

To: John
From: Dr Margo
Re: Patriot Act & Michele Bachmann

Here are also some poll results. I am not convinced that every part of the Patriot Act is bad. I am not looking for perfection, but Michele is the best candidate on issues I have seen in my lifetime.

Margo

From: Dr Margo
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:31 AM
To: JohnSubject: Ron Paul – why I don’t like him at all

First of all, Ron Paul’s stance on Israel and liberal jargon about Israel being “occupiers,” as well as calling our troops “occupiers” is unacceptable. He voted with Pelosi to not extend the Bush tax cuts. He refused to support a resolution against North Korea for its unprovoked attack of South Korea. He supports the treasonous Wikileaks outfit, that has jeopardized the lives and safety of our military, our intelligence community and informants. He has also indicated on several occasions that he is a 9/11 “truther” although he has also denied that position (flip flop depending on his audience). Most of his “supporters” at CPAC were also “truthers.” He has opposed the marriage protection amendment, he has voted against pro-life legislation, he has voted against the use of military tribunals, a legal remedy utilized since the beginning of our nation. How is that stance “Constitutional?” Ron Paul has denied publicly that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Not only that, they are shipping weapons to Hugo Chavez to use against us. He has voted against some reasonable security measures. Ron Paul has also voted with the Democrats against sanctions on Iran. Communist Dennis Kucinich says that he and Ron Paul “agree tremendously on international policy.” He even opposed a resolution against Sudan for its genocidal actions against its own people. He wants to end the embargo of Cuba. I do agree with many of Ron Paul’s positions, but his really unpredictable actions over the years and his flip flops between his professed positions and how he votes means I can’t support him as a presidential candidate. I just see the man as a wild card that is out of control and not worthy of much trust. I like his son Rand Paul better and would probably support him as a presidential candidate. But, this election cycle I will probably support someone more steadily conservative.

I prefer Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum. I also want someone who will close the border and support e-verify requirements and will prosecute illegal aliens and deport them, as they are identified. According to Numbers USA, Michele Bachmann rates the best on the border. We also need godly people in the White House, and Bachmann fits that category too.

To me, libertarianism is best described as “anarcho-capitalism.” The USA is actually based on Judeo-Christian principles and “free markets” and godly, Biblical morality, and “lex rex” = “law is king” and “no King but King Jesus.” That is what makes America work and made it so prosperous in the past. Immorality is tearing it apart. Libertarianism believes that no one has a right to enforce morality in society. And, it has become clear to me, if godly, Biblical morality is not upheld in the public square, that the immoral among us will overrun the moral and will legislate and require “immorality” as the social norm. All law is legislated morality. Someone’s morality will prevail in a culture, and if it isn’t God’s law, it will be Satan’s laws of repression, lies, slander, theft, and murder. Slouching Toward Gomorrah, by Robert Bork is a good book describing what has happened to our nation, and explains why the liberal media so viciously slandered and lied about this precious man to keep him off the Supreme Court. Other books that illustrate how modern, scientific, intelligent Germany was taken captive by the homosexual Nazi’s. The liberals and progressives and Obama are no different in promoting sexual immorality. But that is part of the Communist plan, to degrade us morally as a nation to destroy us from within.

http://agendadocumentary.com/
http://www.eaec.org/bookstore/books/the_poisoned_stream.htm
http://www.eaec.org/bookstore/books/the_pink_swastika.htm

Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

Margo

To: Dr Margo
From: John
Re: Bachman & Constitutionalism vs Libertarianism

I agree with a lot of what you said here, but all your points start a different discussion, albeit interesting.

As part of this sidebar, I agree with Biblical values in society. But if a society uses a Constitution, shouldn’t the Constitution as a contract be interpreted precisely? It’s a document of limited powers. Aren’t any Conservatives who are not careful about strict interpretation playing just as loose as the liberals who believe in a “living document”?

– John
‹(•¿•)›

From: John & Margo
To: ‘Dr Margo’ & John
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:14 PM
Subject: RE: Ron Paul – why I don’t like him at all

John: If it ain’t in the constitution, it ain’t legal! That’s all I can say!

Margo: I agree, and I think Bachmann would too. She can’t help what is being done now any more than Ron Paul can be held accountable for what the federal government has become. It will take time and effort and the right person in the White House to turn things around, and as Newt said, we also need to have majorities in both legislative houses.

John: All those foreign positions are great if somebody wants to pull out their own checkbook and write a check to mercenaries to fight whoever. But for the US Government to spend tax dollars on undeclared wars is totally unconstitutional.

Margo: I agree that Obama is in violation of the Constitution and the war powers act. Bush got Congressional approval before he went into both Afghanistan and Iraq.

John: What is the position of all these so-called Conservatives on the Federal Reserve? I never hear any of them speak out against it as forcefully as Ron Paul. Do you?

Margo: Again, the point is moot until we have a conservative in the White House and majorities in both houses. Democrats will fight an audit or ridding ourselves of the Fed. I don’t know anyone else’s position on this issue. Frankly, if we don’t deal with the border issue first, the fed won’t matter much. Bachmann is best on the border. Her moral stance on issues is also essential to leading the country back to Constitutionalism. Without morality, the Constitution is meaningless, so I disagree that that is a side issue.

John: I really don’t believe Ron Paul voted with Pelosi not to extend Bush tax cuts. You have said that before, and I know you believe it. But I wish you would send me a reference for that. I find it completely unbelievable because Ron Paul has the highest rating of anyone (anyone, including Bachmann) by the National Taxpayers Union for 30 years! He is consistently anti-tax and wants to abolish the IRS. Does Bachmann say she will abolish the IRS?

Margo: I have read this from several sources and I have no reason to disbelieve them.
John: To me it’s hands down unless I hear somebody else consistently uphold the Constitution and abolish the welfare/warfare state more consistently than Ron Paul. My support would go to anyone who advocates strict Constitutionality as well or better than Ron Paul.

Margo: I believe Bachmann is totally sold out to strict Constitutionalism, and would make conservative appointments to the bench, where the liberals have made most of their anti-Constitutional progress. Besides, since when are you in favor of a Constitution that was not approved personally by you and your “generation?” I thought you felt it was imposed on you and you didn’t approve of that.

John: It’s not really consistent to say taxes are bad for every agency EXCEPT the military. The last I checked, the military is a government agency like the others. The other government agencies (Education, etc.) are inefficient and corrupt, but the military is not? Isn’t that a bit inconsistent?

Margo: I have no idea what you are referring to here. I never said that. But, no, the only Constitutional purpose of the federal government was to protect the nation and for treaties and to settle squabbles between states. If taxes should be used for anything, it should be military defense of the nation and that includes our borders (national guard). Any other use for taxes, other than defense, international relations and state squabbles, should be eliminated.

John: To me, government is government. It is a monopoly. Any government department or agency is very easily woefully inefficient and corrupt. How does the military get a free pass?

Margo: “Government is a monopoly” is a meaningless non sequitur in a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution starts with “WE THE PEOPLE” in large caps. That’s like saying “We The People are a monopoly.” There is a difference between the USSR, PRC, and USA.  Are you are implying that all governments are bad government, and that there is a moral equivalency between Stalin, Hitler, Mao and the USA? Tyrant governments are a monopoly, since they make all the decisions at the top. Our Constitutional Republic has checks and balances between federal agencies (most of which could be eliminated) and the federal branches of legislative, executive and judicial.  There are more checks and balances between the Federal Government and the 50 states (which have the power of nullification).  With that much competition, how could our Constitutional Republic ever be defined as a monopoly?
Again, I never gave the military a free pass. We don’t need to keep defense spending high if we bring our soldiers home and close most or all of the overseas bases. I also think we should stop all foreign aid to everyone but Israel.  Israel doesn’t want our hand outs, they just want to borrow from us occasionally and pay us back.

John: This is the inconsistency I see in the other so-called Conservative candidates. Do they truly oppose “big government” or don’t they?

Margo: I think you are wrong about Bachmann and probably Palin. Rick Santorum made a statement in the debate about keeping bases open around the world. I think it is time to get our own house in order and get our troops home until our nation is again solvent. Until then, we don’t have any reason to be spreading ourselves so thin. We need to concentrate on our own security and getting rid of as many DC agencies as possible. Bachmann has already promised to eliminate the EPA and I believe her. Bachmann has promised she will do everything she can to eliminate all vestiges of Obamacare. But, we can only do so much at a time.  We have a lot to reverse that Obama has done. I doubt that Ron Paul would be able to get rid of the Fed and the IRS as easily as you assert.

John: I agree with you that all law is legislated morality. But is it a constitutional power or isn’t it? When it comes down to it, very little the government does today IS constitutional.

Margo: I agree with Bachmann, moral issues should be left to the states. But, the federal government has a stake in national morality and should encourage morality.  The federal government did so at the founding of the nation. The very Congress who passed the first amendment, also paid for missionaries and churches to be built to minister to the Indians. The Continental Congress also paid to have Bibles printed in this nation and distributed because they felt them essential to national security. The Founders believed that religion should be encouraged by the federal government. They did not believe that one sect should be favored over another, hence the prohibition against Congress making a law regarding the establishment of religion. Therefore, YES, it is Constitutional for the Federal government to encourage religion and morality.

President George Washington, in his Farewell Speech on September 19, 1796, said:
The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits, and political Principles…
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.

In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.

Let it simply be asked where is the security for prosperity, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in the Courts of Justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.

Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?… Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue?

Margo

John
‹(•¿•)›