Defining America

I know that there are many who claim we must define both parties this election, what they stand for, and how they want to get there. I disagree, what we need to define is ourselves, and this republic. Once we have that in hand we can then understand what fits, and what does not fit, for America and it's posterity.

But let's take a little of both of these positions. Let's look at our constitution and how Obama's positions do, or do not, stand up to it. First let's understand that he, Obama, is not a liberal, he is a progressive, and stands by the tenets of that philosophy.

"To the American mind, the most formal connotation of the term progressive is the Progressive Movement, a period of reform that ranged from the late 1800s to the end of World War I. Unlike its predecessor, the Populist Party, Progressivism was not a movement of farmers or manual laborers. Its guiding lights were college-educated men who were consequently steeped in the post-Enlightenment collectivism that had taken hold of the universities both here and in Europe.

Among its apostles were “economists who adopted the ‘organic’ collectivism of the German historical school, sociologists and historians who interpreted Darwin according to the social ideas of Hegel (the ‘reform’ Darwinists), clergymen who interpreted Jesus according to the moral ideas of Kant (the Social Gospelers), single-taxers who followed Henry George, Utopians who followed Edward Bellamy ... ‘humanitarians’ who followed Comte ... pragmatists who followed William James and the early John Dewey.” (Peikoff)

The man who is now virtually synonymous with Progressivism, Herbert Croly (The Promise of American Life), was himself both the son of a noted proponent of Comtian positivism and the student of Harvard's Josiah Royce, a disciple of Hegel. All of these thinkers contributed to what would become the ethical foundation of the Progressive Movement: a contempt and loathing of "individualism" -- and its political expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution:"(Read article here)

We then need a definition, or summary, of the salient (meaningful) tenets of the USA Constitution and how it applies to this discussion, and for clarity of this comparison.

The Basic Principles (Read article here)
The Constitution is built upon the following six basic principles:

1. Popular Sovereignty
2. Limited Government
3. Separation of Powers
4. Checks and Balances
5. Judicial Review
6. Federalism

Let's look at the first of our list:

1. Popular Sovereignty

This means that government (any and all US governments, state level or federal) draw there powers from the people. In populist terms this could be described as "the will of the people". That the power of government can also be changed, disbanded, or amended by the people, as long as they do not violate the tenets of the US Constitution. The Constitution, which in and of itself, is an instrument for, by, and constructed by the aforementioned "people".

Notice this adherence to the principle of control and power given, controlled, and subservient to, the power of the people.

The Obama administration

Believes that government is the beginning of power. That what it governs is the people, their lives, their posterity, and their personal expressions in culture and social interactions. In other words, there is not even a nod to "individualism" or the prosperity of the people outside the control and dictates of government. This position is exactly what "progressives" want. We will look at the "why" of the progressive movement, and all it's adherents, at the end of this article.

2. Limited Government

"The principle of limited government is to say that the government is not all powerful. This definition is obvious through the word itself. However, limited government means more to say that the government can only govern what the people allow it to govern. Limited government makes sense because if the people are sovereign, then the government cannot be all powerful." (Ibid)

The Obama administration

Believes in the expansion of government, the antithesis of Limited Government, because with viewing government as a tool to further their/his own progressive power, limited government is not a consideration. And allowing people a true say, they may articulate something that stands opposed to their designs. And because their goal is to acquire absolute power, the sovereignty of the people must be marginalized and done away with. The progressive agenda always has a plan to circumvent the people.

3. Separation of Power

This is a regulating principle. It is designed to stop parties within the government, or those outside of the recognized institutions of such, from dictating an agenda, rather than policy. This gives the people the opportunity to right wrongs, address real needs, and to have government work to empower the individual and his/her needs to make the USA a viable republic. To give the government, through the people, to meet the needs it was designed for in the first place.

This means the Judicial Branch does not dictate to the Legislative Branch which does not dictate to the Executive Branch, ad infinitum. This mechanism is to eliminate the possibility of an oppressive government, but requiring the diverse branches to work together, or without consensus, to disarm the aforementioned oppression.

The Obama administration

What the Separation of Power is supposed to do, is exactly progressives want, the centralization of authority through the expansion of government power. When that can not be done directly, the the utilization of "czars" which are above the checks and balances that are in place, come into play.

"Advantages cited for the creation of czar type posts are the ability to go outside of formal channels and find creative solutions for ad hoc problems, the ability to involve a lot of government players in big issue decision-making, and the ability to get a huge bureaucracy moving in the right direction. Problems can occur with getting all the parties to work together and with managing competing power centers.   

At October 2009 hearings before the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, constitutional experts asserted that there was nothing wrong with presidents appointing independent advisors, as long as their authority was exerted in practical, not legal, terms. These experts said that the precedent for "czar"-like positions had been established with the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration." (Read Article here)

Modern usage of these "czars" has essentially put in place a government within the government, that is not subjected to the usual checks and balances afforded "recognize" positions in government. This makes it a useful tool for the subversion of the US government in general, and the constitution specifically.

4&5. Checks and Balances, Judicial Review

This is an extension of the purpose of the Separation of Power which was discussed before. This also applies to Judicial Review, which can be seen and interpreted as another means to regulate government. It is only necessary to know that in order for our government to work as framed, by our founders, is to not give a way for government not function in it's designated function, as a power solely rested in the hands of the people.

"For example, Congress has the power to make a law, but the President can veto it, or reject it. And in the case of a veto, Congress may override that veto with a 2/3 vote. Take another example, the President has the power to appoint federal judges, but the Senate must approve that appointment with a majority vote. The system of checks and balances ties all three branches together."(Ibid)

    Concerning Judicial Review:

"The power of judicial review is the power of the courts to determine whether or not the government has violated the laws of the Constitution. In other words, judicial review is the power to declare something unconstitutional, or against the constitution. The Supreme Court has used the power of judicial review in many cases throughout the nation." (Ibid)

So we see that our checks and balances are well defined. The apply to regulating government to be the exact mirror of the Constitution and it's precise intent for the people of the USA. The only way to circumvent it's implementation is to either redefine what the checks and balance are, or to use them to the exact opposite function that was the reason for their implementation in the first place.

The Obama administration

Here again we see what for progressives would be and impediment to their agenda of total control of the people through government. Again a decision to circumvent the law of the land to actually reverse the intent of such, which was in place to protect those selfsame people the government wants to misuse. How so on the issue of misuse?

By pursuing those very protections to do the exact opposite by illegal means. To be clear, the progressive agenda to be successful in America has to be illegal to gain control. We can see this in the lies and the rhetoric that the White House is engaging in. The reason I mention the entire Obama administration, is the fact this taking over of our "sovereign rights" can only occur through collusion, and not by the pervue of a single man or woman.

So we see infiltration of all three branches of government, and then the suborning of the media which has acted as a watchdog of government. So if you can pull off this offensive effectively, you will not only transform the government, but the nation as well. And this is the intent of this administration.

6. Federalism & Conclusion

"Whether you know it or not, the United States government is federal in form. There is a central government and there are smaller governments underneath it. This is called federalism. This concept came from the Framers' experiences and knowledge about government. They wanted to establish a central government, but also recognize the states and their power. The solution was federalism." (Ibid)

Conclusion

Keeping the structure of government is an effort to define when we look at what is supposed to be versus what it is, and keep the government from oppressing the people. Though this is the last leg of the full comprehension of our Constitution, there is no need to revisit, once again, the previous posits concerning the Obama administration. As we can see that there is no "traditional" party affiliation in this, but a fully realized determination to bring about the "progressive" agenda.

The Progressive Movement's well rehearsed points of engagement, and the doublespeak that seeks to draw false conclusions, is in and of itself masterful. But it is the "why" of all of this that is sinister, and dark, in it's effort to kill the effectiveness of this republic from what it is, and what it was supposed to be, from the founding of our nation to the present day. The collective greed of unprincipled men, and their minions, of which Obama is firmly one, is a disease that we need to cure, and not to allow to infect us ever again.

There are many in the hallways of government that understand what is transpiring before them. The only question is whether the process is far enough along that it can not be stopped. The Progressives (et al) are not about helping the people, but rather building an elite class. Overwhelmingly the vast majority are not in government, and since this is what the progressives desire to use for prosperity and affluence, then the majority will not be part of it. Nor do the progressives desire such.

However if you are the controlling entity, or entities, that dictate this mechanism of enslavement, then you will also be the one who benefits from it. It is still about power and greed. This is the basis for sin, and is the basis for the Progressive Movement. So what then can we determine by reasoned thought? That the Progressive Movement is sin, and those who champion it's apostasy to a free and prosperous people, are not only walking in that sin, but reveling in it.

God bless America