There are two definitions of the word liberal. They cannot coexist. This article is about the Looney Leftist liberals.
1. a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. Often contrasted with conservative.
“are we dealing with a polarization between liberals and conservatives?” · “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the decision, joined by the court’s liberals”
2. a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
“classical liberals emphasized the right of the individual to make decisions, even if the results dismayed their neighbors or injured themselves”
LIBERAL DEBATE TACTICS
Liberal debate tactics are never logical.
- Liberals insist that rights come from government.
- Liberals insist that the Constitution, and even the purpose of government, can change.
- Liberals insist that the Supreme Court determines what the legislature intended.
- Liberals insist that word definitions can be changed.
- Liberals insist that facts and morals are opinions that can be changed. They insist that courts interpret the facts, law, and morals — and that only the most recent interpretation is valid.
- Liberals whine and complain that Government does not give them enough rights. Government does not protect them enough. Government does not keep them safe. Government does not exercise enough control over others.
Let’s examine each false premise:
Rights come from government.
We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Governments are instituted among men to secure rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government can only take away your rights. Government was created to help us protect our pre-existing Creator-endowed rights. To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Texas Supreme Court in Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 SW 944:
“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, … or even from the Constitution, but they exist inherently in every man, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution and restricted only to the extent they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”
Liberals will never lose an argument.
This is their spinning moral compass.
The Constitution, and even the purpose of government, can change.
Every officer of government has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the law that created government. Article five allows for amendments TO, never an amendment OF, the constitution that created their office. If any officer suggests an amendment TO what he swore to uphold, he has denied the legitimacy of his office. And, yes, I can explain away the 21st Amendment — see my essay The Constitution Does Not Change. Congressmen swear an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. They cannot use parliamentary procedure to agree to commit mutiny.
Every Law Dictionary will tell you that “expressum facit cessare tacitum, That which is expressed makes that which is implied to cease.” Where a law sets down plainly its whole meaning the court is prevented from making it mean what the court pleases.
Every Law Dictionary will tell you that The legislature cannot impose laws on words to change definitions. Legislatorum est viva vox, rebus et non verbis, legem imponere. The voice of legislators is a living voice, to impose laws on things and not on words.
The Supreme Court determines what the legislature intended.
Thomas Jefferson was there and he never believed such a thing. THE SUPREME COURT COULD NOT INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION.
Well after the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, which lawyers insist is the “proof” of judicial authority, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Mr. Jarvis dated September 25, 1820 to refute this emerging dangerous doctrine:
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. … their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible as the other functionaries are, to the selective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
Even the Supreme Court said that judges cannot interpret the constitution: Luther v. Borden 48 US 1 at page 52 (in the year 1849):
“But the other disputed points in making constitutions, depending often, as before shown, on policy, inclination, popular resolves, and popular will, and arising not in respect to private rights,-… but in relation to politics, they belong to politics, and they are settled by political tribunals, and are too dear to a people … for them ever to intrust their final decision, when disputed, to a class of men who are so far removed from them as the judiciary; a class, also, who might decide them erroneously as well as right, and if in the former way, the consequences might not be able to be averted except by a revolution, while a wrong decision by a political forum can often be peacefully corrected by new elections or instructions in a single month:”
Word definitions can be changed.
Every law dictionary will tell you:
There is power in words because “the generality of mankind is wholly and absolutely governed by words and names”. — Second sermon of Robert South, chaplain to King Charles the II.
The great reformer Martin Luther coined the term “mealy-mouthed” to describe those who are not direct in speech. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mealy-mouthed
Facts and morals are opinions that can be changed. They insist that courts interpret the facts, law, and morals — and only the most recent interpretation is valid.
They will even insist that contrary opinions are equally valid as Supreme Court opinions.
The doctrine of stare decisis was often ignored, as Justice William Rehnquist observed, “[N]o amount of repetition of historical errors can make the errors true.” 105 S.Ct. 2479, 2516 (1985).
You don’t even have to get your moral values from the Bible. Liberals will reject even the moral principles established by Roman Emperor Justinian. He reduced all law and all morals to three basic principles:
- Live honorably
- Harm no one
- Render to every man his due
Liberals complain that Government does not give them enough rights. Government does not protect them enough. Government does not keep them safe. Government does not exercise enough control over others.
The Declaration of Independence states that it is the Creator endowed unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that governments are instituted to secure. Liberals insist that the government does not create enough rights (as if civil servants are the Creator who endows rights).
Rights only come with responsibility. It is not a function of government to keep you safe.
Ben Franklin once wrote that:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
— Ben Franklin, November 11, 1755; Reply to the Governor. This is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the Statute of Liberty.
–Those who want safety will be safe only when everyone else is chained inside their cells. Liberty is the OPPOSITE of safety.
Liberals complain. This alone is enough to indict them for their crimes.
Every Law Dictionary will tell you “The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freedman to his original slavery” Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinam servitutem redigunt. That’s right. Complainers waive their rights. The Supreme Court in the Cruikshank case, 92 US 542 at 551:
“It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”
Government has no duty to keep you safe. Government was created to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity. Liberty is the opposite of safety. Those fleeing from Government settled the American West. They risked death from bears, wolf packs, rattlesnakes, scorpions and lawless men. And starvation, flooding, drought, dust bowls, tornadoes. They did not complain.
Freedom comes with responsibility. Responsibility to take care of yourself and your neighbors. The Webster’s Dictionary originally defined RELIGION as:
…the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men”
LIBERAL THINKING — Biblical Hints:
Liberal thinking is futile thinking. Romans 1:21-25 (NKJV)
because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man; …. who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. “
Romans 1:26-32 (NKJV)
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. … And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”
Then two verses later:
Romans 2:2 (NKJV) But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.
Yet you have a duty to engage liberals on some level. You may be their only inspiration to accept eternal salvation according to Second Timothy 2:25
Second Timothy 2:23 to 3:7- (NKJV):
“But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! … always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
Practice your debate. You cannot pin down a spinning moral compass. They will violate all logic to prove that morality is wrong. You will soon learn that there can be no debate with one who denies fundamentals. BUT don’t waste too much time casting pearls before swine. Every Law Dictionary will tell you that: Contra principia negantem non est disputandum. There can be no debate with one who denies fundamentals.
Thomas Jefferson had a good suggestion.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. For ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
The social justice people will not debate anyone who suggests we are created equal. Because they reject the Creator who created us equal. They reject those certain unalienable rights that are endowed by a Creator. They insist that rights only come from their collective.
You may also be interested in my essay The Social Compact Theory of Government
and my eBook The Citizen Cannot Complain