Our Constitution or Hope and Change

The upcoming General Election including the Presidential and Congressional Elections are not just about personalities and policies. It is more about the process of governance as we pass the political torch onto the next generations. Republicans of all stripes have shown an allegiance to our Constitution, to our Courts—no matter how much they have been politicized, and to our Founding Principles. Progressive Democrats on the other hand have shown a suspicious disdain for our Constitution, our system of justice, and most importantly for at least 50% of WE THE PEOPLE—who they are comfortable identifying as deplorables. Mrs. Clinton doubled down on that idea last week.

Raul Labrador our Idaho Attorney General on the Kevin Miller Show this AM defined the choice perfectly between those believing in our Constitution and our Founding Principles and those who want “hope and change”. Not only is our Constitution unique in its words, but it is also unique as an inspirational symbol that proceeds and is the bases of our Civil Rule and order. In other countries they still sing and swear an oath to The King or “The Homeland”. We in the United States Swear an Oath to the ideas that are incorporated in our Great Mission Statement—Our Great Declaration, and the document that incorporates those ideas into Statutes, Civil Codes and Laws—our Great Constitution.

In my opinion, this all started with the infiltration at the highest levels of our government—particularly our military and our Department of Justice by individuals who do not share an understanding or a belief in not only those documents and symbols, but in the moral pillars and predicates that underlie the words and thoughts that our Founding Fathers gave to us to guide into “perpetuity”.

Ayan Rand in ATLAS SHRUGGED—published in 1957, paints a very familiar picture for us to think about in our country today, in the form of political allegory.

In Atlas Shrugged, New York City is a symbol of decline in our society:

“As the government becomes more powerful and intrusive, society begins to crumble. The decaying buildings and streets represent the decay of the individual spirit and the loss of freedom. The city is a warning of what can happen when government becomes too powerful, and individuals lose their ability to control their own lives”(and their futures) jl.

In the novel Dagny Taggert is the main protagonist. She is a strong independent woman who is not afraid to take economic and personal risks. She runs a successful Transcontinental Railroad. She competes with great success in a male dominant world. She is torn regarding her own affections between two men—John Gault (an inventor and entrepreneur), and Hank Reardon a selfish mercantilist, who late in the novel undergoes a moral epiphany realizing that money and the trappings of celebrity are “false gods”.

In the novel the question is implied: What is more important—”things or ideas”. John Gualt by his example gives us the answer—IDEAS PROCEED THINGS. There cannot be things without ideas. Societies that thrive and improve over generations are the societies that facilitate the creation of ideas that later produce things.

Ideas then needs to be tested, and genius becomes part of the process with the “design of the test”. The testing is the bridge between a hypothesis and production, and only then can there be a capital return on the “idea”. In the case of the progressives, as was recently pointed out to me by a new friend—the majority of those in academia and those working in government who support the liberal progressive agenda and Kamala-Walz, are rich in ideas. In those same circles in the academic disciplines of the basic sciences—chemistry and physics, and in the engineering sciences, the majority of individuals are conservative. These are the very people who “design the tests” that bridge the gap between the idea and the final product. These are the cream that rises to the top in capitalistic economic systems that embrace classical liberal ideas of “liberty” and individual free will. This is precisely the difference that J. D. Vance talked about when he said, “you have had 3 ½ years to produce results with your ideas and you have nothing to show for it”. Ideas and theories mean nothing unless they are tested and implemented. The ideas of the liberal progressive agenda have been tested for over 160 years and they don’t work. There have been over 200 million people who have died under Marxism by starvation and another 200million who have been made political prisoners under Marxist—Fascist regimes. There have been over 400million lives lost (counting civilian casualties) fighting those regimes. Socialism-Marxism as an economic experiment always fails. Communism as a political philosophy and economic system—an idea that has been tested many times, has always in every case over a short period of time, failed.

Ayan Rand again paints a great picture for us in Atlas Shrugged when she writes about Dagney’s brother James—an entitled “leach” who is the titular head of the company that Dagney runs. “He is a symbol of the parasitic nature of those who rely on the achievements of others without contributing anything of value themselves. James’ downfall is a warning about the dangers of collectivism and the importance of individual achievement.” Many living today in elite environs (places and conditions) are the recipients of the ideas and production of those who came before them. They lack not only an understanding of the processes that created their own wealth and positions, but also the work and labor that was needed to make ideas become realities.

Donald Trump could have lived the life of an “entitled leach”. He chose instead to be the “tester and builder” of ideas and the dreams of his father. He took risks and sometimes failed knowing “there is no effort without failure”—Teddy Roosevelt. He was very much like Dagney Taggert. Kamala Harris came from a similar elite background of privilege, and she has subsisted on her positions of privilege and wealth—very much like James Taggert.

Ayan Rand was a libertarian atheist. I am a Conservative Christian. We differ on one very important point. She emphasizes in her philosophy “individualism, reason and capitalism”. She differs from me in incorporating a most important Natural Law Principle—A Law as Judge Scalia informed us “that is imprinted in the hearts of all men based on the faculties of reason and revelation”—a quote that can almost word for word be attributed to St. Thomas. This is an important distinction for me because it places the individual in a position of “trustee and holding dominion” over one’s possessions. Rudyard Kipling says it perfectly in his poem Recessional:

“God of our Fathers, Known of Old

Lord of the far-flung battle line,

Beneath whose awful hand we hold,

Dominion over palm and pine” RK

Dominion carries the same property right as ownership. It also carries with it the added civic responsibility of stewardship. Holding in trust for those who come after us.

The upcoming Presidential election couldn’t be clearer.

For those using the excuse of personality—”Donald Trump is a bully or a cad”, then think about this simple fact:

The vote in November won’t be between DJT and Kamala.

The vote for us should be between continuing on a political course based on The Natural Law and Our Founding Principles Our Constitution—or, those who want to throw out our Great Constitution (words and symbol), pack the Supreme Court, end the Senate Filibuster, keep our border open, and allow our military to evolve into impotency, allow non-citizens to vote; and start over again based on their own humanistic gnostic ideas of morality and justice.