Nothing is Timeless

Wilder Publications recently added a disclaimer to its publication of the United States Constitution. It reads "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.  Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relationships have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.” Pretty harmless, eh?

Apparently not so. This seemingly harmless statement has created outrage among Conservatives. They claim the Constitution is timeless and flawless. But it is far from that. Times change, people change, values change. The American people need to ask themselves, is the Constitution appropriate for the freedoms desired today? Does "We the People" mean literally "We the People", or should it be taken in its original context as white men? Does the right to bear arms mean I can have a missile launcher in my backyard? While a question like that may seem silly, arms are arms, whether pistols or high-tech missiles. To quote Glenn Beck, "I'm just asking questions." Not to mention that Wilder Publications places this disclaimer on all works it publishes.

If Progressivism, a movement to reform the ills of society, is cancer, then what is Conservatism? It certainly can't be less harmful than cancer. After all, it is trying to hinder improvement. Conservatism is nothing short of a degenerative disease, peeling away at the opportunities for America to do what she does best: improve. It won't be long until India and China surpass the United States as the leading nations of the world if Conservatives continue to limit her.

I think the Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. It ensures me my liberties and my freedoms. But that doesn't mean that the Founding Fathers who created this document could foreshadow the modern world. This is why amendments are necessary. If you are going to challenge the validity of statements questioning the Constitution, you might as well ask why any amendments to the Constitution were necessary.

And quoting Lincoln as a preserver of the Constitution is quite ironic. He himself challenged the Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. But I guess its alright to omit a fact like that if it compromises your entire argument.

Habeas Corpus fact provided by M. Patrick Morgioni.

We the People

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - Preamble to the United States Constitution

The Constitution. The Supreme Law of the Land. Sometimes I wonder, is the America today the same as the Founding Fathers pictured it to be. Sure they could never have predicted the technologies of today, but would they have wanted this country to be ruled by the rich, the corporations, and mainly by one religious denomination?

It greatly upsets me when people claim the Constitution to be something it is not. It is not a protector of capitalism or free enterprise. Also, in no place does it prevent socialism. So when Jane Gilvary claims President Obama has " trampled and spat upon our Constitution" after socializing medicine, what is she trying to say?

Well, this only supports the hypocrisy Gilvary lives by. Claiming socialized medicine is against the Constitution is not an opinion or interpretation of the document, it completely contradicts what the Constitution states. When the Founding Fathers included "promote the general welfare" of the Union, I don't think they meant "promote the general welfare for only the middle and upper classes". They meant We the people, all of us, every single one of us. In fact, if any of them were alive today, they might denounce even Obama's plan. Obama's plan is barely socialistic, and a one plan system would be a better way to promote the general welfare.

Also, she is a close follower of Jesus and his teachings. Bible Quote Time:
"Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." - Mark 10:21
Jesus is obviously preached socialism and was anti-capitalist. So when you declare Obama is unjustly spreading the wealth, then go to Church and praise Jesus, you are engaging in some serious hypocrisy.

Gilvary also finds it important that Obama throws out first pitches in baseball like a little girl. I don't know how this makes him a bad president, but she seems to laud George W. Bush for his pitches. Too bad he was one of the worst Presidents in recent history. Also, Obama can ball. Like LeCarKobe Durant.

Lastly, Gilvary satirizes Joe Biden for claiming Health Care Reform is "a big fucking deal". I could make fun of Sarah Palin right here, but that would be too easy.