In Defense of American Exceptionalism

For the past 200 plus years, America has been 'the shining city on the hill', the beacon of hope and freedom for the entire world. Millions have immigrated here to take a hold of the great American dream. Sadly, the current occupant of 1450 Pennsylvania Ave SE and his administration are doing everything they can to change this. If you listen to Obama, we are just another nation of the world, nothing more special or promising than the likes of Egypt, North Korea, or Libya. One of the best articles I've read regarding Obama's belief in this was written by John Bolton. Here is a telling quote from that article:

"The reporter asked about his unwillingness to discuss American exceptionalism--the notion that the United States has a unique mission, that it's "a shining city on a hill" as Ronald Reagan liked to say (echoing our pilgrim fathers). Mr. Obama responded that he believes in American exceptionalism in the same way that the British believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. Given that there are 192 member countries in the United Nations, I'm sure he could have gone on naming another 189 that believe in their own exceptionalism. But in any case, the idea that all countries believe themselves to be exceptional in the same way leads to the unmistakable conclusion that none are truly exceptional. In other words, the president's response reflects his belief that America is not so different from other countries.

Mr. Obama's supporters in the mainstream media share this view. Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, for example, delivered this revealing comment when previewing the president's speech on the anniversary of D-Day last June:

Reagan was all about America . . . . Obama is 'we are above that now.' We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something--I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above--above the world. He's sort of God."
(Entire article HERE)

Bolton's article furthers how this line of thinking has influenced Obama's foreign policy. Quite frankly, Obama has been a miserable failure in dealing with the countries that are just as exceptional as us, that are not so different than us. Well, aside from the fact that North Korea and Iran would like nothing more than to weaponize their nuclear capabilities and use them to blast us into oblivion. Or how about that women all around the world in muslim countries have limited or almost non-existent freedoms and liberties. They are, after all, worth less than a man, more akin to livestock. Yes, we are truly nothing exceptional or unique in this world.

Last week while visiting DC again I had the chance to visit the National Museum of American History. One of the displays is The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden. One of the interactive displays allows you to choose what you feel is the most important quality or thing that the President should do/have. The choices ranged from strong national leader, the economy, to a strong world leader (or something to that effect.) My selection was strong commander in chief. One of the very few responsibilities of the federal gov't should be a strong national defense. This is clearly something the Obama administration has no experience, knowledge, or plan for, except that is to say, we are no different than any other country in the world, so let's all sit down, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya My Lord together and find a solution for world peace.

Mr. Obama, YOU ARE WRONG!! We are exceptional. We are the people of The United States of America and we are going to show you just how exceptional we are when we force you and your Marxist commrades out of our government. OUR government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Clearly a concept you missed when getting your fancy Ivy League education. I am not an extremist, as you have labeled me. I am America. I am the heart land. I bleed red, white, and blue. I love my country and all that it stands for, even the crap I don't agree with, and that includes you. I love that I and millions like me across this great nation have the opportunity to stand up against you and your supporters to let you know, NO MORE.

A word on that document that you call "fundementally flawed", our constitution and how it relates to the health care atrocity you want to force upon us.

"The Constitution has 27 amendments, and 12 of those amendments came within the last century. One of those 12 amendments (#18) was repealed by a later amendment
(#21). If we once thought that we had to amend the Constitution to ban "intoxicating liquors" and later had to again amend the Constitution to re-legalize the stuff, wouldn't we need an amendment to allow the government to intrude even more intimately into our lives?

But the amendment process is arduous (the 27th Amendment took 203 years to ratify). And there's no guarantee the states will go along (the Equal Rights Amendment failed). So Congress goes its merry way, the Constitution be damned.

But now Congress is ramming through their abortion of a bill by the thinnest of majorities. The House just passed its version 220 to 215 -- a 3-vote margin to pass the "mother of all entitlements." The Senate is considering its options, among them the "nuclear option" (called "reconciliation"), which would allow them to get around a filibuster.

If Congress were to do the right thing and initiate an amendment to enshrine the "individual mandate" in the Constitution...it would fail miserably. If America is still America, Americans will not tolerate being told they have to buy something, especially if it's for no other reason than that they exist. If ObamaCare becomes law, folks will drop their insurance out of principle. They'll file suits against the feds. The states will resist, perhaps rebel. And great will be the tumult thereof."

I'm afraid Congress has not only misread the Constitution, but they've also misjudged the American people. Or maybe they just don't know what country they live in.(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/to_hell_with_the_constitution.html)

**and to my blogging friend who thinks the constitution is a living document...here are great quotes refuting that**
Beware of those who claim that the Constitution is a living instrument because they are seeking justification for its violation. They claim that it evolves or changes as the peoples' wants or needs change. They will call it outmoded, old-fashioned, antiquated, archaic, etc., trying to convince you that the Founders could not have foreseen the peoples' needs so long ago. These people will support Constitutional changes resulting from Amendments, Supreme Court decisions, Presidential Proclamations or Voter Referendums.

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted." "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

"Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter." Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

"If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right." Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.

"It is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon the legislation and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular government which otherwise would be lacking." Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412.

"The courts cannot rightly prefer, of the possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose." United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299.

"The constitution is an instrument from the people and a construction thereof should effectuate their purpose from the words employed in the document; and the courts may not color it by the addition of words or the ingrafting of their views as to how it should be written." Ervin v. Collins, Fla. 85 S. 852; 59 ALR 706.

"The basic purpose of a written constitution has a twofold aspect, first the securing to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined fields." DuPont v. DuPont, Sup. 32 Ded. Ch. 413; 85 A 2d 724.

"The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

"Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities, who are usually able to protect themselves, but rather to preserve and protect the rights of individuals and minorities against arbitrary action of those in authority." Houston County v. Martin, 232 A 1 511; 169 So. 13.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson.

"Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds." Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850).

"Our Bill of Rights curbs all three branches of government. It subjects all departments of government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go. It emphasizes that in this country man walks with dignity and without fear, that he need not grovel before an all powerful government." Justice William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.garymcleod.org/con-quot.htm


Time lapse of the 9-12 march on DC. Doesn't include the crowds of people who skipped the march and met up at the Capitol