|Back to Back Issues Page|
Our definition of pro American goes considerably deeper than the dictionary.
October 26, 2009
Definition of Pro American.
Vic Biorseth, Monday, October 26, 2009
The dictionary definition of pro-American is to support the United States of America and her policies; very simple and straight forward. However, even a cursory glance at official government policy in the USA today shows a radical opposition to virtually everything the USA has historically stood for. Supporting current government policy says nothing about supporting the ideals and intentions of the founders and the framers, and the history of America up until now. And it says nothing about the American Constitution, the legal document that literally and legally defines the American government.
Our definition of pro American defends the American Constitution.
You have heard it said that we are a nation of laws, and not just of men.
America is nothing without her Constitution.
The very nature of the American nation is totally dependant upon a government constrained by, and a citizenry both liberated and constrained by, the Constitution of the United States of America. It is a limited government, a liberated citizenry, and a large, strictly private sphere of commerce and business activity that is beyond the reach of government that creates our unique American Exceptionalism. That is what our Constitution does. Or, perhaps more correctly, that is what our Constitution was designed and intended to do.
Open competition in the free market is what built the American nation and made her the greatest wealth producer, government revenue producer and world-feeder in history. Keeping government constrained within the limits set by the Constitution, and maintaining a reasonable private sphere of legitimate, legal and moral activity of free men beyond the reach of government is the pro-American approach.
When the Constitution is weakened or violated or ignored to the point that it no longer matters or makes any difference in American life, then, America will be no different than any other country, and there will be no point in being pro-American.
When American government interferes with or takes command of private business transactions, changes or violates terms of existing contracts, involves itself in commercial enterprises, wages, prices, profits, business decisions, loans, financing, interest rates, manufacturing, banking, insurance, or in any way orders or mandates any formerly private business activity, then America will have become just another dictatorship, and her Constitution will be nothing more than an interesting but dead historical document.
We will have become just another nation of men, and not of laws.
Our definition of pro American supports American moral norms.
Our private and public behavior as individuals and as a people, our civil law, even our Constitution, are dependent upon a common sense of right versus wrong. There always must be some clearly defined and broadly accepted basis for determining right from wrong before we can make even the simplest rule, let alone civil law. From household rules, to social etiquette, to civil laws and even State or Federal Constitutions, there must be some broadly recognized standard within the culture, or we can only make arbitrary and temporary rules that may be changed on a whim. A stable society needs a set of firm moral rules that are widely recognized and broadly accepted. Any distinct and recognizable social order needs some form of continuous tradition in order to continue to be a distinct and recognizable social order.
The complete absence of tradition and social rules of order is a definition of social chaos. The breakdown of tradition and social rules of order is the path to social chaos.
The moral code that underlies the American Constitution, the individual State Constitutions, American civil law at all levels and the private and public behavior of the vast majority of the American citizenry is the Judao-Chrisitan Ethos, which is born of the Judao-Christian Religion. At the root of this American national ethos lie the Ten Commandments.
The first three Commandments (four in the most common Protestant counting) define man’s relationship with God, or his religion. In American tradition these first Commandments cannot be enforced under civil law, nor should compliance with them ever be discouraged by civil law. Ecclesial law addresses only the concept of immortality of the soul, and civil law addresses only the concepts affecting the mortal or physical life of man. Ecclesial authority knows that it cannot drag any man, kicking and screaming against his will, into salvation, and it does not try to do so. Civil authority in America is prohibited by the Constitution from directing any man into any Church, and is prodded by common sense toward encouraging and enabling men to worship as they please.
The last seven Commandments (six in the most common Protestant counting) define man’s relationship with his fellow man, or his morality. These are the Commandments that under-gird all of civil law in America. The argument that we cannot legislate morality is completely bogus and false; that is what America has historically done, and that is precisely what is always needed to be done. Morality is exactly and precisely what must be legislated.
Almost definitively, social moral norms – morality – are divisive as opposed to inclusive, to use the currently popular political terms. Men will either live within and abide by the established and recognized social moral norms or they will not. To try and make a society’s morality all inclusive is to act to destroy that society’s morality. Destruction of a society’s morality necessarily means the destruction of that recognizable society.
From the birth of the American nation, America’s clearly recognized national Judao-Chrisitan morality lies at the root of American civil law and provides the foundation of the unique American culture.
Our definition of pro American supports the American Judao-Christian religion.
The primary impetus and motivational force that moves men to voluntarily embrace and adhere to the rules of American social morality involves the discernment of Divine Will, and the desire to accommodate that will. The believer seeks to please God. The only reason for the unbeliever to live within the social moral norm is to avoid disapproval of the larger culture. We all know that many unbelievers are unmoved by social acceptance. When a moral norm is considered strong enough to be backed by representative civil law, as in laws covering robbery or murder, for instance, the only real reason an atheist may choose to live within the rule of law involves fear of punishment under civil law itself, for the atheist has no fear of God.
The perceived need to encourage and strengthen the moral fiber of the American population in general puts the pro-American position on a collision course with the secularism movement that seeks to control, weaken or even eliminate religion and religious topics from all public discourse, despite our First Amendment guarantee of our freedom of religious exercise and expression. Secularism is an anti-Constitution and anti-American activity.
We have previously argued that the rather stupidly developed separation of Church and state “principle” is bogus and concocted, based solely on personal whim and on nothing whatsoever in the Constitution, and should be overruled at the first opportunity by whichever one of the three co-equal branches of government that has enough common sense and love of nation to do it.
The pro American position seeks to simplify and get back to basics. The anti American position always seeks to complexify and obfuscate, almost always with some ulterior motive. The false claim is that, absent the aforementioned “constitutional” principle, the government will order people into some Church or other. It’s a lie. It has never happened here, and is quite impossible. Just try to order, for instance, the Baptists into Catholic Churches, or the Lutherans into Methodist Churches, and see what happens next. Americans have never and will never stand for such a thing. Brutal dictatorship would have to be imposed first, with a totally cowed and subjugated populace.
Our definition of pro American supports the Rule of Subsidiarity.
If it isn’t in the Federal Constitution, then the Federal Government shouldn’t be doing it. If it isn’t in the State Constitution, then the State Government shouldn’t be doing it. The people most responsible for those things that most directly affect our daily lives should be the most accountable to us, and should face us regularly in our town halls, the public square, and in our neighborhoods. We have already spoken about Federal level involvement in such things as public education, national health care and similar things. How on earth did the Federal Government ever manage to create and grow such huge bureaucracies as HUD, just as one example? There is no constitutional mandate for federal involvement any housing or urban affairs outside of the District of Columbia. All of this giant, growing, hyper, super-government is super-expensive un-constitutional nonsense.
The Federal Government has no Constitutional business involving itself in such matters. Nor does it have any legitimate business legislating, regulating or otherwise seeking to change so much as the local weather, let alone the global climate. Perhaps someone in some other nation might not like whatever an American President commands the climate to do. Who is he to change the climate for everyone? These things are not only beyond the scope of our Constitution, they are beyond the scope of simple common sense.
The American Constitution is a thoughtfully argued, carefully crafted and cautiously amended legal document, written in English, that says very specific legal things. It describes the organization and operating rules for the governance of the United States of America. It establishes boundaries beyond which government may not go. It describes what government can do. This is another way of saying that it limits government action and government authority over the sovereign American citizen.
In limiting American government authority, our Constitution thereby defines American individual liberty.
Read it; it’s well worth the time and effort.
Our definition of pro American is divisive as opposed to inclusive.
To use the popular political campaign jargon of today, the Republicans practice the politics of division, and the Democrats practice the politics of inclusion. I submit that this terminology is only truthful regarding those Republicans who are truly pro American, and those Democrats who are truly anti American. The pro American position is divisive at just about every available level.
Religion is, of its nature, divisive. Moral codes, traditions and social norms are, of their nature, divisive. Politics are, almost definitively, divisive. If everyone agreed on everything there would be no such thing as politics and no need for any political activity of any kind.
What kind of an American citizen are you? Divisive, or all inclusive?
Take a stand.
Respond to this article at the link below :
This article and comments may be found on the web site at the link below:
|Back to Back Issues Page|