THE TWO QUESTIONS WE MUST ASK OURSELVES

This is a time for reflection, reflection on who we are and what we want to be.  We must ask ourselves just how much, if any, liberty we are willing to surrender.  We must ask ourselves if we will continue to allow our loyalty to a political party supersede our loyalty to our country and our constitution.  The first question would be a question mostly directed to those who would identify as conservative.  The second question would be mostly directed to those who would identify as liberal.  However, no matter how you identify, it will be worth your time to read the answer to both, because there are overlaps in these areas as there are in all areas.

Before I answer the above questions, let us examine the question of where the responsibility for the direction of any country lies.  The answer is different depending on the type of government that exists in that country. In a collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, dictatorship) society the responsibility for all actions lies in the hands of the government.  The role the people play is to serve that government and perform the duties assigned to the people by the government.  Conformity is required and demanded.  It is disloyal to question the policies of the government.

In an individualist society, the type of society upon which our nation was founded, the role of the people is exactly the opposite of the role in a collectivist society.  In the United States, it was designated that the people would be the sovereign and they would elect representatives to implement the will of the sovereign.  This meant that the people would be totally responsible for all decisions made by the government because they were the government.  Consequently, the people’s loyalty would have to lie not with a political party but with what they believed to be in the best interest of the country they ruled.  The people must keep themselves totally informed by researching all aspects of every situation and only casting informed votes.  Term limits for instance, were irrelevant because the people had complete authority over who their representative would be.  The failure of any representative was a direct condemnation of the people.  Conformity for the sake of conformity and not as a result as a well-researched and responsible conclusion would and should be considered as disloyal to the country the people ruled. 

With that background, let us look at the first question, how much of our liberties are we willing to surrender.  To answer that question, we first of all must answer the question, how much time and effort are we willing to give to understand the problem and the situation.  We must understand that to perform our duties the correct answer is not to give a tempered or acceptable answer, but what would be the best and most responsible answer, even if we are the only one with that answer.  We must have taken the time to understand why we were given the ultimate law of the land The Untied States Constitution.  We must understand the how and why others wish to change the Untied States Constitution.  We must understand what a natural right is, what is a Republic, what is loyalty to the United States Constitution and not a political party. 

There are of course several different ways of accomplishing the above.  The one I much prefer is to read many different books or articles about the same topic but with authors who have a different slant from the others.  I find it most beneficial to read biographies of the same person by different people.  It always astonishes me how much detail one author will ignore, and the other author will include.  The end however is arriving at a conclusion based on a much more complete picture.  I would liken this to the same thing as listening to a Sean Hannity as opposed to a Mark Levin.  During the years I listened to Hannity, I determined I could not learn anything because he always said the same thing and if he favored an individual politician, that politician could do no wrong.  I learned that Levin was just the opposite.  Not only did he invite people with differing views, but he allowed them to speak and listened to what they had to say.  Levin knows what he believes and why he believes it, but he is not dogmatic nor is he above questioning and differing the views of politicians he supports.  I find Levin to be an independent thinker and non-conformist while I find Hannity to be a loyalist and conformist.  This is not to pick on Hannity, but only to draw a contrast that is applicable to pundits on all sides of the political spectrum.  Yes, we individualists have as our supreme command to perform our duty as sovereign in the best manner we can which would mandate loyalty to nothing else but the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States.  We must understand that once a liberty protected by the constitution is surrendered, it is gone forever. 

George Washington clearly warned us about the danger that is the second question.  When we allow our loyalty to a political party to supersede our loyalty to our constitution, we can no longer identify as loyal Americans, but must identify as first and foremost loyal party members.  Today, those who would identify as Democrats are declaring themselves to be collectivists (Marxist, communists, socialists, progressives – all virtually the same).  The reason I can make this statement that many will call outlandish, is because the policies of the Democrat party of today follows the principles and policies of the collectivist and not of the Constitution of the United States.  When we research this very question, we learn that the collectivist movement believes in entitlements over natural rights, democracy (which is dictatorship by the majority) over a republic (which mandates rule of law and protection of rights for all).  The collectivist does not believe that government is the servant to the people, but that government is always supreme, and the people must be slaves of the state and conform to the dictates of the state.  It is not the right of the people to research and reach their own conclusion, but they must accept without question the policies put forth by their government which is the party. 

There are many current examples of this thinking.  Today, we who question the dictates of governors and mayors to surrender our liberty to assemble and our right to property, our businesses and our right to work, are called disloyal and alarmists.  Yet, we have strong and convincing evidence that at the very least the evidence must be discussed and considered that would dispute their claims that a complete surrender to government is disloyal.  This is not government by the people but total loyalty to a party.  This is conformity. 

We are also learning that the collectivist demands and requires double standards.  We were told by the collectivist party that the word of a woman should be believed without question when then Judge Kavanaugh was accused of some hideous acts.  No supporting proof was ever offered, yet the word of the women would be enough to prevent Judge Kavanaugh from becoming Justice Kavanaugh.  Today the presumed nominee for president of the collectivist party has been accused by a former employee of sexual misconduct.  We are being told that the women can not be believed unless there is irrefutable evidence.  This is in total violation of rule of law, a mandate under the United States Constitution.  Rule of law requires the same standards be applied to all regardless of whether they are a member of our political party or not. 

If your leanings are to the individualist side of the political spectrum, I challenge you to educate yourself, way above the limitation of bumper stickers and 30 second sound bites, so you can make wise and responsible decisions always giving your loyalty to the United States Constitution and above your loyalty to an individual or to a party.  If your leanings are to the collectivist side of the political spectrum, I challenge you to do an in-depth study of the collectivist philosophy, honestly questioning if it has ever produced the utopia you desire.  Then I challenge you to honestly question if it can ever produce the utopia you desire.  If your answer to the latter is yes, I encourage you to speak openly, honestly, and as informed as you possibly can for your beliefs.  If you will be open, honest, and informed, that means you will rise above the conformity to the collectivist party but express your individual beliefs, such as admitting your double standard if you do not belief that Biden deserves the same type of scrutiny Kavanaugh received.  If you will be that type of collectivist, you are critical to the continuation of the United States Constitution even though you do not support it.  Our founders were wise enough to understand that open, honest, and informed disagreement is a critical factor to the continuation of a free individualist society.