Kate Troll tells us (Opinion column, July 1, 2012) the problem with our democracy is that ultra-conservatives have hijacked the Republican Party. She quotes a couple of “non-partisan congressional scholars” to support her claim that our democracy is being endangered by extreme politics. Of course, the guilty are the conservatives. I support limited government, fiscal responsibility and private property rights. On the social issues I support the right to life of children in the womb and marriage as the union between one man and one woman. I also have faith in God and believe in the power of prayer. That should be enough to meet the “extreme” label.
It is disingenuous to lay the blame for a dysfunctional government on a hijacked Republican Party without mention of the control of the Democrat Party by the ultra-left. Liberalism has permeated our society in varying degrees for many years. It is the primary source of the terrible cultural and moral decay we see in our society today with attacks on our Judeo-Christian heritage from every direction. Most liberals find a home in the Democratic Party which defends and supports abortion on demand and same sex marriage. Attacks on the family ultimately are attacks on our society because without strong families we are in trouble.
Troll writes that the most ominous threat to our democracy in her judgment is that the Republican Party is dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. I suggest she listen carefully to the pronouncements of Democrat Party leaders and the President himself. We now have a Saul Alinsky community organizer in the White House where the policy is to agitate and promote class warfare.
I agree with Troll that our democracy is in trouble, but for different reasons. The Obama Administration is characterized by reckless and irresponsible spending. Republicans have been guilty as well but nothing compared to the present administration. Also, the Obama Administration has shown us the fragile nature of our freedoms with executive orders and lawless policies that are harmful to our democracy
The best way to protect our democracy is to honor the limitations placed on the federal government by our constitution. Failure to do so gives the government more power over our lives, which results in a loss of individual freedom. Maintaining our freedoms requires constant vigilance to protect our country from politicians buying votes with government largess and turning us into a socialist welfare state.
Sid Heidersdorf
Juneau
Comments (35)
Add commentFranken-federalism is on the menu...
It's quite a mouthful: Let's loathe the US Govt. while simultaneously worshipping states' rights (to the power of fifty) and sell this to voters as a steaming Panglossian casserole that pairs well with a glass of special reserve vintage 1950 Kool-Aid.
Mike
@Arcicle
@Sid You are looking at the subject from a Right Wing Conservative Christian point of view. You are Not looking it from a point of view that is for the betterment on our country. You and your Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist view will do nothing but destroy and make a farce out of the Constitutional rights of each and every one of us living in this great nation!
Let me get this
Let me get this straight...Charlie Sheen can make a "porn family", Kelsey Grammer can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods had sex with EVERYONE while married, But it is gay marriage that is going to destroy the institute of marriage? Come on!!!
Laughable!
This letter was so ridiculously laughable, I barely made it through it! FYI - I'm an Independent.
Just one example - "The best way to protect our democracy is to honor the limitations placed on the federal government by our constitution. Failure to do so gives the government more power over our lives, which results in a loss of individual freedom." two words...PATRIOT ACT!
This is exactly the type of person that has hijacked the Republican party. I rarely agree with Troll, but this time, she was correct.
Yee gods, Sid
Very well spoken. Keep your powder dry, the weasels are circling.
Well said, Kara
Well said, Kara
billb... just because it is not your point of view does not mean
it is "not the point of view for the betterment of our country." How is having a "Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist view" going to destroy the Constitution? Details are a good thing.
The views of taking responsibility for your own actions, individual rights, belief that life is sacred.
Where to begin......
- How is it "limited government" for government to tell consenting adults whom they may marry? Sid doesn't want to "give the government more power over our lives" - apparently gay Americans aren't part of "our" country, according to Sid. Isn't the power to tell you whom you may marry a pretty significant government power over "our" lives?
- How is someone else getting married, which affects Sid not at all personally, a "loss of individual freedom"? What exactly has Sid lost? It boggles the mind that someone could use the phrase "loss of individual freedom" to promote curtailing the individual freedoms of someone else.
A gay couple getting married in Juneau doesn't affect Sid any more than someone getting their entire torso tattood. Sid may think it's icky and he may not like it, just because it's legal certainly doesn't mean he has to agree or that it's an 'attack' on non-tatood people, and Sid can certainly teach his kids that it's not something he wants them to do - but he's not been injured in any way, and has no right to stop someone else from living their lives, icky tattoos and all.
justlivin -
what about the 'individual rights' of gay people? Why are they not entitled to the same life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness that some christian fundamentalist is?
It alludes to the fact that
It alludes to the fact that they have a right to exist at all. If you don't want them to exist, then you don' want to see them given rights, as that legitimates their existance.
kara's comments are not "well
kara's comments are not "well said".
Notice how all her examples of dysfunctional marriages were right out of Hollywood? Hmmmm, which side of the political aisle are they on?
And without realizing it she makes the conservative Christians' point that marriage should be sacred and protected.
It has been bas-tardized by the very policies of the left - lack of personal responsibility, anything goes if it makes me happy, men? - who needs them and so on.
Does anyone else have trouble deciphering Mike D's comments - is it just that atheist thing going on and most of us Christians aren't smart enough?
Good grief......
Bishop Eddie Long
Pastor Ted Haggard
Representative David Vitter
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor Marc Sanford
Senator John Ensign
Representative Newt Gingrich
Mayor Rudy Giuliani
Pastor Jim Bakker
Senator Larry Craig
................and that's without even trying. Is Calypso going to claim that these folks are 'victims' of the policies of the left?
Please.
Lists notwithstanding.....
Is Calypso's argument really "because heterosexual marriages are wildly dysfunctional - this 'sacred' institution needs to be 'protected' from debasement by homosexual couples?"
Seems to me, there's no where to go but up, based on the amount of high-profile denegration of the 'sacred' institution by conservative christians........
SG -
You might be over the line on the suppositions you pulled out. Sid never said someone else getting married is a "loss of individual freedom” – wrong context. The larger picture is that unscrupulous politicians and apparatchiki are manipulating a soft-headed public with faux social issues and crises to advance an unsustainable welfare state. Exhibit A: Do you think POTUS is going to do anything to back-up his unprecedented support for gay marriage? That round’s left the tube- there’s no political punch left in it. Move on or roll over.
Conservatives Govern For Their Base Not You
The Constitution is the basic law of the nation and is intended to create a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, all the people, not just the self-selected "Real Americans" that shout at each other on Fox News.
Conservatives have a way of picking verses out of their favorite texts to twist to their own ends in a way that subverts the entire purpose of the text.
You want abortion outlawed? Republicans controlled the entire government for 6 years (2000 - 2006). Why didn't they do it then? They don't want to outlaw abortion. They use it to get your vote.
You want lower taxes? Republicans provided lower taxes for the wealthy and big businesses, but you got crumbs. Your taxes are lower now, under a Dem administration, than at any time in history. You just won't admit it.
You want lower deficits? Reagan created the largest deficit since WWII, then Bush Jr beat that with a new record.
Republicans don't care about the middle class. They'll smile at you, tell you things you want to hear, even have a beer with you. But once you give them your vote the honeymoon is over.
Feeling used is something we fight against down to the very fiber of our being, but if the shoe fits...
Even better - one could have the vast experiences of being a president's son, failed oil company and baseball club executive - and even have been a state governor, with a whole first term as president .
There was a guy just like that who had all that experience and even a second term - to show off his experience and superior judgement. Worked out real well didn't it?
Seems like everyone is pretty
Seems like everyone is pretty much right on different levels. Both sides of the street are not working for the whole. And they've demonstrated more and more they will tear the road apart rather then give anything from their side. Good job everyone for being sheep and being unable to see anything outside of your own narrow view of the world. Keep it up! Let's see if we can't split the nation in a hundred years.
Hmm....faux indeed?
Faux social issues and crises.........would that be like:
- WMDs in Iraq?
- "Axis of evil"?
- "attack" on traditional marriage?
- "Socialism"?
- "Death Panels"?
- "Welfare state"?
- "Loss of individual freedoms"?
- "attack" on "freedsom" of religion?
- "Class warfare"?
No.
more like:
War on Women
War on Religion
War on Gay Rights
War on Voters that dont have govt issued IDs
War on Undocumented Aliens
a faux crisis is something that spikes like genuine crisis, but then somehow manages to go away without any meaningful address. Similarly, a faux social issue is one spun up to gain the sympathy or attention of a targeted demographic, and likewise does not get resolved, but the target gets all gushy because someone cared.
@Grendal
I think you have it backwards. The Right Wing Conservative Christians are waging war on ALL that is sacred to the people of this GREAT country. They are trying to impose their way of thinking on others
bilb
just how is this shadow theo-garchy doing that? What federal regulations are they imposing on all that is sacred? because if they were doing it by statute I think it would get LOTS of press, so they must be doing it in the wings & back alleys where no one's looking. Sounds like you're on to something - conspiracy, intrigue, what else?
Grendel - It does
get lots of press, just not on Fox "news".
Prop 8
Personhood amendments
End-runs around legal abortion, i.e. Miss. regulations, and inter-vaginal probes (VA).
Campaigns for state-level legislation, almost entirely funded by ultra-religious groups, against "individual liberties" i.e. the legal termination of a pregnancyman, and against the non-discrimination of people who happen to be homosexual.
Thus legislating, or seeking to legislate, their religious views and ways of living on people who are not religious - even though the actions of those non-religious people do not in any way curtail the ability of the religious to not marry someone of the same sex, or to have a child concieved by rape, or die in childbirth, if they choose to do so.
SG --
you mean this assault on our national institutions is going on at the state level? How do we fix THAT? Are you suggesting the feds should insert themselves in the mix? Or do you believe it's proper to honor the limitations placed on the federal government by our constitution?
DEFCON trinity for the Religious Right?
This article states, "attacks on the family are ultimately attacks on society."
From my perspective, the attacks are coming from hysterical virgins armed with a supernatural mandate intent on infecting society with ideas derived from a culture that believed slavery and human sacrifices were moral enterprises.
NATO is here: New Atheists Targeting Oppression. We must promote science and reason while opposing superstition, intolerance, and abuses of State and Church. Join any number of wonderful secular organizations and stand up for the principles of The Enlightenment today!
Mike
Powerful Letter
If you follow party beliefs. I don't. The biggest threat to this country are people that believe in less government yet believe in micromanagement in personal beliefs...like gay marriage and abortion rights
Powerful Letter
If you follow party beliefs. I don't. The biggest threat to this country are people that believe in less government yet believe in micromanagement in personal beliefs...like gay marriage and abortion rights
Grendel - you're kidding
right? If something is legal or protected at the Federal level, say - Freedom of speech, or non-discrimination against the disabled, is it not then ILLEGAL to enact laws which in effect negate access to freedom of speech, or specifically call for discrimination against the disabled, in a particular state?
In the case of a woman's right to choose, the federal court has already spoken.
@Grendal
The Constitution says FREEDOM for all, to only the ones that you and your Christian Right think are the only freedoms that should be honored. Each of us has the right to choose what if ANY religion we wish to follow and the to think as we please. You are saying the Government should take away these freedoms because the way you see the Bible as the ultimate rules to live by.
SG --
I have noticed that when you start out with "you're kidding" or some other rhetorical sigh, you wind up down a fog trail.
No one should contest that states may not enact MORE restrictive legislation than the feds. That's a given. In the case of "a woman's right to choose": the federal court speaks of a woman's right to choose the life of her baby or her health under the auspices of right to privacy. The pro-abortion crowd has denegrated this either/or into a matter of either allowing that festering fetus inside a woman to turn the corner and become someone, or terminate it at some point in utero so the woman get get on with her life. Now these same want to make it as convenient as possible to terminate, which will ultimately lead to the compelling question: "You want fries with that?"
bilb
I'm being polite and patient here. I said no such thing.
Grendel - you are simply incorrect.
Sometimes I think if I said something was black, you would say that it's white. We are looking at the same news stories, I presume?
If a woman's right to have an abortion is legal - then it's legal.
Period.
You seem to be saying that the pro-choice crowd wants to make it more convenient - which is not bourne out by ANY trend in recent history. Women are merely trying to keep in place access that was already there. I'm also offended by your insinuation that ANY woman undertakes an abortion lightly, a common tactic used by the right, and frankly disgusting. This kind of choice is not entered into lightly by women.
What is fact, based on recent news stories and legislative bills in states all over the country; is that the religious right is seeking to make it impossible for a woman to access her right to an abortion through other means - over-regulation of clinics, defunding of service for poor women, pershonhood amendments, etc. etc. This is by definition enacting more restrictive legislation at the state level than the federal level. Something is legal, but you can't access it in Mississippi, for example.
The fog trail is yours, sir.