It
was so encouraging to see both Democrats and Republicans fight side by
side to turn back SOPA and PIPA.  It is simple to see why.  It was a
constitutional issue that was in direct violation of our First Amendment
rights.

We all know that first amendment, don't we?  "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." https://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/bill_of_rights.shtml

So, why is it so difficult for us to agree on an issue so simple as the rights of the "Fight Wall Street" groups, for instance?

Police
should be protecting them....not spraying them with tear gas, throwing
flash bombs in their midst and dragging them off to jail.  Who is really
violating the Constitution here....the people or the police?

Now,
let's look at some other fundamental problems liberals and
conservatives have.  I just finished reading a piece by a conservative
in which he tries to defend why he is not a Democrat.https://dotnettemplar.net/blogfiles/how-do-i-choose-whom-to-vote-for.pdf 

He begins by stating: 

"First
off, let me state that sometimes I wish I could be a Democrat. 
Democrats have a great story.  They work for the Average Joe.  They want
to make sure the poor are taken care of.  They want social justice. 
That's admirable.  That's something I can get behind."

He
then proceeds to negate every one of those arguments with some of the
most unconstitutional statements I have ever read and some of the same
old rhetoric and excuses I have heard a thousand times before.

 He continues by stating: "It is
pretty clear  that caring for the poor is a basic moral principle for
us, and what this means has been elaborated on and acted on throughout
our two thousand year history."

However,
he goes back to the old argument that it should be handled through
private charitable organizations and the churches rather than by the
government.  I contend that the preamble to the Constitution directly
instructs the government to care for ALL its people. Remember these
words? 

" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, 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."

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general
terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It
then follows that the Founding Fathers' intent in its statement that
the government should "promote the general welfare" was that the
government has an obligation to all its people, to help them in any way
it can, including financial aid and medical care if they are living in
poverty.  How can they enjoy the "blessings of liberty" if they are
living in squalor and do not have enough food to feed their children or
to provide them with medical and dental care?

But
this man states plainly that moral issues should take precedence over
promoting the general welfare and the economic good of our citizens.  He
says we must make them priorities in government ahead of any social
programs to help the poor and the sick.

Why
are people from Mexico willing to risk their lives to come to the
United States?  Because they ARE living in abject poverty in their own
country, which does nothing to help them.  Do we see people streaming
illegially into the U.S. from Canada?  Of course not.  Canada takes
cares for its people just as we do here. 

Churches
and volunteer groups do what they can; but it is physically and
financially impossible for them to meet the huge responsibliity of all
those who need financial and medical help.  More importantly, we have a
constitutional directive in the Preamble to do so.  Even the writer
admits in the end that "everyone" would have to contribute to private
organizations and churches to provide enough money.  How can one
"contribute" when he can't afford to buy groceries or go to the doctor?

His
next argument makes even less sense.  He states that he is a Republican
because he supports marriage as being a union between a man and a woman
for the purpose of founding a family unit.  That's all well and good;
he is certainly guaranteed the right to express his opinion under the
Constituton.

But,
can this man BE SERIOUS?  Where in the Constitution does it state that
marriage must be between one man and one woman?   It does state that the
rights of the individual must be protectedand that we are all entitled
to the "pursuit of happiness." 

Does
he not realize that our founding fathers based our very Constitution on
the ancient Roman constitution, which was paganistic and rife with
homosexuality?  Yet, he says he questions any person's right to govern
effectiviely if he doesn't support the heterosexual family unit!

I
guess that means the Romans were terrible governors because they
certainly did not support the family unit in the traditional sense. 
Wonder why our Founding Fathers chose them as role models for our
Constitution if their ability to govern was so suspect?

But then he goes far beyond anything in the Constitution again on the Right To Life Issue when he says:

We
must protect life first and foremost and, if We must protect life first
and foremost and, if necessary, at the cost of other admirable ideals
such as liberty (or “choice” as some put it) as well as concern for the
economic welfare that enables the pursuit of happiness (or property, as
John Locke would have it).This is why I think that life issues must
always trump economic issues (including even our ability to properly
think about care for the less fortunate, the poor).

Similarly,
we have to vote for candidates who have these priorities straight,
those who understand the primordial and fundamental importance of life
and government’s principle obligation to protect it in all forms, from
conception through to its natural end. Because if they don’t then
they‐‐just like a government that does not prioritize life over liberty
and the rights and privileges‐‐are unfortunately and seriously
disordered.

Whoa! 
Wait a minute.  Someone needs to fill this fellow in on abortions
during the time of the Founding Fathers.   In the British colonies
abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the
French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact
that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese
colonies abortion was illegal.  Since the Spanish and Portugese colonies
were in the minority and Catholic, it was more a religious issue than a
political one.  After the Constitution separated church from state,
most states made abortions legal.  It was not until the mid-1800's that
the Federal government unconsitutionally banned legalzied abortion. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561

We
all know that the Supreme Court overturned that decision in Roe vs.
Wade for that very reason....it is unconsitutional and violates the
rights of the indivdual.

In pregnancy terms, the moment of quickening refers to the initial motion of the fetus in the uterus as it is perceived or felt by the pregnant woman. According to the Oxford English Dictionary , to "quicken" means "to reach the stage of pregnancy at which the child shows signs of life." TheCompact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary , Volume II (Oxford U. Press 1971).

According to this gentleman, "However
well intentioned they may be, we must seriously question their judgment
and their ability to govern wisely if they do not understand the
government’s priority to protect life."

And his final comments left me with my jaw dropping even further when he stated:   

...there
are good reasons to make issues like abortion, euthanasia, marriage,
and family deciding factors in deciding how to vote. These issues are
fundamental and primary for society and government and will therefore
have a much more profound and long lasting impact than other, albeit
important, issues like foreign policy, economic policy, and national
security.

I
submit to you that foreign policy, economic policy and national
security ARE constitutional issues while the Founding Fathers remained
silent on euthanasia, marriage, and right to life. 

Yet,
this man is a Republican and admits these are the reasons he selects
for whom he will vote.  Heaven save us from people like him who want
representatives who will try to introduce and pass unconstitutional
laws...and that is exactly what Republicans try to do.

They
want to legislate morality, which is NOT constitutional.  When we begin
legislating morality, as we did with the 18th Amendment, which led to
organized crime, which in turn perpetuated a host of other problems,
including rampant drug use, we open up cans of worms much more dangerous
than the freedom they take away.

The
same can be said for making abortions illegal.  Hundreds of thousands
of women died or were left sterile from "buthers" in back alleys
performing abortions on them.

I'm sorry!  I simply cannot support an agenda that completely ignores our Constitution in its priorities. 

Republicans
talk so much about believing in a Consitutional government; but
everything they support is diametrically opposite of that very thing.

As
we did on SOPA and PIPA, we Democrats will stand with you every time
when the government tries to pass legislation that violates our
Consitution.  By the same token, we will oppose and fight against you
and your party when it introduces other pieces of legislation that are
every bit as unconstitutional as these were.

Think about it the next time your Democratic friend looks at you and shakes his head with a wry grin on his face.