Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Marco Rubio and the Anti-constitutionalism and Intellectual & Moral Bankruptcy of Our Time.

By Publius Huldah.

In a previous paper, I explained the shift from the philosophy of our Framers, which was based on Logic, Fixed Principles & Judeo/Christian Morality, to the pragmatist/existentialist mindset of today.  With our mindset of today, we are “freed” from the notion that some things are True, other things are False; some things are Right, other things are Wrong; and that there exist fixed Standards and Principles – such as the U.S. Constitution and the moral laws – to which we must conform.

Today, we have nothing to guide us but our own feelings: “I like it”, “I don’t like it”, “I agree”, “I don’t agree”, I “believe” or “I don’t believe”. That is the essence of the existentialist mindset: we make “choices” on the basis of no standard except for what we “like”. Or don’t like. When people disagree, those with The Power decide – on the basis of what they like.

Our politicians ignore Our Constitution. They do whatever they want. Every day, the President violates the Constitution he swore to protect; and Congress does nothing about it.  How could Congress do anything about it?  Since they too abandoned the Constitution, they have no Objective Standard by which to judge the President.  All they can say is, “I don’t agree”.

And WE THE PEOPLE don’t hold our politicians accountable for their violations of Our Constitution.  We keep re-electing them! Why?  Because we too have abandoned the Standard by which to judge their acts: Have you read Our Declaration of Independence and Our Constitution?  Do you understand the concepts of “enumerated powers”, “federalism” and “rule of law”?

Our Existentialist U.S. Senator, Marco Rubio

All our politicians fall short of the mark. None of them seem to understand that they are obligated to obey Our Constitution; and that they have no right to elevate into law their own personal views. They all illustrate the intellectual and moral collapse of our time – even the charismatic Tea Party darling, Sen. Marco Rubio (R, Fl).  Consider his speech of August 2, 2011 before the Senate. 1 You can read it here, and watch it here.

A few paragraphs into his speech, Rubio says:

I would remind many like myself that were elected in the last election cycle, tightly embracing the principles of our Constitution… [boldface added]

Oh!  A tea party candidate who will “tightly embrac[e] the principles of our Constitution”! We in the Tea Party are all for that, aren’t we?

But then, Rubio goes on to speak of the dispute “between two very different visions of America’s future”.

One group, Rubio tells us, “believe that the job of government is [to] deliver us economic justice, which basically means: an economy where everyone does well or as well as possibly can be done.”

The other group believes “it’s not the government’s job to guarantee an outcome but to guarantee the opportunity to fulfill your dreams and hopes.”

He’s doing OK so far.  But then, he goes on to say, respecting the two views: “By the way, one [is] not more or less patriotic than the other.”  And, “One is not more moral than the other.” 2

No Moral Distinctions?

WHAT?  He sees no moral distinction between, on the one hand, a government which takes – by force – property from one group of people and gives it to other people to whom it does not belong; and, on the other hand, the free country with a federal government of limited and enumerated powers created by Our Constitution?  No moral distinction between legalized plunder and a federal government which respects the private property of The People? 3

When one abandons the moral Principle, “Thou shalt not steal”; then there is no impediment to stealing – assuming you have the power to do it.  So, stealing is just fine when the federal government does it – because they have the power to do it.

Making a Choice – By What Criteria?

Rubio goes on to say:

…America is divided on this point … we must decide …what kind of government do we want to have and what role do we want it to have in America’s future.

Folks! WE THE PEOPLE have already decided this issue: Our decision is enshrined in Our Constitution – the Constitution whose Principles Rubio promised to “tightly embrace”. Our Constitution does not permit the federal government to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Besides, on what basis would we decide?  Rubio has already told us that there are no moral distinctions between a government which robs Peter to pay Paul, and a government which respects the private property of Peter.  Rubio has already told us that those who advocate legalized plunder are “patriots” to the same extent as those who oppose such plunder.

So!  If there are no moral distinctions between the two “very different visions”, and we all go along with Rubio’s abandonment of his promise to “tightly embrace” the Principles of the Constitution, then on what basis do we decide?  We have no basis for making a decision other than our own “likes” and “dislikes”.

And THAT is the existentialist mindset.  A mind “freed” from all standards other than, “I want” or “I don’t want”.  “I like” or “I don’t like”.

So!  Now that Rubio has come to the point where the only standard is what we “like” and “don’t like”, he tells us what he likes:

I believe and we believe in a safety net program, programs that exist to help those who cannot help themselves and to help those who have tried but failed to stand up and try again, but not safety net programs that function as a way of life…

WHERE does the Constitution permit the federal government to redistribute peoples’ private property?  WHO can lay his finger on that Provision of the Constitution which authorizes the safety net programs Rubio “believes in”? 4

Rubio told us near the beginning of his speech that he was elected on the basis that he would “tightly embrace” the principles of the Constitution.  Doesn’t “morality” require him to live up to his promise?   Well, if stealing is OK, then breaking your Word must be OK as well.

And who decides whether we continue these “safety net programs” Rubio “believes in”?  People in Congress like Rubio and Rep. Pete Stark (D. Ca.) voting for what they “believe in” – the Constitution be damned? 5

And as to THE PEOPLE who don’t want to be robbed to pay for other peoples’ handouts, and who object to being enslaved so that Rubio can continue safety nets he “believes in”: Rubio has stripped them of any moral or legal basis for objecting.

How to Fix This

I do not accuse Rubio of being a bad person. But he has absorbed the prevailing dogma of our time – existentialism – and may not even be aware of it. The first task of man is this: Ask yourself, “What do I believe, and why do I believe it?”  You may find that you believe it for no other reason than that you have always believed it. 6

And as a People, we have lost the ability to think and to analyze.  Rubio’s speech [like the speeches of all politicians] reflects this inability to think and to analyze, as well as an existentialist mindset.  If he had argued from Principle – if he had applied the Constitution he promised to embrace – he would have said that Our Constitution prohibits Congress from spending money on anything other than its enumerated powers. If he understood “federalism, he would have understood that the power to create “safety nets” is reserved to The States or to THE PEOPLE. If he understood “the rule of law”, he would have understood that the obligation of people in Congress is to obey the Constitution.      

And WE THE PEOPLE must return to our Founding Principles.  We must start choosing our candidates on the basis of their conformity to our Founding Principles – not good looks and charm.  We in the Tea Party are every bit as silly as the foolish Democrats & Independents who voted for Obama for the reason that he too was good-looking and charismatic. PH

Endnotes.

1 I focus on Marco Rubio because he – like all other politicians – illustrates the philosophical problems of which I write; and some are presenting him as the “ideal” running mate for the winner of the Republican nomination.

2 Rush Limbaugh understands that Rubio’s words reveal his moral blindness. I first heard of Rubio’s speech on Rush’s show.

3 Frederic Bastiat’s essay, “The Law”, explains the evil of legalized plunder and the moral superiority of limited civil government.  It is one of the masterworks of Western civilization, and the best thing to ever come out of France.  It is clear, and easy to understand. Someone! Give Rubio a copy!

4 Our beloved James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution, couldn’t find the provisions either. He said:

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. — James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794 [boldface added].

The Economics Department at George Mason University provides this quote (among many wonderful others) on its page, Constitutional Limitations on Government.

5 Watch this magnificent woman point out to Congressman Pete Stark that obamacare makes SLAVES – in violation of the 13th Amendment – of those who are forced to provide medical care to others.  And watch Stark ignore her moral and constitutional argument against slavery and tell his constituents that “the federal government can do most anything”.

6A bit of personal history illustrates this point: I was raised a secular humanist by parents who were secular humanists. When not much older than Rubio, I asked a Christian pastor, “How can you believe all that stuff?”  He answered, “I have preconceptions; you have preconceptions.  Examine yours.”  I did. And discovered that I was a secular humanist simply because I had always been a secular humanist.  I had never examined it.  When I examined it, I found there was no evidence to support my world view.  So!  I abandoned it and learned a new world view based on Fixed Principles – those laws which are woven into the Fabric of Reality.

Let us pray that Sen. Rubio will do the same, and consign his existentialist worldview to the trashcan (where it belongs). The Laws of Morality and the Laws of Logic are among those Laws woven into the Fabric of Reality. And he promised to “tightly embrac[e] the principles of our Constitution”! PH

January 10, 2012; revised Jan. 12, 2012

 

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

January 10, 2012 - Posted by | Existentialism, Marco Rubio | ,

45 Comments »

  1. […] are “carefully limited; both in … extent and …duration” 2  They don’t understand that  limited civil government is morally superior to a fascist dictatorship. Since they don’t understand these things, they are buffeted here and there by winds which […]

    Pingback by Why Republican Politicians Sell Us Out. « Publius-Huldah's Blog | June 14, 2014 | Reply

  2. PH,

    One of the reasons why your paper maybe finding extra difficulties in getting published is, not only are you exposing their blatant ignorance and/or subversion of the Constitution, you are also exposing their backwards philosophy to boot. A double whammy!

    I have found if you discuss either subjects it draws the rats out of the woodwork on the forums. They don’t like their philosophy discussed or people advocating principles. They never will debate Principles vs. Pragmatism/Relativism/Existentialism or whatever they use to validate their defective thinking process and always resort to ad hominem attacks.

    One of the questions that has always perplexed me was, how can people who claim to be Republicans and Conservatives keep writing, voting, and enforcing legislation that goes against the Constitution?

    I feel we have gotten far beyond the point to write it off as the mere ignorance of a few, reason is telling me that it is a concerted effort. How else can one explain the out of control spending that neither political party will stop? A child with a basic concept of math can tell you you can’t keep spending more than what you bring in. Yet here we are in debt up to our eyeballs with no solutions to stop it, which ties into the Balanced Budget Amendment (Thank you for setting me straight on that fiasco with your paper on the subject).

    It wasn’t until I came across the book “Political Ponerology” did all the pieces start fitting into place. We have become a pathocracy. A psychopath does not care about the system of government as long as they are in charge because it is meant for the “unwashed masses” and not themselves. The Legislature makes laws for us but exempt themselves, Obama Care is a fine example of this. Elitism and psychopathy are interlinked with each other.

    Definition: pathocracy (n). A system of government created by a small pathological minority that takes control over a society of normal people (from Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, by Andrew Lobaczewski).

    http://pathocracy.wordpress.com/definition/

    http://ponerology.com/evil_2a.html

    I have only read a very little of the book but find it completely fascinating. I agree with you on their philosophies but isn’t that just an attempt by them to justify their actions? Please understand, I am not advocating labeling everyone who makes a wrong decision or disagrees a psychopath and neither is this book, but something is terribly wrong and this book is one of the best explanations to date. Curious to your insights on this when you have the time to spare.

    “Conversive thinking is highly contagious and acts a dangerous infection entry for truly pathological material. People who have lost their capacity for logical thought (and thus the ability to distinguish between truth and lies) are thus more prone to accepting the paralogic and paramorals of psychopaths and characteropaths” (from Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, by Andrew Lobaczewski).

    http://enpsychopedia.org/index.php/Conversive_thinking

    Comment by Randle | February 18, 2013 | Reply

  3. […] school-girlish Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic Marco Rubio (who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will ultimately destroy […]

    Pingback by The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew | Libertas Found | October 31, 2012 | Reply

  4. […] school-girlish Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic Marco Rubio (who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will ultimately destroy […]

    Pingback by The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew | Illinois Conservative Beacon | July 19, 2012 | Reply

  5. […] school-girlish Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic Marco Rubio (who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will ultimately destroy […]

    Pingback by The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew | The Constitution Sentinel | July 19, 2012 | Reply

  6. […] school-girlish Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic Marco Rubio(who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will ultimately destroy […]

    Pingback by The Constitution, Vattel, and ‘Natural Born Citizen’: | Grumpy Opinions | July 19, 2012 | Reply

  7. […] school-girlish Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic Marco Rubio (who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will ultimately destroy […]

    Pingback by The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew « Publius-Huldah's Blog | July 19, 2012 | Reply

  8. […] school-girlish Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic Marco Rubio (who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will ultimately destroy […]

    Pingback by The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew. | American Conservative News Politics & Opinion - The Land of the Free | July 19, 2012 | Reply

  9. […] school-girlish Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic Marco Rubio (who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will ultimately destroy […]

    Pingback by The Constitution, Vattel, and 'Natural Born Citizen': What Our Framers Knew | July 18, 2012 | Reply

  10. […] VP running mate as if the Constitution has no say in the matter. Publius Huldah nailed it in a recent article on Rubio: “We the people don’t hold our politicians accountable for their violations of our […]

    Pingback by It’s the Constitution Stupid! | Constitutional Writes | February 19, 2012 | Reply

  11. […] are “carefully limited; both in … extent and …duration” 2  They don’t understand that  limited civil government is morally superior to a fascist dictatorship. Since they don’t understand these things, they are buffeted here and there by winds which […]

    Pingback by Why Republican Politicians Sell Us Out. | American Conservative News Politics & Opinion - The Land of the Free | February 9, 2012 | Reply

  12. […] are “carefully limited; both in … extent and …duration”[2] They don’t understand that limited civil government is morally superior to a fascist dictatorship. Since they don’t understand these things, they are buffeted here and there by winds which […]

    Pingback by WHY REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS SELL US OUT | Grumpy Opinions | January 28, 2012 | Reply

  13. […] are “carefully limited; both in … extent and …duration”[2] They don’t understand thatlimited civil government is morally superiorto a fascist dictatorship. Since they don’t understand these things, they are buffeted here and there by winds which […]

    Pingback by WHY REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS SELL US OUT « A NATION BEGUILED | January 28, 2012 | Reply

  14. Hi. I don’t know if you take or would consider topic requests, but I’m very curious what you think about the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

    Comment by Ross | January 17, 2012 | Reply

    • Dear Ross! Of course I consider topic requests. You got it. I’ll do it. But the short answer is:

      It is blatantly unconstitutional, and the worst idea since the beginning of time. When I think of how Fred Thompson (former Republican U.S. Senator for Tennessee) is a spokesperson for this, I am sorry that we no longer are permitted to tar and feather people.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 17, 2012 | Reply

      • Thank you. I look forward to reading it, as I look forward to all of your articles.

        Comment by Ross | January 17, 2012 | Reply

        • Ross! It is done and posted on my website. Glad you asked. This is a really hot topic. And critically important.

          Comment by Publius/Huldah | February 9, 2012 | Reply

  15. […] Marco Rubio and the Anti-constitutionalism and Intellectual & Moral Bankruptcy of Our Time. – Publius Huldah […]

    Pingback by Saturday Afternoon – Gettin’ Back To Normal – Laundry Time , An Ol' Broad's Ramblings | January 14, 2012 | Reply

  16. Marco Rubio may be the finest politician and statesman of our time and a Saint among men. I don’t know. However, I’ve never heard him recognize that a natural born citizen is one born in the country to citizen parents.

    Yes, it’s quite possible that a person who is not a natural born citizen can love this country as much or even more than a natural born citizen. Surely, our founders recognized this fact because they all fit this description. However, in their wisdom they knew that the best means of ensuring that for which they fought; that for which they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, would be by requiring that the office of the President and Commander in Chief devolve only upon a natural born citizen. Rubio would apparently leave the door open to those whom his parents fled.

    A true patriot, especially one with the capacity and desire to serve as POTUS, but who is not eligible, would find another way to support his country and to protect and defend the constitution (which is what the office of POTUS is all about, present occupant excepted). Rubio’s silence speaks volumes. Somehow, it doesn’t sound at all like, “The British are coming!” Although, that would be ironically appropriate.

    It’s not only the Constitution that makes us what we are. It’s our allegiance to it that makes it work. Otherwise, it’s just another piece of paper.

    Comment by Robert Jones | January 14, 2012 | Reply

    • Well, Robert, I didn’t address whether Rubio loves this Country or whether he is a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5, U.S. Constitution.

      But I expect we can all agree that “loving this Country” does not automatically make one a good President. One must first [assuming he is constitutionally eligible] demonstrate an understanding of Our Constitution and one’s willingness to be faithful to it.

      There may be an issue thou, about his truthfulness respecting his family history: Whether they fled Castro’s Cuba or whether they came here several years before Castro took over.

      In my paper, I focused only on his moral blindness and existentialist mindset as revealed by his speech before the Senate, and his failure to live up to his promise.

      But he is a young guy – perhaps he will mature with age.

      And yes, people who are not “natural born citizens”, must find other ways to serve than as President.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 14, 2012 | Reply

  17. Another timely and excellent article.
    This statement seems to apply to judges as well as to politicians:

    “None of them seem to understand that they are obligated to obey Our Constitution; and that they have no right to elevate into law their own personal views. They all illustrate the intellectual and moral collapse of our time…”

    Indeed. They seem to believe that when they are elected, they have earned the ‘right’ to decide cases or make law according to THEIR OWN ideas, as though it is a matter of waiting one’s turn. The liberal idea of a “living Constitution” is the most absurd and destructive doctrine in our history. It appeals to those who don’t like having laws and rules apply to them. Indeed they are lawless at heart. The ‘living Constitution’ nonsense allows them to rule by man, while pretending to rule by law.

    I would encourage all of us who have been blessed with PH’s tutelage to forward these articles to everyone with any interest in politics and government, especially our elected representatives in government.
    More than any others, they need to be schooled in the rule of law, and the original intent (and therefore the actual meaning) of our Constitution.

    Also, we should forward the relevant articles to those involved in lawsuits, such as the recent case in Oklahoma regarding the banning of Sharia law. If I can figure out who to contact I will send them the article titled “God’s Gift of Unalienable Rights & Article VI of the Constitution: The Sword & Shield to stop the islamization of America.”

    Thanks again PH.

    Comment by Bill Dawson | January 12, 2012 | Reply

  18. Very good fundamental paper, Huldah. It is very timely, too. Soon we will hear who are the proposed candidates for Vice-President, and people need to understand that the same qualifications for president, in Section II, Article 1, pertain also to the office of vice-president by normal reasoning.
    If Marco Rubio isn’t a “NATURAL born citizen (both mother and father, citizens at the time of the child’s birth) he is not qualified to be a vice-presidential candidate. End of subject. He can be a Senator, but that’s all.
    I would hope he would persistently decline such offers as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I believe during his Florida campaign, he stated his parents were not citizens when he was born in America.
    This is not a “personal attack” on Senator Rubio. I do not know him. It is for the boundaries of our Beloved Constitution that we insist EVERYONE keep Constitutional boundaries. America, the Beautiful, Thy Liberty in LAW.
    For God & Country

    Comment by ruth ann wilson | January 12, 2012 | Reply

    • I would like to point out how, immediately after AZ annouced their bill to stop illegal immigration, Rubio called it “racist.” Now, if I were a politician, I would spend a lot more time examining the facts before i shot my mouth off (unless this was a statement of how he really feels).
      JRD

      Comment by DrJRDonaldson | January 12, 2012 | Reply

      • For the record…here’s the entire statement (and he did modify/clarify after it was first released – rightly or wrongly)…
        “Our legal immigration system must continue to welcome those who seek to embrace America’s blessings and abide by the legal and orderly system that is in place. The American people have every right to expect the federal government to secure our borders and prevent illegal immigration. It has become all too easy for some in Washington to ignore the desperation and urgency of those like the citizens of Arizona who are disproportionately wrestling with this problem as well as the violence, drug trafficking and lawlessness that spills over from across the border.

        “States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.

        “I hope Congress and the Obama Administration will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation, but to finally act on border states’ requests for help with security and fix the things about our immigration system that can be fixed right now – securing the border, reforming the visa and entry process, and cracking down on employers who exploit illegal immigrants.”

        Comment by Susan Mehiel | January 12, 2012 | Reply

        • In this paper, I explain the AZ Law, provide a link to it, and show why it is constitutional:
          the-arizona-immigration-law-the-supremacy-clause-of-the-u-s-constitution-exclusive-concurrent-jurisdiction-explained/

          But Unlike Holder & Rubio, I had to read the AZ law before I could comment on it! It’s not very long.

          Even wearing my hat as a former criminal defense attorney, I see nothing objectionable in the AZ Law. The phrase “reasonable suspicion” appears near the top of the first page (See Sec. 2 B.). Before the “reasonable suspicion” standard kicks in, the officer must have made a “lawful contact” with a person.

          I’ll illustrate: The officer can’t go up to a person who looks Mexican and say, “show me some ID”. But if a person is speeding, the officer may lawfully stop the speeder. The officer may then lawfully say, “Driver’s license and proof of insurance, please”. If the person produces the documents and the officer doesn’t see [in plain view] anything of concern in the car (a dead body in the back seat, a couple of hundred little baggies with a white powder in them, etc.), then the officer writes up the ticket and sends the driver on his way.

          But if the driver has no license or proof of insurance, then there is “reasonable suspicion” to proceed further.

          Rubio’s speech otherwise sounds like the bland statements politicians always make when they want to take a middle road, go with the flow, and not offend anybody.

          But it is amazing that two lawyers (Holder & Rubio) would comment on a LAW they hadn’t read! We never do that!

          Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 12, 2012 | Reply

  19. Marco Rubio’s parents are not born in America therefore it would have been impossible for him to understand the full sacrifices that the USA makes to keep our Republic safe. However, he can be grateful as first generation Americans often are. But a patriot without a grasp of history is a pied piper because ultimately the rats come back when the cash flow dwindles.

    Comment by Ms Miller | January 11, 2012 | Reply

    • You’re joking, right??? Marco Rubio, whose parents came from Communist Cuba, doesn’t “understand the full sacrifices that the USA makes to keep our Republic safe.”

      Frankly, he understand far better than many Americans what it takes to keep our Republic safe! I have many Cuban-American friends and they are far more conservative than many of my USA born friends…they and their families have experienced first hand the tyranny of a Fascist government.

      Comment by Susan Mehiel | January 11, 2012 | Reply

      • My friends of Cuban descent whose families fled here after Castro took over were very conservative.

        But people whose families came here from Cuba before Castro took over might not appreciate the horrors of totalitarianism. [Most Americans don’t know how horrible totalitarianism is. I witnessed it first hand in E. Europe during the Cold War.]

        Anyway, it occurred to me that one reason Marco Rubio sees no moral distinction between the two forms of government may be because he and his family have no first hand experience of totalitarianism. People who haven’t experienced it – or at least seen it – have NO IDEA.

        My Cuban friends – well, their parents actually – who did have first hand experience with totalitarianism KNEW THE DIFFERENCE!

        Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 11, 2012 | Reply

  20. I saw a fault line in Rubio’s “conservative” stance when he INITIALLY criticized Arizona for trying to enforce federal imigration law. Rubio said it was unconstitutional. At that point, I knew I had to look at his actions and not just the rhetoric.

    Question with boldness people and know your Constitution.

    Comment by Denise Christy | January 11, 2012 | Reply

  21. Good article. I have long argued that a society cannot exist without an objective, unchanging standard of association and behavior. There are four standards governing America’s existence. When we, as a nation deviate from those standards we no longer effectively function in those areas in which the violation exists. The four standards are: (1) The Holy Bible; provides the moral foundation for the American culture. (2) The Declaration of Independence; provides the moral basis for America’s existence as a separate nation and the principles of government. (3) The Constitution; provides the plan for government based on those principles. (4) The Bill of Rights; clarifies and places special emphasis on the limitations of government alluded to in the Constitution. It took me almost a lifetime to realize that these four standards are in complete agreement with each other and together they provide the perfect method for achieving “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”.

    Comment by Jerry McDaniel | January 11, 2012 | Reply

    • YES!!! Fixed Principles are the Answer. And that’s just what we abandoned. The 4 Standards you mentioned are The Standards (except there is some room for discussion about the Bill of Rights.)

      But I can’t seem to get this paper published – Marco Rubio may be above criticism. Please help get the word out. If we don’t cleanse ourselves of our existentialist mindsets, then we don’t have any hope left for this life.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 11, 2012 | Reply

  22. Great article! This kind of analysis should be required reading fo all citizens and especially, all politicians.

    Comment by Bill Fisher | January 11, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you, Bill. Please help get the word out about this. It may be that the only way to get this paper out will be by word of mouth – such as yours. Is Marco Rubio too sacred to be criticized?

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 11, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you, Bill. But if the newspapers refuse to publish it, then we must depend on The People like you to get the word out. So please, send the link out to your email friends and post the link when you can on the internet.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 11, 2012 | Reply

  23. I have followed Marco for a number of years and helped his campaign in Florida – but you hit the nail on the head! And he’s one of the better Senators out there… Unfortunately, we all want to ‘sugar coat’ the tuff love of cutting off federal ‘entitlements’ with the concept that we ‘want a safety net’ for those who ‘really’ need it.

    You continue to educate me and open my eyes – thank you! I’ll be sending this along to my ‘Marco’ friends.

    Comment by Susan Mehiel | January 11, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you, Susan. It may be that the only way to get this paper out is with you and others like you. It may be that no conservative newspaper is willing to publish it. We will see. Meanwhile, I’m thinking it must be wonderful to be exempt from criticism!

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 11, 2012 | Reply

  24. […] Marco Rubio and the Anti-constitutionalism and Intellectual & Moral Bankruptcy of Our Time. « P… Today, we have nothing to guide us but our own feelings: “I like it”, “I don’t like it”, “I agree”, “I don’t agree”, I “believe” or “I don’t believe”. That is the essence of the existentialist mindset: we make “choices” on the basis of no standard except for what we “like”. Or don’t like. When people disagree, those with The Power decide – on the basis of what they like. […]

    Pingback by New and Noteworthy for Today, January 11, 2012 - Survival Blog With A Family Focus | January 11, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you for posting this, “Preparing your Family.com”

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 11, 2012 | Reply

  25. Very insightful, Publius. I forwarded to everyone in my address book. So many people lack an understanding of the Constitution and the philosophy as the basis for it’s creation.

    Comment by Joyce Romano | January 11, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you, Joyce! It seems that this paper can only be spread by people who read it here. And that’s a shame, b/c it sets forth the basic philosophical problem of our time and what we can do about it.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 11, 2012 | Reply

  26. Very clear, yet so hard for people to grasp! We constantly hear the candidate proclaim allegiance to the Constitution. You would think it is the last thing they read at night and the first thing they pick up in the morning. They make pledges to those whose vote they want, to be different than all who have gone before them. They will be the true follower of the Constitution. They will be a light on The Hill. They win the confidence of the Right and get sent to D.C. where they take the pledge to defend the Constitution. Then, it seems as if they never consider the Constitution for the rest of their political term.
    But, it is not as it seems. It is not that they pledge and sware to do one thing and then ignore that very promise, at least in some cases. It is that they do not know the Constitution any better than the average person on the street. For some reason, we think that we know the Constitution just because we are Americans. We had a class in 8th grade about such things and we have not read it again since then. We have the mindset that this document has been grafted into our brains just because we talk about our “Constitutional Rights” whenever someone attempts to shut us up or take away our guns.
    Folks, we are personally reasponsible for knowing the Constitution! We cannot afford to just claim to have an understanding, we need to KNOW it! How can we properly eliminate the candidate from being elected, who does not know the Consititution, if we do not know enough about it to question him or her and be able to tell whether or not they correctly answer?
    Cleaning up this mess starts with each one of us. Get busy learning because time is of essence.

    Comment by Mike Foil | January 11, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you, Mike. Please help me get the word out on this. It’s looking as if some people are too much of a star to be publicly criticized. But I say that if one of our idols has feet of clay, we need to expose it, instead of suppressing the ugly Truth. And who know? The idol may learn something and repent; and the People who read it may learn something too.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 11, 2012 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 883 other followers

%d bloggers like this: