In today's political discourse as represented by the twenty-four hour news cycle, the terms gridlock and compromise are bedrock terms used by those bemoaning the fact that regarding contentious issues, this congress cannot move fast enough to enact their desired change.
There are multiple reasons for this and they are all solidly grounded in common sense and sound logic.
The brilliance of our forefathers and founders of this beautiful country is clearly displayed in a rich collection of writings from the time, as well as in our founding documents.
The sixty-plus delegates who spent the summer in Philadelphia in 1787 hammering out a system of government designed to benefit all who live in this country obviously went about the process with sobering deliberation.
The task that these brilliant men were confronted with and the resulting fruits their labors have produced have been thus far unequaled in the history of man.
Having just broken free from a tyrannical monarchy across the pond (apparently, the King would not compromise either; go figure), the American Revolution- hard fought, divinely inspired, and profoundly painful in terms of the loss of human life sparked an unprecedented series of events with unprecedented outcomes that resulted in the freest and most wonderful civilization ever known to man.
The majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were indeed men of faith, although a notable number likely were not, the influential Thomas Payne among them.
With that being said, the responsibility bestowed on these American Patriots was a heavy burden that absolutely required men of faith and/or conscience to collectively act in the interest of all Americans.
Ever conscious of the undeniable truth that absolute power corrupts absolutely, these men put in place a system of government unlike any other previously known to man.
They made sure that in times of threat to our sovereignty or national security that the executive and legislative branches of government were not impotent to take actions to safeguard the American citizen and our way of life.
Embedded within this system of a democratic republic are intended and necessary checks and balances on all three branches of American government.
While many will find it contentious, for instance, to say that the American executive (that is the sitting president) does not have the authority to commit our military to war without a declaration of war issued by the American Congress, the preceding statement is simply pure fact.
Thus, when the executive in power commits American troops to combat anywhere in the world unilaterally (that is without the approval of Congress in the form of a clear declaration of war), he is in fact in violation of the rule of American law-that is the Constitution of the United States.
By virtue of the fact that the president is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, this act alone, by definition, should be an impeachable offense of the office.
The primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect our rule of law, our citizens, and our sovereignty as a free and independent nation.
This includes any threat from foreign powers, as well as threats emanating from within our very borders; hence the term "domestic terrorism.
" Securing our borders, both North and South should be priority number one in any presidential administration and congress.
We have seen the dire threat our borders present and witnessed successive administrations turn a largely blind eye to the lack of border enforcement.
By definition, this constitutes blatant dereliction of duty from the highest office of the land.
And so, we find ourselves facing certain and dire peril from any myriad of threats aimed directly at destroying our Constitution, and at risk of exposing myself as a right-wing extremist, the very way of life that we as uniquely American have enjoyed since our glorious and unprecedented founding.
It is my humble contention that this precarious position currently degrading everything that we love and cherish as a free, moral and faithful people has been brought about in large part through the spirit of compromise.
Compromise is fine and indeed often warranted when what is being compromised is not our values.
The trouble with the communist left and "compromise " is quite simply that compromise, in and of itself is never enough with these committed statists.
They ceaselessly preach a false message of fairness and equality.
For starters, this country as it was founded, presented the fairest and most just nation ever created.
It has been man and his propensity for sin, in conjunction with the coordinated push to secularism and political correctness that has skewed and damaged who we have always been as a God-fearing and loving people.
The following paragraph will help illustrate how the hard left in this country has pulled us away from God, and Constitutional principle in the guise of compromise.
The typical compromise as stated by collectivists on the left begins with a "call to fairness" (public unions, environmental advocates, gay rights lobbies, black liberation theologians, etc.
); the rallying cry is generally "you must accept us.
" To which the conscientious among us generally respond with that particular concession.
We as a faithful and moral people know that in fact, "all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights endowed by our Creator.
" In the spirit of faith, acceptance is not hard to grant.
After acceptance has been attained however, the next demand of the left is that we embrace and promote them.
This is where the problems inevitably arise.
While I can tolerate and in fact accept the existence of these various groups and factions, it is my faith in Jesus Christ that expressly prohibits any embrace or promotion of the beliefs and practices of many of these groups.
Those on the Left see this principled stance as "homophobic," "racist," or "intolerant hate.
" They are absolutely indignant in their bogus assertion that conservatives are any and all of the following: intolerant, racist, sexist, homophobic, elitist, prudish, boorish, non-intellectuals.
Of course, when objectively considered, the arguments of the Left and what they paint with broad strokes to be characteristic of conservatives cannot withstand honest scrutiny.
In fact, it is my personal conviction that all of the aforementioned charges against conservatism can more accurately be applied to the Left, almost issue for issue.
It is the insistence of these godless individuals that conservatives and more specifically those of the Christian faith are intolerant to the plainly minuscule faction of atheists and agnostics who cry foul every time a reference to Christ is seen or uttered that clearly and shamefully display a rabid, indeed hateful intolerance.
These people capitalize on the fact that we have become the "nanny-state" or "police-state", if you will, in terms of the abhorrent manifestation of political correctness run completely amok.
When has this country ever allowed implementation of public policy based on the "hurt feelings" of any one individual or fringe group or association? Atheists in this country and the world will never be content until it becomes unlawful to practice the Christian faith.
How does one compromise with that? The Left insists that the Republican Party in general and conservatives specifically are in some way racist in the free expression and pursuit of our values.
Aside from the purely historical fact that it took a Republican president to put an end to the atrocity of slavery in this country, and a beloved Democratic legislator (remember Robert Byrd?) was long associated with the Ku Klux Klan, there are any number of examples throughout history who were obviously on the left side of the political spectrum, who yet, were indeed as racist as they come.
The democratic Left in this country laid claim to Planned Parenthood, for instance, many decades ago.
While the democrats champion this organization as a pillar of virtue regarding women and "reproductive rights," when one chooses to do simple research, it becomes quite clear that this "issue" was not the focus or intent of Margaret Sanger (one of Hillary Clinton's heroes and founder of Planned Parenthood) when she concocted the scheme and model of the organization.
Margaret Sanger was a racist of the first order who viewed her mission to curb the reproduction of those "less desirables" in society as her calling.
Virtually all minorities (not just blacks) and those who were perceived as "intellectually inferior" or "intellectually challenged" were the targets of Sanger and the organization.
I am a proud conservative with a great deal of friends, brothers and sisters who happen to be black.
Truthfully, I do not see these men and women any differently than I view myself.
These folks are proud American patriots, my military brethren, and brothers and sisters in Christ.
They are indeed conservative, although some are honestly not aware due to the ceaseless drumbeat and crap that the liberal media has spoon fed them for decades.
These people are hard-working, God-fearing parents and grandparents profoundly concerned about the future of their progeny, and rightly so.
In our conversations, we find ourselves much more in agreement than in opposition to one another, more often than not.
Many of my personal heroes are black; the Reverend Martin Luther King, Colonel Allen West, Reggie White, Clarence Thomas, Bill Cosby, and any number of Christian pastors who preach and teach the Gospel in accordance with God's Word consistently and fearlessly.
These great men have my undying respect and admiration.
In addressing the false charge of sexism in the Republican Party and amongst conservatives, in general, the more intellectually capable of society are often at a loss; several of my favorite conservatives in today's political discourse happen to be women.
Former Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin, current Minnesota Congresswoman, Michelle Bachman, and the sitting governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, to cite a few, are among our most well-known and true-blue conservatives.
Further, there are a slew of talented conservative writers and analysts in this country; among them are Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Laura Ingraham.
These women are dedicated warriors for the conservative cause in this country and are highly regarded by many.
The majority of attacks upon these women are launched by democrat or liberal sycophants (Bill Maher instantly comes to mind) who quite openly and frankly prefer the chains of large central governments to religious or individual freedom.
We all know the vicious names and assertions that these mealy-mouths are on record as having uttered.
It is Maher who (paraphrasing) suggests that the majority need to be "dragged, kicking and screaming," to a non-existent liberal utopia by an all-powerful tyrannical dictator.
How does one compromise with that? What astounds me frankly, about the manner of the self-professed intellect of those who would perceive themselves as somehow superior or elite to the conservatives in our midst (Bill Maher and that ilk), is the blind credence afforded these "enlightened minds.
" Who made this Neanderthal an authority on anything? In terms of talent, seriously, is this guy really that funny? Frankly, in the arena of comedy, Maher doesn't make my top fifty.
Cornell West, the ultra-left wing professor, (not to be confused with Colonel Allen West, Congressman and national military hero) is somehow given standing among the "intellects" of the world.
For all of this man's Ivy League education, like so many others who have followed similar paths, the brilliance of Cornell West and his merry band of malcontents is lost on most intellectually honest people.
The likes of Joe Klein and Ed Schultz endlessly seek to discredit or smear anyone associated with any sort of conservative agenda, in so doing, frequently and shamelessly display a shocking absence of objectivity, and in a plethora of ways, horribly misguided ideology.
There is only one of two ways that the communist left factions in this country and the world can be characterized; these revolutionaries are either incompetent in their views and ignorant of the results those views have indeed produced (only throughout all of human history) in the world, or they are arrogant enough to believe that although statism in every form has failed miserably every time it has been employed, that those failures were realized only because they were not at the helm.
Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hitler, Napoleon, Mussolini, and in today's world, Ahmadinijad, Chavez, Putin, the newly elected Mohammed Morsi in Muslim Brotherhood controlled Egypt, as well as the pro-sharia government of our "ally" Turkey are egomaniacal big government dictators who have collectively been responsible for a staggering number of human deaths.
Further, the arrests of political dissidents in most of these totalitarian nations far outnumber those incarcerated for murder and other violent crimes against humanity.
Religious persecution is the order of the day in virtually all of the aforementioned places.
How does one who is a lover of individual freedom and a follower of Christ compromise with that? In terms of being "non-intellectuals," as any number of enlightened leftists continually assert of conservatives, the great philosophers of the past coupled with an honest appraisal of world history simply does not support this bogus claim.
To anyone who understands Engels and Marx, the blind acceptance of communism and Marxism is a wonder and indicative of truly non-intellectual thought.
To see the folly of these statists in stunning display, one only need look to John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Milton Freidman, Montesquieu and others, to decisively counter Marxist nonsense.
Locke was a champion of individual liberty and private property rights.
Karl Marx in all his wisdom believes in neither.
There it is-all in print-and available for all to peruse.
Those who believe in Marxism, communism, and other forms of oppression that fall under the umbrella of heavy handed statism wrap their arguments in appealing terms such as "the greater good," and "the general will.
" While these terms elicit positive response from anyone with a pulse, the reality of world history repeatedly illustrates the inevitably catastrophic failures of statism without exception.
Who are the intellectuals here? How does one compromise with this? In summation, as a proud unwavering conservative who once was a naïve young idealist, I humbly appeal to the adults in the room.
Challenge the establishment; further, challenge your own beliefs.
Challenge the compassion of the liberal and the statist.
As we all know, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Compromise is fine be it in generalities or details as long as principles and morality are not discarded along the way.