On the heels of this we’ll need to create a new Hollywood and mass-media which is completely in love with the ideas, principles and deeds of our founding fathers. The power of suggestion is powerful indeed; and it must out of necessity precede the following step, which is new legislation, including amending our Constitution. New law and the amendment must accomplish that which our founding fathers died for: Government of the people, by the people and for the people. We must destroy government of the elite, by the elite and for the elite.

1. Amend our Constitution with term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court, and provide Congress with 2/3 override power for all Supreme Court decisions impacting or relating to the Constitution its self. This amendment should also identify the Supremacy of the laws in our Declaration of Independence over Constitutional law.

2. Enforce the tenth amendment by breaking up all entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security into fifty state programs. Also, make the Department of Education an advisory agency only – ban all educational matching grants from the federal government to the states – let the states and the people educate their children without the socialist federal state.

3. Cease federal funding of the ACLU and similar organizations.

4. Consider creating non-voting citizen status for those who pay less than ~10% in taxes – no voting in federal elections unless you pay at least ~5% in federal taxes – no voting in state elections unless you pay at least ~5% in total state, local and sales taxes. Representation must have a connection to taxation.

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” Abraham Lincoln

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln

We are in a continual back-and-forth about chicken and egg. The real question at the crux of our disagreement is whether particular ideologies are inherent to particular races of people.

In reference to Muslims, I mentioned before that the teachings of certain religions are incompatible with the principles enshrined in our founding documents — they are anti-American. But Islam, like socialism or classical liberalism, is an ideology. An Arab Muslim, black American Muslim, near-eastern Muslim, North African Muslim, or white Bosnian Muslim all share the same ideological traits that you describe. In the same vein, South American communists, Chinese communists, Russian communists and African communists all shared (and share) the same anti-American, anti-capitalist ideological traits. You are correct in saying that the principles reflected in the founding of our formal government are reflective of the informal values held by the broader society (to a certain extent. There was, of course, considerable debate and compromise as to what rights and principles and values would be protected and reflected in our constitution). But like communism or Islam, it is possible for many different, disparate people to subscribe to the same unique ideology of “Americanism”.

In my opinion this is the crux of the matter; this is the culture war between Marxist Socialism and Americanism. We will only win the culture war and restore our republic to the Constitution when we assert that the Declaration of Independence carries the force of law, and that it is superior to the Constitution. This is something that Abraham Lincoln understood and agreed with.

“The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for future use.” Abraham Lincoln

Thomas Jefferson also understood that the Declaration of Independence was supreme because it identifies our Divine human equality (equality before the law – not Marxist government-forced economic equality of a low order for the masses) and our Divine human rights to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson understood that Divine and unalienable human rights trump government power, i.e.: human law – including Constitutional Law.

“Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Thomas Jefferson

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson

Although I have some sympathy with your position, and we agree on some important points, you continue to make some statements that are simply false. Thus you said

“The common culture in early America was uniquely American and based on the principles articulated in the DOI and constitution.”

This cannot be correct: The Constitution defines the basic nature of the Federal government only, and it simply presupposes, without even saying so, the nature and functioning of the culture, the society. In the view held at the time, government presupposes and leaves in place the nature and functioning of the society it governs, and is to act within the general spiritual and intellectual framework of the already existing society.

The basic problem with the view you expressed is that it confuses government with society. “Society” is a richer concept than government; it refers to the totality of laws, rules, customs, habits, traditions and so on that make a people a unified whole rather than just a bunch of isolated social atoms who simply happen to live in the same geographical location. Government is part of the picture, but (ideally) only a small part. The idea that the Constitution stipulates the basic way society operates is a leftist view.

As for the Declaration of Independence, it does express some deep principles of society and government, but it has never had the force of law, and therefore it is only unofficially formative of society.

To return to my point that too much ethnic [or racial, or cultural, or religious] diversity makes a properly functioning society impossible: You said

“It is not diversity of ethnicity in and of itself that will Balkanize and ruin American society, it is diversity of ideology, as I said from the beginning. Ideology is abstract — it can be adopted by people of any ethnicity, culture, religion or geographic location.”

It is an easily-verified empirical fact that nonwhite and non-Christian peoples (Jews excepted) are far less likely to support the secular, rights-oriented government ideology you advocate than white Christians are. (I’m using “Christian” in the broadest sense: members of an at least historically Christian nation.) Nonwhites and non-Christians, overall, are not much interested in implementing your ideas. And this is especially true in America and Europe, where nonwhites and non-Christians (and even Jews) are minorities who generally favor their own kind out of a desire to avoid being pushed around by other groups. But even when they are a majority, in their own nation, these people continue to hold the belief that it is proper to favor one’s own kind. I agree: favoring one’s own kind is indeed proper. It is we white people who favor our own less than any other group does, largely because we have embraced liberalism.

These things being so, we cannot avoid taking race and ethnicity into account in our discussion of how American society ought to be. Different groups of people have differing characteristics, including differing views of government. Perhaps a concrete example will clarify things:

Consider Muslims. Those who are loyal to the actual teachings of their religion will want Sharia law to rule. But if Sharia rules American Muslims, then they will have de facto seceded from our nation. And if (God forbid) Sharia law ruled all of America, our way of life would have been destroyed.

Many Muslims in America are at least sympathetic to the rule of Sharia. Ethnic diversity [Islam being both a religion and an ethnicity] necessarily leads to ideological diversity. And there is no reliable way to proselytize Muslims to become supporters of our form of government and way of life. A few will change; most will not. This being the case, we are justified in treating Muslims as a group who differ from us in important ways.

As I stated before, I find it dubious to say that all peoples of European lineage share a common culture. The customs of the various peoples across the European continent are very distinct. In the list of six European countries I mentioned above there is not even a common native language among them. Even in terms of religion Europe has been divided for over half a millenium by factions within Christianity itself (Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant). The common culture in early America was uniquely American and based on the principles articulated in the DOI and constitution. Those principles are indeed, as you assert, based on Judeo/Christian values, but they are sufficiently secular that one need not subscribe to any particular religion in order to appreciate and respect them. It is not diversity of ethnicity in and of itself that will Balkanize and ruin American society, it is diversity of ideology, as I said from the beginning. Ideology is abstract — it can be adopted by people of any ethnicity, culture, religion or geographic location. That liberal/socialist/leftist/subversive ideology has changed the face of American culture is not uniquely attached to any one particular race or ethnicity — a point exemplified by the fact that most of the people responsible for pushing the acceptance of said ideology have been white skinned European-descended liberals. I believe it is you who is confusing cause and effect.

To answer your question, what would I do if people refuse to follow the principles enshrined in our constitution, I would personally advocate using the force of government to enforce the rules and laws of our constitution rather than allowing them to be subverted and eroded by judicial activism and outright usurpation.

http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html

http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/preface/03pref.pdf

Yes, and Marxist Socialism has its religious underpinnings – something that Igor Shafarevich and Sergi Bulgakov understood very well:

“For socialism nowadays emerges not only as a natural area of social policy but usually also as a religion, one based on atheism and the deification of man and man’s labor and on recognition of the elemental forces of Nature and social life, and as the only meaningful principle of history.” Sergi Bulgakov

“We can see that all elements of the socialist ideal–the abolition of private property, family, hierarchies; the hostility toward religion–could be regarded as a manifestation of one basic principle: the suppression of individuality…Finally, human individuality finds its greatest support and its highest appreciation in religion. Only as a personality can man turn to God and only through this dialogue does he realize himself as a person commensurate with the person of God. It is for this very reason that socialist ideology and religion are mutually exclusive.” Igor Shafarevich

“The religious aspects of socialism may explain the extraordinary attraction of socialist doctrines and their capacity to inflame individuals and to inspire popular movements. It is precisely these aspects of socialism which cannot be explained when socialism is regarded as a political or economic category. Socialism’s pretensions to be a universal world view comprising and explaining everything (from the transformation of a liquid into steam to the appearance of Christianity) also make it akin to religion. A characteristic of religion is socialism’s view of history not as a chaotic phenomenon but as an entity that has a goal, a meaning and a justification. In other words, both socialism and religion view history teleologically. Bulgakov draws our attention to numerous and far-reaching analogies between socialism (especially Marxism) and Judaic apocalyptics and eschatology. Finally, socialism’s hostility toward traditional religion hardly contradicts this judgment–it may simply be a matter of animosity between rival religions.” Igor Shafarevich

“It is certainly true that socialism is hostile to religion. But is it possible to understand it as a consequence of atheism? Hardly, at least if we understand atheism as it is usually defined: as the loss of religious feeling. It is not clear just how such a negative concept can become the stimulus for an active attitude toward the world (its destruction or alteration) or how it can be the source of the infectiousness of socialist doctrines. Furthermore, socialism’s attitude toward religion does not at all resemble the indifferent and skeptical position of someone who has lost interest in religion. The term “atheism” is inappropriate for the description of people in the grip of socialist doctrines. It would be more correct to speak here not of “atheists” but of “God-haters,” not of “atheism” but of “theophobia.” Such, certainly, is the passionately hostile attitude of socialism toward religion. Thus, while socialism is certainly connected with the loss of religious feeling, it can hardly be reduced to it. The place formerly occupied by religion does not remain vacant; a new lodger appeared.” Igor Shafarevich

http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html

RC