With a conservative landslide looming, political rhetoric has jumped into high gear. A Facebook debate recently on one of my friend's pages got me thinking about the American Dream, founding principles and where our country is headed. My friend re-posted one of those comments so popular on Facebook and instead of just giving the, "Oh, I agree response.", I jumped in with both feet attacking the entire premise. A friend of my friend, whom I do not know, took great offense to my comments. What I'm about to relate brings us to a bigger issue than a Facebook argument. My friend posted the following statement:

Homeless go without eating...Elderly going without needed medicines...Mentally ill without treatment...our Troops without proper equipment. Yet we donate billions to others countries before helping our own first!!! 99% of people on Facebook won't have the guts to repost this!!!! WILL YOU?

Naturally, a comment like this invokes the automatic, "yes, we should take care of our own first" response, but naturally I argued against the premise of the government being there to "help" people. Foreign aid and whether we should dole out billions to other countries ranks as a legitimate question, but assuming that if those funds weren't sent overseas our federal government would responsibly spend those funds begs a suspension of reason that I am just not capable of. So, in my opinion this sort of statement appeals to emotional responses, totally disconnected from reason. At the heart of the matter rests the question of whether the federal government should be in the business of feeding, housing and providing medical care in the first place. The Constitution lays out what matters that the three federal branches are responsible for and the 10th Amendment clearly leaves all the rest to the States or the people to decide.

This earnest Obama blog-poster argued her heartfelt feelings about believing in caring for other people and her Christian faith as reasons for why the Obama socialist agenda has put America on the right path. She explained Obama's socialist push as akin to what Jesus would want us to do. Now, I am in no position to speak for Jesus and from my rather milk-toast Lutheran upbringing I had always assumed Jesus was speaking to the individual about personal salvation, not governmental usurpation of the fruits of other people's labor by an ever-encroaching government bureaucracy. As goes the way in arguments of this sort, I began to feel like I was talking about apples and the other blog-poster was talking about oranges. I kept posting comments on The Constitution that I suspect fell on deaf ears. I argued the point that I believe in helping other people, too, but I believe in using my own dime for charity. I argued that most problems are best solved locally. I argued that the wealthy should be entitled to use the fruits of their labor as they see fit, not as Barack Obama sees fit. I argued the basic point that elected officials have a duty to be good stewards of the public's dime and that means eliminating deficit-spending and unfunded mandates. I argued that I will take Hamilton, Jay and Madison's expertise on The Constitution over Barack Obama's any day of the week. This brings us to the main issue of, just what is the President's main job.

Historically, oaths have been used to exact allegiance. Long ago, rulers often exacted oaths of loyalty and religious oaths were common. As a stickler for being a believer in keeping your word, I take oath-taking to heart. Our founding fathers did, too. The first act the US Senate passed May 5, 1789 was The Oath Act, requiring an oath of all federal officials to support The Constitution. I believe the Presidential Oath as set out in the Constitution clearly lays out the President's job:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In 2001, President Barack Obama gave an interview to Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM, explaining his views on The Constitution: "But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." He went on to say, "And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

When issues crop up on public policy it's easy to be pulled left or right as politicians appeal to your emotions and every American has the right to believe whatever he/she wants. However, some issues really aren't up for debate. Our founding fathers established our great republic with limited governmental powers, including a structure designed to provide checks and balances on executive, legislative and judicial powers. An issue that weighed even more heavily on many of the signers, after working under the previous flawed Articles of Confederation, was States' rights. The 10th Amendment in The Bill of Rights, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", clearly puts limits on the federal government. Many of the founding fathers tepidly supported the creation of the executive branch of government. Debates raged over this issue, with many fearing the office of President would lead to a monarch and aristocratic class in America, which they had just fought against in the American Revolution. Luckily for America, the first American President, George Washington, set a unifying tone in his administration. He chose smart people, many with whom he disagreed on political matters, putting the public well-being above political partisanship.

I love America, but feel like our country lost its footing and national identity in recent decades. Our colleges pollute the minds of students with left-wing, communist-tinged propaganda, instead of honest historical information. My earnest Facebook debater co-opted Jesus as a Marxist-minded, redistributor of wealth, not even realizing how outrageous that argument is, but rest assured using Jesus crops up regularly amongst left-wing propaganda. The push for convincing Americans that the American Dream is unworthy and unattainable continues, with slick propaganda and convoluted reasoning being pounded into our kids' heads. If you can't answer basic questions about our government, I implore you to search out original documents. A good source is 100 Milestone Documents: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/content.php?flash=true&page=milestone

I urge everyone to read The Constitution often and if you don't have a copy of The Federalist Papers, either read it online or pick up a copy. It's fine to hold differing political opinions. In fact, that ability to debate matters freely and openly keeps America strong. However, no one has a right to reinvent history and that has been happening on America's college campuses for decades. This trivial Facebook debate brought that to mind yesterday, when every fact I offered met with hysterical rantings about how mean and uncaring I am and how I am spreading lies. Constitutional debates swirled from its inception to today, but job descriptions like the Presidential oath are not debatable issues and lamenting that the Warren Court didn't break free from the essential constraints that the founding fathers placed in the Constitution sounds miles apart from the simple oath to PRESERVE, PROTECT and DEFEND THE Constitution of the United States. Don't take my word on this, read the original documents and the many writings of the founding fathers yourself.

Liberty Belle