Nice “teaser”, Foxnews.com. Looking to drive some ratings? Sure hope it worked. Though “worked”, perhaps, in ways you didn’t quite imagine.
Personally, I’ve never listened to Rush Limbaugh. Never ever. But what with the newly-Democrat-directed world spinning heedlessly out of control, and what with President Obama’s insistence on “change”, I decided to tune in and hear what Rush might have to say. And much to my surprise, there was no “lashing out”. Indeed, his address to CPAC was rather tame, and he could have found some of his material in the blogs right here at Smoke Break. (Not that we’re unique, mind you; but to hear your words spoken on national television is rather amusing.)
I’ve never considered myself a literal conservative, and have resisted others putting such a label on me. But if agreeing with Rush’s assessment of what it means to be a conservative, well, I guess I’ll go ahead and wear the t-shirt proudly. It was hard to find argument with what he had to say, particularly his referencing the disembowling of the Constitution. One particularly poignant observation is that the President and Congress take an oath to “defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States”.
For those unfamiliar with these oaths, I present them here for your reading pleasure:
At the start of a term in Congress: “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
The Constitution (Article 2, Section 1) states that before assuming office the President must take the following oath or affirmation: “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.”
Is it pointing out that the Emperor is naked to ask how, pray tell, how President Obama and those riding his silver-tongued coattails could have possibly pledged to such an endeavor when they do not believe in it? To quote President Obama from The Audacity of Hope, “What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our future. All of its elaborate machinery – its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights – are designed to force us into a conversation….” He also has said that the Constitution, “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.”
This is from a man who taught Constitutional law? I don’t have a law degree but it’s pretty obvious. Such missing “doing” was precisely what was intended by the Founding Fathers. They wisely disallowed “conversation”, putting in those checks and balances to keep Big Government at bay and thereby encouraging individual initiative and individual expression, which in turn creates far greater and farther-reaching good than any government could possibly hope to create.
There are so many ways Rush could have ripped this so-called former Constitutional law professor to shreds, to be honest about it. But he didn’t.
Pity.