Progressivism’s “Irrelevant” Constitution and Why the Selection of Supreme Court Justices is so Important

“Progressivism” flourished over the last century as evidenced by academics, journalists, and political liberals who believe there are no permanent rights and our Constitution should constantly “evolve.” They subscribe to the theory of a living constitution, signifying that it can, and should be rewritten to meet their philosophical views. The “living constitution” argument is actually an excuse to manipulate the laws of our nation to mold society to fit certain ideologies. They want to redesign our society through distribution of wealth disguised as equality and justice by the expansion of the federal government. They believe the government’s role is to regulate our society, economy, political system, and our personal lives. They also believe they know what is best for everyone and so they violate our core principles by amending laws to free their ideology from the limitations of the Constitution.
Progressives dismiss our exceptional principles claiming they are totally inadequate for the modern world. The Heritage Foundation rejects that assertion in an article published July 4, 2011, “Celebrating America’s Enduring Principles.”
“It is not uncommon to hear that these principles were fine for the 18th century but are woefully inadequate to meet the challenges of today. Since the early 20th century, academics, journalists, and even American Presidents (Woodrow Wilson, for example) have held the view, characterized by Calvin Coolidge, that “we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the [Founders], and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern.”
Once they change our laws, they are free to discard our principles and replace our sacred Constitution with their self-serving enlightened version. Liberal progressives reject the principles that founded our nation. Whereas the Founding Fathers conception of individual freedom for the pursuit of happiness (opportunity of freedom and choice to make a good life for one’s self), the progressive theory defines freedom as the guaranteed fulfillment of individual life as the primary role of government. To the Founders, the main role of government is to protect the people. To the progressives, the government’s main role is creating people. The Founders believed the government should protect the private citizen whether that relates to home, industry, science, and yes, religion. Man and his government are based on ‘the laws of nature and nature’s God.” Progressives on the other hand see selfishness and oppression in the private realm and believe it is the government’s job to control the private sector. The poor are victims of capitalism and need government protection through redistribution, commerce, production and banking regulations, and price controls. They see spiritualism not in religion, but in the environment and the arts. The Founders believed in individual success, promoted hard work and education, and embraced virtues such as honesty, justice, courage, self-sufficiency, patriotism, and industry.
“Punitive Liberalism” is a natural development in the world of progressives. An article on Roybeaird’s Blog, “Words Have Meaning: Punitive Liberalism’s Rise,” explains the term very well. Liberalism needs to “punish America for her sins, injustices, and ills going all the way back to our founding… Those who believe they are ‘entitled’ to redress, reparation should be able to ‘punish’ all of a particular race or group who do not agree.”” Punitive liberalism’s mandatory grievance doctrine demands recompense for the nation’s past deeds in order to cleanse the collective conscience of the nation. Facts and laws are irrelevant as social justice condemns all Americans.
Fabian Socialism gave rise to Punitive Liberalism which sees America as a flawed and evil country. Superseding individualism, the Federal Government is seen as the answer to all problems. Punitive liberalism rejects the Constitution as an impediment, not the rule of law that it is and transforming America away from being a Constitutional Republic is their goal. “Transforming America,” doesn’t that sound familiar?
Then there are the progressives that ascribe to the principles of “collectivism” in general and “communitarianism” in particular. The “group” to which individuals belong is of central importance – not individuals themselves. They value “community” not independence. They believe “that the principle task of government is to secure and distribute fairly the liberties and economic resources individuals need…”
David L. Goetsch’s 2012 article, “Why Liberals Cling to Socialist Principles In Spite of Evidence Against Socialism,” explains the liberal “state-of-god” mentality. “Liberal secular humanists criticize Christians for having what they describe as “blind faith in God,” yet the left clings to its socialist notions – in spite of socialism’s consistent record of failure – out of blind faith.”
“Arrogance, false compassion, emotionalism, and blind faith in a system that not only does not work but breeds laziness, sloth, and irresponsibility – these are the characteristics necessary to be a socialist. Until America replaces these characteristics with those of the traditional work ethic – thrift, diligence, self-reliance, self-discipline, responsibility, accountability, and hard work – all the bailouts, handouts, and entitlements in the world will have no more effect than water that is poured into a bottomless bucket…”
David Horowitz is an activist, orator, and prolific author of numerous books on American politics, history, the radical 60’s, and Progressivism in the U.S. He is the founder of the “Freedom Center,” which is dedicated “to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.” His significant warnings should not be ignored. His parents were American Communists. Until recently in America, Communists could not openly call themselves Communists or Socialists, so they called themselves Liberals and Progressives and found safe harbor with the ever-increasing Progressives in the Democrat Party. David provides invaluable insight into Progressive mindset and philosophy.
In addition to the facts he presented on the existing state of government during an October 2013 speech, David’s radical past provides him a unique view of the Obama administration. Noting that the IRS, the national taxing agency has become a political weapon; the federal government is accumulating financial and health information on all Americans; and the NSA has access to all communications including email, paper mail and telephones David warned, “…you don’t really need a secret police to destroy your political opponents. Once you have silenced them, you can proceed with your plans to remake the world in your image.”
David has authored numerous papers, pamphlets and /books. His recently published set “The Black Book of the American Left Volume I: My Life and Times,” 2013 and “The Black Book of the American Left Volume II: Progressives,” 2014 are absolute must-reads. Volume I chronicles “the years he spent at war with his own country, collaborating with radical figures like Huey Newton, Tom Hayden and Bill Ayers as he made his transition from what writer Paul Berman describes as the American left’s ‘most important theorist’ to its most determined enemy.” In Volume II based on his own experiences, he provides honest insight into progressivism and its dangers. Other great books by David include, “Unholy Alliance” 2006 and “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America,” 2007.
Bruce Thornton’s October 17, 2013 article, “Barack Obama and the Bad Idea of Progressivism,” Front Page Magazine substantiates David Horowitz’s assessment of Progressivism in America today. Thornton focusses on President Obama’s progressive ideals as he presents himself as champion of the people against the wealthy elites. Thornton also highlights The President’s total “disregard for the Constitution.” He illustrates how Progressivism has been embedded within our government.
Besides appointing czars and panels for everything and editing the White House Presidential Biographies, President Obama loves to create executive orders and issue presidential proclamations. A presidential proclamation issued on December 15, 2013 gained little notice, but was quite telling. The President declared December 15th to be the “Bill of Rights” Day. That sounds nice but as he so often does; Obama cited the Bill of Rights and edited it to include the rights he believes should be included: “dignity, fairness, and a living wage.”
In an earlier posted article Bruce Thornton focused on the failed progressive notion that government can “create” economic growth since central-planning experts can manage resources better than the private – free market can. “But more important is the underlying idea of progressivism that Obama’s policies are predicated on: Perfect justice, prosperity, and equality are possible if enlightened elites are given the power to organize and run society according to “scientific” knowledge about human nature and behavior. For two centuries this hubristic idea has led to failure, misery, and murder on a vast scale, yet progressives continue to increase government power in order to create this impossible utopia.”
“Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century,” written by Paul Kengor is a well-researched book exposing Communist – Soviet Intelligence operations right here in the U.S. throughout the twentieth-century that supported progressive academics and intellectuals.
David Kupelian, award winning journalist, managing editor of WND, editor of Whistleblower magazine, and author of best-selling books, The Marketing of Evil and How Evil Works explained why our government “no longer worries about communists,” and how “radically America’s attitude toward Marxism and communism has changed during our lifetime.”
David’s father, Vahey S. Kupelian and grandmother survived the early Twentieth century Turkish genocide of Armenians and were able to escape to America, “The Promised Land.” Vahey began working at age 13, learned English, did well in school, and graduated from MIT. He was a rocket scientist who became the U.S. Army’s chief scientist for ballistic missile defense and later deputy undersecretary of defense for strategic and theater nuclear forces under President Reagan. Vahey was a real American “immeasurably grateful and loyal to his adopted country.” He came close to losing everything when the FBI confronted him about an event when his mother innocently accepted a copy of the communist newspaper, Workers World at an Armenian Church picnic when he was just a teen-ager. This was at a time when the U.S. government and the FBI were very concerned about the loyalty of federal employees especially the ones with security clearances. He was able to prove neither he nor his mother had any connection to the communist party.
The point of David’s story about his father (the complete article is well worth reading) is to highlight the government’s current lack of concern about communism in the U.S. Progressives under the flags of “fairness,” “economic justice,” “redistribution,” and “equality,” have successfully been able to move the country toward socialism. David Kupelian warns us that, “The original American spirit – stout, risk-taking, God-fearing, responsible adult – has progressively been displaced by the spirit of dependency and helplessness, of perpetual grievance and victimization, and most of all, of envy and resentment. All of which cries out for ever bigger government. So the question is: Will we Americans re-embrace the values that made ours the greatest nation in history, or will we continue on our current path toward the godless mirage of “redistributive change” – and the poverty and loss of liberty that always follow?”
Richard L. Cravatts shares recent stories of Progressive students at two of our prestigious universities in his article “The Agony of Moral Defeat.” At Harvard University student Sandra Y.L.Korn wrote an op-ed, “The Doctrine of Academic Freedom,” in which she states that academic freedom is undeserved by those holding different beliefs than hers. Sandra and like-minded students have determined what is “moral, what is right, and what is acceptable speech” at Harvard and the world beyond. I was shocked to learn that she was majoring in the history of science and studies of women and gender and sexuality. Just kidding – I wasn’t at all surprised.
Across the country at UCLA, the undergraduate student government voted down a Students’ for Justice in Palestine proposed “Resolution to Divest from Companies that Violate Palestinian Human Rights.” Mr. Cravatts reported that “The UCLA incident revealed a similar Leftist obsession with obtaining social justice for the Palestinians, even if it necessitates the weakening or destruction of Israel.” One distraught student went ballistic at the outcome of the vote. This student went on an “expletive-laden rant” on how disappointed she was and how ashamed she was of the racists who voted against the resolution. Her two minute rant can be viewed on YouTube as another example of educational dollars “well-spent.”
Stephen J. Markman, Michigan State Justice delivered a speech in Washington, D.C. February 25, 2010 at an event sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Allen P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship. Justice Markman warns that little public attention is being paid to proponents of a “21st century constitution,” or “living constitution,” whose aim is to “transform our nation’s supreme law…” Justice Markman warns that courts, especially federal courts, will increasingly over turn lower court decisions and the laws enacted by the will of the people. Justice Markman cites six popular concepts of 21st century constitution advocates:
1. Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: Protects a limited number of rights of American citizens. Federal judicial authority over the states has increased considerably through judicial interpretation of the clause. Living Constitution proponents demand increasing federal oversight, and a new and unlimited bill of rights covered by the 14th Amendment.
2. Positive Rights: Redefining the Privileges or Immunities Clause to transform the Constitution from guaranteeing negative liberties (what the government does not have authority over) into a charter of affirmative government, guaranteeing positive rights, (giving the government more rights over citizens).
3. State Action: To achieve fairness and equity, living constitutionalists believe the Constitution must make federal rules and regulations applicable to public and private institutions.
4. Political Questions: Federal courts are interjecting themselves into matters of national defense and foreign policy (the exclusive responsibility of the elected branches of government). “If there are no longer any traditional limitations upon the exercise of the judicial power, then every matter coming before every president, every Congress, every governor, every legislature, and every county commission and city council can, with little difficulty, be summarily recast as a justifiable dispute…”
5. Ninth Amendment: The principle purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to prevent the expansion of federal power; not augment judicial power. Living constitutionalist judges feel they have the right to look beyond constitutional text to protect “fundamental” rights not expressed in the amendment. These judges have decided that Ninth Amendment “privacy” rights should include abortion, contraception, and homosexual behavior.
6. Transnationalism: “…international and domestic law are merging into a hybrid body of transnational law…In practice, transnationalism would legitimize reliance by American judges upon foreign law in giving meaning to the United States Constitution…” And Transnational (International) law could render American soldiers and elected U.S. leaders subject to the international law for accused actions such as “war crimes” and “violations of the Earth.” International law would take precedence over the American legal system.
Many people do not realize the importance of knowing the character of the courts. It would be great if our judges were non-partisan and neutral to political pressure and personal ideology. Unfortunately that is not the case. Progressive judges especially at the federal level and on the Supreme Court are making and changing laws. They justify their decisions by re-wording or intentionally misinterpreting the Constitution. These judges are appointed by people we elect and they are not restrained by term limits.
For instance, during President Obama’s first term, he appointed 125 federal judges; 25 of them to appellate courts and 2 to the Supreme Court. That is quite an infusion of liberalism into our judicial system; and the President with a Senate majority backing him has a second term to continue stacking the courts. For instance, the DC Circuit Court hears and rules on challenges to presidential executive orders (President Obama regularly uses this tool to by-pass Congress). The DC Circuit Court will soon have a 7-4 Democrat majority that will guarantee his agenda. Bryan Preston posting on PJ Media wrote: “…Podesta’s appointment shows that Obama is done working with Congress…but there’s even more at stake here. Obama recognizes that in Congress his agenda is dying and after the mid-terms will be dead. So he is planning to sideline Congress. Obama is packing the DC Circuit Court in anticipation of losing Congress to the Republicans.”
President Obama continues to issue executive actions (orders) knowing that they will be challenged in court. He also knows that challenges against his “unconstitutional law-making” will fail in court as long as the courts are “packed” with his appointed judges. With his judges deciding law, Congress loses all power to conduct hearings and investigations. Bottom line is that the Legislative branch of government – the only branch empowered to make laws will lose that constitutional guaranteed power to the Executive branch, acting in collusion with the Judicial branch.
These unconstitutional actions on the part of the President and his appointed liberal judges will make elections “irrelevant.” When elections become irrelevant like they have become in countries like Venezuela, the people have lost their voice and democratic voting is just a charade.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg demonstrated one of the most disrespectful displays of the judicial progressive corruption of our Constitution and our courts. During an interview with an Egyptian television station, Justice Ginsburg basically told that nation that our United States Constitution was not a good constitutional model to emulate: “I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” She suggested the South African constitution which established an independent judiciary as a model as well as Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice Ginsburg continued, “You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”
This judge, sworn to “uphold” the very constitution that she obviously thinks is old and irrelevant sits on the highest court of the land. Keep in mind she said this to the Egyptian people after the White House endorsement and support of the “Arab Spring” uprisings. We all know how well that turned out – A Muslim Brotherhood member was elected president. I did not hear Justice Ginsburg comment on that calamity.
Anyone familiar with the television series Star Trek the Next Generation will remember the “Borg.” The Borg episodes are a great analogy for modern liberalism. Whether you call it socialism, communism, collectivism or communitarianism, the Progressive ideology is the same as the Borg. Individualism is not recognized. Each person is merely an extension of the “whole,” working in unison with the “whole,” and only for the perceived good of the “whole.” All behavior is controlled and the “collective” is entirely dependent upon the Leader. An individual cannot exist alone without group support and certainly not without directives from the leader.
Judges and lawyers for that matter are supposed to be the custodians of our Constitution not editors of it. Progressivism is re-writing our Constitution one fragment at a time and no one is paying attention. We only need to turn to our Founding Fathers for Constitutional clarity and proof that the Constitution is not an “invalid contract.”
Alexander Hamilton argued that the judiciary would be the “least dangerous” branch of the new government. No one at the time ever imagined that the judiciary would interpret the Constitution not within its own text but by the whims of progressivism. The Heritage Foundation agrees: “It seems that there is a right to everything these days: a right to the internet, to free health care, to a good job, and to a free college education. The Supreme Court is famous for finding new rights in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution.”
Dr. Robert Owens, author of “The Constitution Failed,” “The Azusa Street Revival,” America Won the Vietnam War,” and “Never Forget,” believes that Progressives in the U.S.
have turned the best educated, most politically involved and self-reliant citizens in history into an assemblage of indifferent and uninterested Americans eagerly accepting dependence on the government.
Dr. Owens identifies the incremental transformation strategy of progressives. The first step is to control the educational system and “dumb” it down; indoctrinate students to produce ideological clones who then teach more students and so on. Then central planning (the government) targets capitalism to erase “individualism, self-reliance and innovation.” With layers and layers of regulations, government policies overwhelm business decisions and investments until private businesses can no longer survive.
The “most insidious aspect” is erasing the objective reality of “truth” and redefining it as whatever is needed to support the efforts and achieve the goals. “War becomes peace. Inequality becomes equality. Pork becomes stimulus. Stonewalling and taking the fifth becomes the most transparent administration in history and the destruction of the greatest health system ever known becomes affordable care.”
David Azerrad, The Heritage Foundation summarizes the progressive detriment to our country this way: “Liberalism has in effect redefined democracy along paternalistic lines: enacting, through whatever means necessary, what the people would vote for – if only they were enlightened enough to know what’s best for them. This of course, is not democracy. And it’s incompatible with what James Madison in The Federalist called “that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government…Simply claiming to be for the people does not make a government democratic…”
Gary DeMar of The American Vision was specifically addressing an inevitable new immigration law but his words ring true for all new laws, when he said, “What makes any of us think that any new law will be followed or enforced? There are so many legal loopholes and caveats that we will never see any enforcement. We’re becoming a third-world country where, quoting Simon Bolivar (1783-1830), ‘there is no good faith…Treaties are scraps of paper; constitutions, printed matter; elections, battles; freedom, anarchy; and life a torment.”
Daniel Greenfield posted a thought-provoking article titled, “The American Iron Curtain.” Greenfield is not talking about a physical wall but a “wall of words” that is encompassing our country. This wall of words is made up of laws, regulations and mandates. The “Affordable Care Act” alone contains 11 million words of regulations. Clear simple language is lost in the government’s wall of millions of words. People need to realize that elections have consequences. “They need to know that they are not choosing between politicians, but choosing whether they will be able to have the car of their choice, the doctor of their choice, the meal of their choice and the book of their choice.”
“The struggle is over whether America will be an open system or a closed system. In an open system, you choose the life you live. In a closed system, life is mandated for you.”
Simply stated, individuals are in control in an open system whereas individuals are controlled by the state (government) that makes decisions for everyone in a closed system. There is no individuality or even independent thinking.
It is more important than ever to heed the warnings. Abraham Lincoln said Americans were the “legal inheritors” of the “fundamental blessings” bequeathed us by the Founders “whose principles, institutions, and very names they had a duty to preserve.” Lincoln also warned: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

Constitutionally Guaranteed Freedoms under Assault:
The Government Knows What is “Best for Us”
In an attempt to redesign society, a good example of a progressive government intruding into the personal lives of its citizens was prohibition. Ratified in 1919, the Eighteenth Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of liquor. Prohibition did not stop people from drinking, but it did create a culture of corruption and organized crime that continued long after the amendment was repealed in 1933. The hypocrisy of prohibition is that some of the biggest lawbreakers were government officials sworn to uphold the laws of the United States. The Eighteenth Amendment is a lesson to modern Americans concerned about individual rights. Progressives make laws for everyone else to abide by, though they have awarded themselves a “selective license” to disregard laws they do not agree with.
Our government today proudly boasts of its responsibility to protect citizens from themselves. One case in point is the tobacco industry in which our concerned leaders discovered a “golden calf.” Millions of dollars have been made by continually raising sales taxes on cigarette products and suing tobacco manufacturers. So actually where did all the money the government received from litigation that was supposed to finance health care go? No one is talking about it now, even though the taxes on cigarettes keep rising. One of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s last contributions to society before he left office was to ban E-cigarettes in public places to compliment the already illegal activity of smoking real cigarettes in public. E-cigarettes emit “vapor” not smoke or any other harmful residue, but since some people can’t tell the difference, and are offended by just looking at anything resembling cigarettes, they had to be banned. Chicago Mayor Emanuel announced in October 2013 his plan to raise taxes on cigarettes another seventy-five cents a pack bringing the total sales taxes (city, county, and state) on cigarettes to the highest in the nation at $7.42 per pack. This is an excessive tax targeting one segment of the population for a “legal” product. There is growing support by politicians to legalize marijuana nationally and to minimize penalties related to illegal use of it. So, cigarettes are bad and the people who smoke them are ostracized, but now marijuana is good and needs to be legalized on a national scale. Second hand smoke from cigarettes can kill you, but second hand smoke from marijuana is just fine – who would have guessed?
Now the politicians’ sights are set on obesity and under the lame cover of intense concern for our children, the government is planning to protect us from fatness. An increasing number of cities, and states following suit, are instituting “sugar taxes” also known as “fat taxes” on soft drinks, sweets, fast food, and other consumables. Former New York City Mayor Bloomberg had been on a personal crusade to protect New Yorkers from themselves with a number of other “health” initiatives. One of those initiatives was the soda ban – soda limited to a maximum of 16 ounces. Even though the court found this unconstitutional, Bloomberg vowed to keep fighting for his health initiatives. Just three weeks before he left office as mayor Bloomberg proposed to the City Council to require annual flu shots for all NYC children including Daycare children. Autism advocates are upset over this latest mayoral mandate as well as many parents who have reservations about giving it to their children. Don’t worry New Yorkers; Mayor Bloomberg and his Health Department say it is safe and necessary. Bloomberg is a good example of progressivism in action – Relax – he’s not a doctor but he still knows what is best for the people of New York.
Newsweek reported in June 2009, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) launched a new “Lean Works” website to distribute a fountain of information on the health care costs for employers who hire “fat people,” and recommendations for citizens on how to control and prevent obesity. Employers can access the website’s “obesity cost calculator” that determines added costs of employing persons with a BMI (Body Mass Index) over 30. This is just another ambush in the government’s war on fat. In the same publication, Newsweek also cited reports by the CDC’s own National Center for Health Statistics finding no evidence that “being overweight or moderately obese as an adult increases the risk of death.” Other studies by non-government agencies concur with the National Center for Health Statistics. So, if the CDC cannot establish a unilateral finding on obesity, how can part of their findings influence legislation affecting the rest of us?
In November 2010 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a ban on toys in fast-food restaurant children’s meals in another effort to protect children from fatness (though they prefer the term obesity-curbing efforts). Toys would be allowed only if the kid meals meet their “guidelines” with regards to saturated fats, trans-fats, sodium, calories, and if they contained fruits or vegetables. It seems that all parents are not up to the task of feeding their children properly. Well at least now the children will be “healthier” while they’re exposed to rampant drug addiction, STD’s, and homeless people urinating on buildings. Maybe the San Francisco Board of Supervisors should take a city tour and see what real health problems look like.
It is a contradiction that the same government obsessed with the health and welfare of its citizens encourages gambling by promoting lotteries and licensed gambling casinos. We see published reports on condom use, obese children, the dangers of drugs, smoking, and drinking, but rarely see anything on the devastating effects gambling has on millions of families. The irony is, gambling is promoted, but sugar is bad. Go figure. Another issue regarding state lotto’s is that when they started becoming popular in the 1970’s, politicians promoted them as great sources of revenue to among other things fund education without raising taxes. Revenue from gambling was supposed to be a tremendous benefit to the schools. Where did the money go? Our public schools have degraded – not improved.
Unless politicians prove otherwise, they are NOT concerned about your health and welfare, unless of course, it is beneficial to them. If politicians and government officials are concerned about you and your family, they are seeing dollar signs somewhere. Government programs allow and even provide needles and drugs to drug addicts, “medical” marijuana to sick people, and now states are legalizing marijuana use in general, but cigarettes and sugar are bad for you. The federal government’s most recent campaign is to ban “trans fats” because they are bad and we are not smart enough to make the decision not to use them. Does any of this make sense? It makes sense to the politicians. The more “services” and “favors” the government provides to the public, the easier it is for politicians to win votes.
Journalist Jonah Goldberg of the National Review frames government policies this way: “Conservatives tend to see government as a necessary evil, and therefore see policymaking with some humility. Liberals tend to see government as a necessary good, and see ordering people to do things ‘for their own good’ as a source of pride, even hubris.
From a conservative perspective, telling people how to run their lives when not absolutely necessary is an abuse of power. For liberals, telling people how to run their lives is one of the really fun perks of working for the government.”
Mary A. Kardes
America: Our Sacred Honor
2015