Did you click on this post because of the title thinking it may be racist? LOL, I hope so because depending on who you are, it just might be. You see, I have always been raised to believe that everything is black and white, everything. The older I get and the more I seek to understand how the world works it becomes clearer to me that our problems are because people lack the understanding of this basic principle. The new "more tolerant" position is one that everything is grey and relative. Are you one of them that would challenge my assertion? I would even go so far as to say that black and white have a direct correlation to peace, prosperity, love, longevity, and perpetuity. I believe my position is correct because any deviation from it really isn't a position at all and therefore is no belief or worldview because that would indicate some adherence to a standard that cannot be permissible in such a relative worldview if I could even use the term.
Black and white, there is no grey, things are either black or white. Let's start with God since He is the Beginning and Creator of all things. God either exists or He doesn't. It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not because your beliefs do not determine the existence of anything. In such a case any critical thinker in determining a position would then look for evidence to support their position. Is their evidence of the existence of God? If there is and you pretend there isn't, do you see your inconsistency and wouldn't you be embarrassed to believe a lie? Sadly today, people believe what they want to in the absolute absence of evidence because they feel like something is true.
Consider our legal system and when you do, think of what it would be like if it were black and white, then think of what it would be like if it were only grey. Which do you see today? I see shades of grey and the reason is because of the decades of the bastardization of American Jurisprudence, where social justice relativity has crept in, it has turned our system on its head. The ironic thing about this is that most that are in that system are mostly the same that advocate for such a system and actually hate it. When the law was black and white, murder was punishable by death, when crimes were committed they were punished, there was no "corrective mechanism" it was punishment, plain and simple, black and white. You do the crime you do the time, period!
Consider our constitution and our government, the constitution either exists or it doesn't. It was created for a specific purpose or it wasn't and there is a process to change it or there isn't. These ideals are not up to us or some democratic majority to decide or some global elitist entity, this is black and white, and if it isn't and if there are only shades of grey, what happens? The entire foundation is destroyed!
Our Constitution was meant to limit the government to "few and defined" powers that would maximize the freedom of the people. If the majority or elitists in control believe it isn't, the government becomes boundless and the mechanism to control the government has been undermined. It has been argued that America has been great for as long as it has because of our fundamental documents limiting government and the knowledge of the people that could identify any abuses or encroachments, the people were the controlling mechanism! Black and white would have maintained our freedom, shades of grey destroy it. Case in point, consider the ability to change it. The change would mean that one desires to take it from one position and make it different than it was, which is actually a black and white position, not one of shades of grey because we are dealing with standards. We are changing "X" to "Y" which is inconsistent with those believing in shades of grey. If they change it from one thing, we assume they would change it to something else, sadly those desiring to change it have no idea what they want to change it to, they just want to change it, which actually is consistent with their "worldview."
Change it? What is the proper mechanism? The relativists don't care what mechanism there is to change it, they would use any means possible and sadly since our electorate is greatly uninformed, their process, whichever they choose would be acceptable because either they don't understand it or they are triggered by emotion and go along with it. Can our constitution be changed by statute? Absolutely not, this is black and white! Is it being changed by statute? Yes, it is and by a variety of other means as well and these changes are happening by the shades of grey relativist, which also includes many republicans and people that call themselves patriots which should scare anyone that is threatened by the loss of freedom.
Our Constitution can only be changed by using Article 5 which allows for changes to be done in one of two ways. Let me repeat myself, the Constitution can only be changed by the use of Article 5, not congress, not the state legislatures, not the supreme court, not the judiciary and certainly not by popular vote.
So why do those relativists not want to use Article 5 if all they want to do is change it? Simply, they are afraid the new constitution will become more restrictive by banning abortion, reining in spending undermining socialist programs and balancing the budget.
So, why do those that claim to love their constitution want to use Article 5 convention? They believe they can rein in an out of control government that sounds good but is based on a lie that contradicts human nature and the nature of politics that I will cover in future posts.
You see, if you love freedom and you love this country, you must see things Black and white because if you don't, you are "in the name of tolerance" working to undermine our American foundation.
If you feel that I should be challenged on such an understanding I look forward to hearing from you.