Skip to main content

Is The Democratic Party Destroying America?

There are so many situations in our country that seem to be decaying and disappearing, from the two parent household to moral standards. The courts appear to be soft on hard crime, and hard on "soft" crime while the victim as often as not becomes the villain and the villain is portrayed as a victim. Fewer people appear to be working and a growing number not working yet are receiving money from a government bent on continuing the process. And illegal aliens are welcome with no thought of making them legal or deporting them.

What the hell has happened to the experiment called the United States of America?

I recently finished a book entitled "The Lost Constitution" by William Martin. It was a fascinating read, full of historical information on those who created our Constitution, their descendants and our current political environment. I found myself reading this over 700 page book in a few short days and wondering if this were true, how would our country receive it. Everyone in the book has an agenda, a reason for finding this historical document and rare are those whose agendas work together. One wants it to prove the Founding Fathers' intent regarding gun control as being as written; another to prove it was a work in progress. One wants to make millions of dollars off of its sale, another wants to preserve it and protect it.

It started me thinking: who truly has the country's best interests at heart today? At present, we have two primary parties in government, the Republican and the Democratic. There are other smaller parties including the Tea Party but by and large, these two lead the way in America today. But do they have our best interests, that of the majority of Americans at heart? Do they serve us, do they desire to better the country or are they self serving to the end?

Have you ever wondered why the mascot of the Democratic Party is an...Ass?

Have you ever wondered why the mascot of the Democratic Party is an...Ass?

I do not consider myself to be a member of either party, although when I was younger I did identify with the Republican Party because my family was Republican. As I aged, I tended to move away from them but not towards the Democrats, rather just away from both parties. It is my feeling that neither one is looking out for the little/middle man, the cornerstones of this country. The belief is that Republicans look out for themselves and the "good old boy" network of money men in our country, while the Democrats are on the side of the minorities and those who yearn to enter our country in order to find "a better life".

If this is accurate, who is looking out for those who reside between the two extremes? Anyone? There may be lip service given from both sides in an attempt to sway votes one direction or another but really, if you are for the rich and you are for the poor neither of you are for me in the middle with the millions of others who get up, go to work every day, pay our own bills in addition to those of the ones who aren't working or are entering our country illegally every single day.

Disability Claims Increase

But at the heart of what I perceive to be the problem in America today is in the realm of the Democratic Party's house and it is a problem that is growing daily. One area is the growing number of disability claims which have taken place over the past few years. In 2009 there were 8.9 million "beneficiaries" of Disability Benefits on the books; today that number is in excess of 10 million. Of those on disability, some 3.6 million are those whose disability is of a mental disorder concern. The next largest group of beneficiaries at 2.8 million are those with what is described as being back problems.

Sen. Paul Rand has stated that "Over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts - join the club. Who doesn't get a little anxious for work and their back hurts?". In addition to this fund, there is another 8.3 million people who receive Supplemental Security Income which is a separately funded disability program for low income people. So if you add the two groups together you arrive at a number nearing 20 million people who receive some form of disability income. As of April 2016, there was only just over 120 million people in the country who had a full time job. So for every six people who work 35 or more hours each week there is one who does nothing and receives an income. As of January 2014 there were some 144 million people who had jobs total across the country, so there are another 24 million people who work are in that region who work but are below 35 hours per week.

As time has passed, the perception is that those whose unemployment benefits have run out are finding themselves another paycheck by being approved for disability via the reason that as they cannot find jobs they are depressed and are therefore unable to work if they could. Once on this type of sustenance there is no reason to get off and the amount of those receiving this type of government assistance continues to grow. Is this true? I cannot say for certain but conversations I have overheard and witnessed seem to lean in this direction. And as our current Democratic President has made it more accessible to more people, the population grows larger and larger.

Increase in Minority Demographics

In 1930 Caucasians accounted for 89.83% of America. In 1960 that number began to drop, setting at 88.57%. By 1990 that number had dropped to 80.29%; 2000 75.14% and by 2010 it had fallen to 72.4%. African American and Asian American groups have grown substantially over the ensuring years from 9.91% in 1930 to 17.54% in 2010. Native Americans have climbed from .27% to .95% over the same time frame.

But in looking a bit deeper into the numbers I found a trend that could lead to a troubling conclusion. When looking specifically at the newborn (zero years) to 19 year old's in America today, the numbers are far closer than at any time in our nation's history. Of the total population of those age groups in America today, Caucasians stand at a mere 65.39% to Mixed/African American population of 28.8%. And in the 0 to 4 year old category the numbers are closer still with Caucasians totaling 63.34% to Mixed/African American 30.78%.

So what does this mean? First it means that far fewer Caucasians are having children than ever before and therefore the population is shifting faster than at any point in our nation's history. And while that may or may not be a good or bad thing, the fact is that fewer of the 30.78% will be working in the future if the numbers hold true to course to what is occurring today; and if that does indeed occur, there will be fewer actual workers working to provide an income both for themselves and those who are subsidized by our government.

Again, it appears that the Democratic Party is encouraging those who are of this ethnic background by allowing more subsidies to exist and by not halting this flood of non-workers to find work somewhere, somehow. I agree that if there are no jobs then we cannot expect those not working to work but if there are jobs available and they prefer to not work then we have a different problem altogether.

Current Demographics of Zero to 19 Year Old Today

AgeCaucasianAfrican AmericanMixed RaceAfrican American/mixed Combined

0 to 4 years





5 to 9





10 to 14





15 to 19





The Influx Of Illegal Aliens

It appears that the majority of those termed Illegal Aliens are from Mexico, having walked across the border into our country to find work and a better way of life. I have no problems with those who desire this, in fact I applaud them for that desire. But there is a proper way to go about it and if you do not want to wait to do it properly then I do have a problem with you. By the same token, there are those who come to our country not to work but to feed off it by various means. This could be by having a child, the so-called "anchor baby" that then ties them to our country and does not immediately require them to become citizens in the normal manner or by selling illegal drugs from the cartels of Mexico to America. Both versions of these Illegal Aliens are deceptive in their approach and do not have our country's best interests at heart yet we do not seem to harbor sufficient ill will against them as a country to halt their entry into the U.S.

The "anchor babies" bring entire families into the country and while some may find jobs, jobs that may have no benefits and/or are paid cash under the table, they are exposed to other opportunities including healthcare and food benefits that allow them to continue their existence here without having to become legal immigrants. I disagree with this approach wholeheartedly and feel we must do something to halt the invasion taking place today.

As for the drug runners, various groups asked in the Harvard IOP in 2014 about the legalization of marijuana detail quite clearly that Democrats support legalizing the drug while Republicans do not. On the Democratic side in groups age 18 to 30 49% support it against 28% opposing it. Republicans were 32% in favor against 50% opposing it. So based upon these numbers it would appear that those identifying as Democrats are more liberal towards drug use and the legalization of it. Might we assume that they would then not be for stronger drug law enforcement regarding the illegal import of said drugs from Mexico?

While this may not be tied directly to the Illegal Alien influx into America it does have some impact upon it. But the Illegal Alien problem was here long before the current administration; in fact the migration is said to have peaked in the 2003 area. What we do have now is a growing population of children born to illegal aliens who are not graduating from high school and are therefore not gaining their education that will help them meet the needs of the world and prepare them for an enhanced life as adults. As of 2009 some four million U.S. born children of illegal aliens resided in this country in addition to the one million plus illegal children of illegal aliens. And statistics say that the majority of these children will not graduate from high school. This will lead to more dependence upon the good graces of the government to provide care for them.

Scroll to Continue

And who do these people look to for leadership? When you are asking if they are Democrats or Republicans the answer is overwhelmingly Democrat by a huge margin. 33% say Democrat to just 2% Republican; another 33% say they are Independent. So if this group is allowed to vote and there are only two choices, the majority will most assuredly choose Democrat.

Hispanic Population: Democrat vs. Republican

Source Pew Research Center dated July 22, 2013

 DemocratRepublicanLean Towards DemocratLean Towards Republican

All Hispanics





Hispanic Registered Voters





Native Born





Foreign Born










Legal Resident





Foreign Born US Citizen





Gun Control

In the near past and the current time period, gun control has become a hot button topic between the two factions. Democrats favor gun control to the point of removing large portions of guns from the hands of our population. Republicans prefer guns in the hands of that same populace.

At the center of this disagreement is the item termed an assault weapon. An assault weapon is considered to be a weapon which semiautomatic in nature (meaning one trigger pull one bullet fired without having to manually cycle the weapon in order to remove the spent shell and insert a new one - it does this itself), or can be switched to a three round burst or full automatic in which one holds the trigger down and the weapon will fire continuously until it runs out of cartridges; has large magazine of ammunition available to fire, and were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use. They are perceived as having a detachable magazine, folding or telescoping stock (to reduce the overall length of the weapon), a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a barrel shroud, a bayonet lug, and/or a grenade launcher. They are also defined as having an "intermediate" power cartridge: neither high power nor low power. The question as to what is an "assault rifle" and what is an "assault weapon" is at the heart of the discussion. In truth, an "assault rifle" is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle which fires one cartridge per trigger pull. They may be designed to look like an assault weapon but they are not capable of performing like one. So if you have a shotgun that reloads itself after each shot, a hunting rifle, or a pistol you are in ownership of something that might fall into the "assault rifle" category.

The Democratic Party is attempting to eliminate such weapons from the hands of its citizens. At the center of this is the intent of our Founding Fathers as to what the Second Amendment truly means. Does it mean we are allowed to own guns, any guns? Or does it mean we are only to own certain guns? What is a "well regulated Militia"? Is it a National Guard, as some are saying? Or is it anyone who can stand against the tyranny of governments? These are questions which must be answered.

There is also a desire to subject people to a reasonable regulation regarding who can purchase and own an assault weapon. I have no problem with background checks or keeping weapons of any kind out of the hands of those not capable of responsible ownership and handling, including mental issues which could lead to the tragedies we see on the evening news. However, there are those who do not believe this is the right direction to go and would prefer to repeal the Second Amendment In Toto.

So What Does All This Mean?

From this perspective it appears that the group on which the Democratic Party relies on is the illegal alien and their family, the underprivileged and their family, and groups who would rather get their sustenance with little to no effort rather than having to work to gain it. And all of these groups are growing each year. At some point they will overtake the working class and then where will America be? In addition, the Anti-Gun faction are spreading the word that if we get rid of guns, or at least certain types of guns from the hands of our country then murders and shootings of the type seen on the evening news will drop. Statistics do not necessarily back this thought, nor do other countries who adopted this approach show a decline; rather an increase is often seen as then only criminals will have weapons while the populace does not so a herd of sheep against a pack of wolves becomes the new norm.

So if one determines that these facts are indeed a portent of things to come, one would be forced to determine that the Democratic Party and its beliefs are directing America to its doom. We are like cattle being herded towards a cliff; if we do not turn away we will go over that cliff and into oblivion.

The upcoming election could well be the determining factor in our existence. A vote this November for the Democratic Candidate would likely continue this march towards the cliff, while a vote for the Republican Candidate might provide a different answer. Again, I am neither Republican nor Democrat but I am going on record as saying that to vote Democrat will lead to a continued fall both in our country and in the eyes of the world. Vote your conscious, vote with your head not necessarily your heart; at this point we cannot afford to continue to just "be nice". If we do not take action now we may never have another chance to right the ship.

This country cannot take any more years of the Democratic thought process of free handouts, a continued allowance of illegals who take without having given or earned, or of relying on a growing population of certain groups to place them into power in order to continue that existence; the time has come to Just Say No.


Bookratt on November 04, 2016:

Adagio4639 has some very powerful things to say--but I'm pretty certain they aren't his words. Not unless Adagio4639 is also Professor Kermit Roosevelt of The University of Pennsylvania-- because nearly word for word, those are the exact same words, sentences and paragraphs Mr Roosevelt uses in that exact same order, in his online Coursera course on The US Constitution and Key Concepts of Cases, which I am currently taking. Roosevelt's words ARE powerful, his ideas are well-reasoned and argued, founded in truth, but they are HIS words and ideas. Please credit Mr Roosevelt, a man who lives his work and loves it, it seems to me, as an impassioned teacher of the Constitution and the law, every day. Acknowledging his exact words as your own, and not citing him as the source of all the ideas which you are expounding in the exact same sentences he used, in the same order as he used them in teaching that course? That's wrong. I don't see a cite on the source mentioned here, or a reference that they come directly from Mr Roosevelt's course, or any mention that the words being used are copied word for word from someone else's mouth. To me, that reeks of academic dishonesty and intellectual property theft, or copyright infringement. And, of just plain ignorance. You have your own ideas. Speak them. You wouldn't like it if, word for word, someone else just copied them and threw them up on the internet claiming them to be their own.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 24, 2016:

Mr. Archer: You say this: "Trump may be racist, but others are as well just in a different, more subtle manner. Then again, there are those who cry foul at the least thing, using racism as a tool when it isn't."

But they aren't running for president of the United States. He is. He is right now, waiting to be anointed the head of the GOP. They will have a demonstrable racist heading up their party. And we cannot have racism representing this country to the world. Wouldn't you agree?

"Truly, I do not want Trump; however I do not want Clinton worse. She is the very essence of status quo and one reason we cannot afford to have things go on as they are."

You're telling me that you prefer a racist that appeals to the KKK. You would align yourself with the likes of David Duke rather than vote for Hillary? Lindsey Graham said this; "There will come a time when the love of country trumps your hatred for Hillary." It appears that you haven't reached that point yet. Ok. I just like to know who I'm dealing with in these little debates on the internet. You prefer racism to the status quo? Really? What does that say about you?

""Of the People" as detailed by the newest Constitution: is it? Are The People truly "sovereign"? In control? "

Yes. They are. Absolutely. They are the ones to blame for the condition this country finds itself in today. They vote for these people. They put them into positions of power, and this is what you get. If you don't like it, you vote them out, but you don't vote for irrationality. You don't close your eyes to a con-artist. "Donald Trump is a salesman. A very good salesman. Everything he says is overblown hyperbolic bullshit. And he knows that the adage "there's a sucker born every minute" is true. Tell me how he's going to get Mexico to pay for his wall. Because he wont tell me. In fact, he won't tell you. It's bullshit, and look at how many people want to believe his bullshit. His campaign will be self funded because when you take money from people, they own you. Of course now, he's doing fund raisers and looking for donor's to fund his campaign. He's supposed to have $10 billion. But, the Art of the Deal will tell you always use OPM. Other peoples money. Then tell me how he's going to ban Muslims from coming here. He can't because it's unconstitutional. It's in the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof"... What that means is that you can't make a law that targets one religion. You cannot make a law that elevates one religion over others, or one that targets one religion for special restrictions. To do so would establish religion as the basis for the law. So...not only is Trump a liar, when he tells a crowd that Hillary was sleeping at 3 am while Benghazi was going down when she was actually up all night, he's dumb as a stump on the constitution. So you would prefer a lying, ignorant racist, over Hillary Clinton? That I don't understand. I was for Bernie Sanders, but we don't always get what we want. I'm hoping that Bernie will bring about his revolution within the Democratic Party in much the same way that the Tea Party built a faction within the GOP.

"The bottom line is both parties are leaving the majority of America behind to rot; Washington does not care."

That's probably true, but that's why I supported Bernie. He was out there to bring about exactly the kind of revolution our political system needs. He's an Honest man and the most loved member of Congress. He has a 73% approval rating in Vermont where I live. What other member of congress can say that?

"Trump won the Republican Party because he has stuck a chord with a portion of America that is tired of it; fed up."

But that's what I'm talking about. It's the people that buy this load of crap from a con-artist. The people are "tired and fed up" so they don't participate in their own political process. They embrace emotionalism rather than reason. They're being hosed by a racist, fascist con-artist and they buy it. Trump steaks, Trump Winery, Trump University. A man who can only talk about himself. A man who's ego is totally out of control. Every time he says, "Believe me", why would any rational mind believe him?

Mr Archer (author) from Missouri on June 24, 2016:

Adiago4639, you have some powerful things to say here, some of which I agree with. Trump may be racist, but others are as well just in a different, more subtle manner. Then again, there are those who cry foul at the least thing, using racism as a tool when it isn't. Keeping people "in place" and voting for them isn't right, yet both parties are doing just that. What I do not want is a continuance of what has been: status quo. Truly, I do not want Trump; however I do not want Clinton worse. She is the very essence of status quo and one reason we cannot afford to have things go on as they are.

You say that the gov't is "Of the People" as detailed by the newest Constitution: is it? Are The People truly "sovereign"? In control? Are those elected officials truly of the people? Is Hillary or Donald of the people? Or are they just the ones who have the money and backing of those really in control of the nation? For sure, if I had my druthers I wouldn't put either one of them up as President! But we don't have a choice! I wish we had another person we could put up for the position, someone who isn't a politician in bed with all the others in Washington, someone who isn't in it to keep being elected or those of the parties continued to be elected; rather someone who truly had the best interests of our nation at heart. But I fear America is too far gone past the point of someone like that being out there. These elections have become brutal, ferocious and no self respecting person would dare put themselves out there anymore. So we are left with the scum, the died in the wool politicians who just want things to go on as they have regardless of how bad the lower and middle class are doing, how many jobs go overseas, or how many people continue to break the bank of America. Eventually, we will look around and see what happened and change but it might be too late.

I am actually working on another article detailing why the Republican Party is destroying America, I just haven't finished it yet. The bottom line is both parties are leaving the majority of America behind to rot; Washington does not care. The almighty dollar, personal power, and status quo is all they care about, damn sure not us. Trump won the Republican Party because he has stuck a chord with a portion of America that is tired of it; fed up. The perception is that Illegal Aliens are running amok and Obama is good with it. His trying to "forgive" 5 million illegals and allow them to become citizens without following due process is evidence enough. The wall won't work, any sane American knows but something has to be done. As for the gun laws, I am completely good with pulling back on some portions of who gets to own a gun; common sense says we should. But to across the board ban guns: no. To keep things as they are: no. But the two parties want it their way only and refuse to meet in the middle and that is why they are killing this dream called America.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 24, 2016:

Mr. Archer: You say this: "Alternative Prime, while unemployment may be low, disability is at an all time high due in part to those off unemployment getting disability for having depression over not having jobs"

I'll tell you what else is at an all time high. Social Security payments. The largest of all the generations is now retiring. The Baby Boomers. They're in their 60's now. They are no longer looking for full time work. So, when the Republicans make the claim that people are simply no longer looking for jobs in the Obama economy, they fail to look at the obvious. They're all retiring. Unemployment is around 4.8%. Do you remember where it was before he took office? By the time he moved into the White House, unemployment was at 10% and we were loosing 800,000 jobs a month. That has completely turned around. When Republicans use the jobs report as a claim that Obama is killing the job market, again they fail to recognize that the job market changes. Are they going to applaud him if next month the jobs added are over 100,000? Of course not. They hate the man. Not for what he does, but for who he is. And the racist Birther in Chief is now heading the GOP, so don't tell me that racism has had nothing to do with the Obama years. The GOP created Trump. When he started his birther crap, Republicans in congress became enablers of Trump by never simply saying he was a conspiracy theorist that listens to Alex Jones for his information. Instead, they gave him credibility by not denouncing his outlandish BS. People everywhere that might have racist tendencies find their leaders in congress enabling this crap. And today the Birther in Chief is the head of the GOP and their pick to become President. The Republicans are responsible for giving him credibility. Now they reap what they've sown.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 24, 2016:

Mr. Archer; You say this : "There is no reason for this country to be in as bad a shape as it is at this point beyond simple selfishness, shortsightedness and greed. A change in tactics is needed as is a change in direction to hold more people accountable for their actions, or lack thereof."

In principle, I agree with you. But none of what you suggest is remotely possible when racism injects itself into the process. Look at the number of congressmen and women that are now lining up behind the racist Trump. They are endorsing a racist. Paul Ryan is supporting "the party candidate", who happens to be a racist. How do you look at yourself in the mirror with that? Now what that implies is that the Party is everything, and some people are willing to place their party over the country. These are "ideologues". This the mindset of the Nazi party in the 1930's. Today in Trumps addressing the press in Scotland at his Golf Resort, after first and foremost giving a half hour sales pitch on his resort, he then addressed the historic development in the UK which has shaken all the World Markets. When he got around to it he spoke of some Germans that he knows saying, "they love their country beyond anything you can imagine". There is nothing that they wouldn't do for Germany..well, actually regarding Germany, we CAN imagine the kind of Nationalism that Trump is talking about. We already seen that movie.

So, regardless of what anybody thinks about Hillary Clinton, at least she's not a racist. And if the choice is Trump or Clinton, I for one could never vote for racism.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 24, 2016:

Cont: This is, you should notice, almost the opposite of the theory of the revolution.

The theory of the revolution is the first lesson of American history (which Mr Martin should have pointed out in his book) , that the general government is a threat to liberty and the states are its protectors. That's the idea of the Founders' Constitution too. That's what the Second Amendment is about, states standing up against the tyrannical federal government. And that's the idea of the secessionists. That's what they think they're doing.

Lincoln's theory is instead that the federal government can protect liberty. It can protect people from the states. The Founders' Constitution doesn't do this, but the Reconstruction Constitution will.

That's the new birth of freedom that the Gettysburg Address promises, the Reconstruction Amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th. These amendments constitute a second founding. They give us a very different constitution than the one the founders imagined.

The defeated Southern states accepted the 13th Amendment, but they didn't want the 14th. It passed Congress only because the Southern senators and representatives had been excluded. When Southern state legislatures refused to ratify it, Congress dissolved them. It put the South under military control and the new constitutional vision that Congress forces on the South is the reconstruction vision. The third lesson of American history is this: If States are oppressive to their citizens, then the Federal Government will intervene to protect them.

The federal government now is the good guys. You’re a citizen of the United States. The Federal Government issues your passport. Not the state you live in.

Anyway, that’s my take on your Hub. By the way, I’m not a registered Democrat. I just tend to vote that way because I can’t vote for racism under ANY circumstance. And racism has existed in the GOP for a long time now and it began to rear its ugly head with the election of Barack Obama. Now it’s in full bloom and Trump has made it acceptable to flaunt it.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 24, 2016:

Cont: So, our Constitution, the cases we talk about, the rights we cherish, is not the Founders' Constitution.

And we haven't had it for over 200 years. We've had it for about 140 and some of the most important parts of it didn't really get enforced until about 60 years ago.

The nation broke apart in the Civil War and then it came back together. And now everyone loves the Constitution. But when people look at the Constitution, they see different things.

We have basically three different constitutional visions, which correspond to the three big lessons of American history.

1.There's the Constitution of the Declaration and the Revolution, the spirit of 1776. This is really the Articles of Confederation.

2.There's the Constitution of Philadelphia in 1789. That's the Founders' Constitution.

3.And there's the Constitution of Gettysburg in 1868, the Reconstruction Constitution.

What differentiates these visions is basically how they think about the states and the federal government.

1776 says the federal government is dangerous. The states are good. They'll protect people.

1789 says the states are still good, but they need to be controlled.

And 1868 says the states are dangerous. The federal government is good.

The secession letters take the same form as the Declaration. Frequently, in fact, they rely on the Declaration. Now, their statement of values is different. They don't say “equality.” They say inequality. They don't say liberty. They say slavery.

But they have a similar political theory. The states gave power to the federal government. Things didn't work out and we're taking it back. Except the states didn't give power to the federal government, the people did. It’s right in the Preamble: “We the People”. NOT We the states”. And states can't take back what was never theirs. The political visions that clashed in the Civil War are really about who is the highest authority in our system. Is it the states, as the Confederates argue? Or is it the people, as Lincoln claims?

So what the secessionists are doing is very much like the Declaration, very much like the founding. And if the South had won, people in that new nation, the Confederate States of America, would look on those succession letters as the Declaration of Independence for the second American Revolution.

But the South didn't win. We got a second founding anyway, but it wasn't the one the secessionists wanted. It was, in many ways, the opposite.

What's the equivalent of the Declaration for the Second Founding? It's the Gettysburg Address.

Like the Declaration, this has a statement of values. Equality, Lincoln says. “Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. “ That's the value to which the nation is dedicated. And what's his political theory? It's that the people are sovereign, not the states. And that the federal government represents the people.

That's what he's talking about at the end. That's the government that is of the people, by the people, for the people, the federal government.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 24, 2016:

Cont: At one point you say, “The "anchor babies" bring entire families into the country and while some may find jobs…”. They aren’t “anchor babies”. They are US Citizens according to the 14th Amendment. Which brings me to a final point, the Constitution. You say this very early in your Hub: “I recently finished a book entitled "The Lost Constitution" by William Martin. It was a fascinating read, full of historical information on those who created our Constitution”. Did William Martin point out that we’ve actually had 3 constitutions? And the big surprise here is that we don’t live under the “framers” Constitution of 1789 anymore. The first effort was the Articles of Confederation, which was too weak. The founders knew it, and the Articles could not be altered or abolished without unanimous consent of the states. But they dumped it anyway in violation of the Articles. So the Constitution actually came about illegally.

But something happened along the way to where we are today. The Civil War. We like to say that the Constitution is a success, that it served us well for over 200 years. But I want to suggest that actually the Founders' Constitution was in significant ways... a failure. It didn't do what it was supposed to do.

It's supposed to form a more perfect Union, but 11 states secede. It's supposed to ensure domestic tranquility, but Americans kill Americans, three-quarters of a million of them. That's not success.

We don't like to say this. We like to think of American history as a success story. We look back to the Declaration, and 1776, to the Founders, 1789. We imagine a line that connects us to those great figures of our history, whose wisdom still guides us, whose examples still inspire.

But the Civil War is a pretty significant break in that line. The Civil War is a rejection of the signers' idea that people can always decide to change their government. It's a rejection of the Founders' idea that the states are the primary protectors of liberty. After the Civil War, it's going to be the federal government. It's going to be, for awhile federal troops in the occupied South.

So our Constitution now is different. The Constitution we live under, in theory and in practice, is the Reconstruction Constitution. Think about the big cases that define constitutional law. The ones we've seen, Gideon, Mapp, Miranda, Tinker. Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade. What do all these cases have in common?

They all could never have arisen, they could never have been decided, under the Founders' Constitution. They are all 14th Amendment cases, federal rights against the states.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 24, 2016:

Mr Archer: Well...the short answer is no. However you might want to turn your critical eye toward the Republicans. That party is now putting into nomination for President of the United States, a Racist. And let’s not quibble over that. The very idea that Trump brings into the campaign, a personal matter that has nothing to do with anybody but him, the notion that he can't get a fair judgement because the judge, as he says, is Mexican, despite the fact that the judge is second generation American born in Indiana and graduated from IU law school. And the reason is because he's building a "wall" (which Mexico is paying for, and if you believe that you need medical attention) at our southern border. Therefor it is impossible for the judge to be impartial because he's... "Mexican". So, anybody of Mexican decent cannot be impartial and therefore should stick to picking veggies instead of becoming a Judge. But, he loves the Mexicans, and they adore him. Well, not quite. Latino's and that would include people of Mexican heritage, don't like this con-artist by 89%. So, essentially anybody of any ethnicity that Trump has insulted is unquailed to judge him on anything. Now if that logic was true, it means that any Jewish judge would be disqualified from judging anybody of German heritage. They would of course be biased. If an atheist came before somebody like Alabama judge Roy Moore, or vice versa, an atheist judge ruling on a Christian Conservative they should be disqualified.

But, you know who loves Trump? David Duke and the KKK, and White Supremacists and White Nationalists. Do you know what that means? It means that every person that would vote for Trump, finds common ground at some point in their ideological beliefs with the KKK. There is some place on the political spectrum were the Trump supporter, and a known racist like David Duke meet and share the same perspective. And they find that in Donald Trump. Trump represents something that both the Trumpet, and the Racist find appealing.

I can say with complete confidence that I have NOTHING in common with the KKK and if I did find that there was something I would have to conclude that I have something in common with a racist, and that Trump embodies views that appeal to racists. In that case, I'd seek therapy.

For me; Trump has demonstrated his racism and religious bigotry, and for me, all the points that you made concerning the Democrats, fall apart, in light of this country in the hands of a man with ideas that appeal to David Duke and the KKK. That disqualifies him on the spot. It's bad enough that the Republican Party has chosen a racist, and fascist authoritarian as described by Credence in the above post, to lead them, there is absolutely no way this man can become the leader of the Free World without taking the country into something reminiscent of 1930’s Germany. I'll have to post in several comments. I want to cover as many of your points as I can.

Alternative Prime from > California on June 24, 2016:

Mr. Archer ~ I've listened to the SAME OLD Tired Republican & FOX Loser SNOOZE NONSENSE for years now and the MAJORITY of Americans I believe have come to the SAME Logical Conclusion ~ If Unemployment were at 10% you'd COMPLAIN, if it's at 5% you COMPLAIN, if it were at 25% you'd COMPLAIN ~ STOCK Market Up, you COMPLAIN, Stock Market DOWN you COMPLAIN, Stock Market FLAT you COMPLAIN ~ Gas Prices Up you COMPLAIN, Gas Prices DOWN you Complain etc etc etc .......It's just Ridiculous..... I suppose you even agree with Congressional Republicans "ENABLING" Terror Suspects to BUY FIRE-ARMz Right? SAME OLD Tired Story and that's EXACTLY WHY Republicans will be FLATENED this November ~

Mr Archer (author) from Missouri on June 24, 2016:

Bill I hear and understand!

Credence, when one examines the breakdown of the population demographics, the percentages of those who are and are not working within those groups, the unemployment rates of each, and the probability of one segment declining as the other is growing, then the outcome is fairly certain. This is a numbers game at heart and I for one can't argue where they are leading. I do admit that the job market is declining due to the loss of jobs overseas but am at a loss as to how to halt it. Could it be due to a foreign trade agreement where we are being forced to send them overseas, or is it simple greed sending them? Either way, both Republican and Democrat are to blame for the loss as both have their fingers in the till of the companies.

Credence2 from Florida (Space Coast) on June 24, 2016:

You make the classic conservative association of minorities= free stuff. What about all the 'free stuff' Anglos are getting? What does the increase in ethnicity in this society have to do will expanding social programs? Do you presume that WASP's do not as well contribute to it?

Trump is a fascist authoritarian type, so I am one person you have not convinced concerning the Democratic Party being a source of destruction for the country...

Bill Holland from Olympia, WA on June 24, 2016:

I've given up on both parties. I'll work at the local level to effect change in our community. The Dems and Republicans can serve the almighty dollar and leave me the hell alone!

Mr Archer (author) from Missouri on June 23, 2016:

Alternative Prime, while unemployment may be low, disability is at an all time high due in part to those off unemployment getting disability for having depression over not having jobs. The stock market may have stabilized but at what cost? It is a bubble much like the housing bubble and it will pop just as the housing one did, and soon. More people have healthcare under Obamacare but the cost again is skyrocketing and now there is a substantial penalty for not having coverage. In my own experience the cost has gone up 200% for the same coverage over the last two years. Progress? Not to me. And gas prices have stabilized, to a degree but why? Because of the nations that are refusing to halt production and they are not American countries; not due to anything the Democrats have done to change anything. Gay rights have been enhanced but is that a positive or a negative against the family culture that was prevalent before? And peace? Where? On the streets between thugs and the law? Between the races? In the big cities who are seeing record crime? In America who is seeing heightened attacks upon us by ISIS? In other countries who are also seeing these attacks? I think the negatives are outweighing any positives here.

And as for the Republicans, I am again on record as saying I am not on board with them either, but when weighing the lesser of two evils right now the best thing I can say is Clinton is a career Democratic politician and that means status quo; Trump isn't and that at least offers a different chance; nothing more. I would prefer another choice but at present I am not seeing one; do you?

Mr Archer (author) from Missouri on June 23, 2016:

Forever? No. longer than a couple of hundred years? Yes. There is no reason for this country to be in as bad a shape as it is at this point beyond simple selfishness, shortsightedness and greed. A change in tactics is needed as is a change in direction to hold more people accountable for their actions, or lack thereof.

Alternative Prime from > California on June 23, 2016:

I'm not sure how you Define the word "DESTRUCTION", but it certainly does NOT Apply to the Democratic Party ~ Here some of the ACTUAL FACTs regarding the State of OUR Union Right NOW ~

* Unemployment - 5% (Historical LOW)

* Stock Market Stabilized

* RE Market Stabilized

* APPROX. 20 MILLION More Americans Covered Under OBAMACARE

* Gas Prices Relatively Stable

* Gay Rights ENHANCED

* Relative Peace

etc etc......The LIST Of POSITIVEs is Rather LENGTHY ~ Do you REMEMBER the last Republican TENURE and the REAL DISASTER it was? ~ Dunce George W Bush CRASHED OUR Economy while the most Elaborate & Horrifying Terrorist Attack killing Approx. 3,000 Americans OCCURED on his WATCH ~ His "Trickle DOWN" Republican Nonsense resulted in a NET LOSS of THOUSANDs of Jobs which injured Millions of AMERICANs ~ Clinton NET GAIN in JOBS, Bush NET LOSS in Jobs, Obama NET GAIN in Jobs ~ At this POINT, I Really don't EXPECT the DWINDLING Number of Trump FANz to Accept these FACTs, but Nevertheless, they do indeed exist here in the REAL World ~

Mr. Happy from Toronto, Canada on June 23, 2016:

Everything in this world changes constantly. Every Empire has its downfall. Was anyone really thinking the United States Empire was going to last forever?

Related Articles