Age of Enlightenment

It is said by some that the WWII generation was “The Greatest Generation”. Sorry Tom Brokaw, it was minuscule in comparison to The Age of Enlightenment. Compared to the generations of today maybe but there has never been anything that compares to that time of greats from about 1685 to 1815. These were renaissance men with math and science. The Age of Enlightenment was also known as the Age of Reason. Only a classical education of great minds could have produced this phenomenon.

European politics, philosophy, science and communications were radically reoriented during the course of the “long 18th century” (1685-1815) as part of a movement referred to by its participants as the Age of Reason, or simply the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, was a time when man began to use his reason to discover the world, casting off the superstition and fear of the medieval world. ... Enlightenment thinkers examined the rational basis of all beliefs and in the process rejected the absolute authority of church and state.

Enlightened would-be revolutionaries like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, whose “Declaration of Independence” (1776) framed the American Revolution in terms taken from of John Locke’s essays.

The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of knowledge and advanced ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state.

Six Key Ideas. At least six ideas came to punctuate American Enlightenment thinking: deism, liberalism, republicanism, conservatism, toleration and scientific progress. Many of these were shared with European Enlightenment thinkers, but in some instances took a uniquely American form.

Although there is no consensus about the exact span of time that corresponds to the American Enlightenment, it is safe to say that it occurred during the eighteenth century among thinkers in British North America and the early United States and was inspired by the ideas of the British and French Enlightenments.  Based on the metaphor of bringing light to the Dark Age, the Age of the Enlightenment (Siècle des lumières in French and Aufklärung in German) shifted allegiances away from absolute authority, whether religious or political, to more skeptical and optimistic attitudes about human nature, religion and politics.  In the American context, thinkers such as Thomas Paine, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin invented and adopted revolutionary ideas about scientific rationality, religious toleration and experimental political organization—ideas that would have far-reaching effects on the development of the fledgling nation.  Some coupled science and religion in the notion of deism; others asserted the natural rights of man in the anti-authoritarian doctrine of liberalism; and still others touted the importance of cultivating virtue, enlightened leadership and community in early forms of republican thinking. At least six ideas came to punctuate American Enlightenment thinking: deism, liberalism, republicanism, conservatism, toleration and scientific progress. Many of these were shared with European Enlightenment thinkers, but in some instances took a uniquely American form. It also stressed individualism over collectivism. Those who yearn for a Socialist State or a Democratic Socialist leaning need to understand that collectivism is incompatible with what the Framers set out. Collectivism is conducive to making sausage. We have a Constitutional Republic, devoid of a despotic monarch like George III.

The Enlightenment, sometimes called the 'Age of Enlightenment', was a late 17th- and 18th-century intellectual movement emphasizing reason, individualism, and skepticism. The Enlightenment presented a challenge to traditional religious views. Enlightenment thinkers were the liberals of their day.

Can you even consider putting Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell on stage with these men? I would put Pelosi as a chamber pot maid and Mitch McConnell as a stall mucker or maybe carriage attendant. Think too of these presidential candidates now lining up at the trough. I think more along the lines of the Bowery Boys or Little Rascals rather than Enlightened. Reason and enlightened thought are simply beyond their reach. I will take our Constitution and leave these nincompoops to Barnum & Bailey.

McConnell is the product of the 17^th Amendment which should never have happened and must be repealed to make this Constitutional Republic whole again. That was the brain child of Woodrow Wilson, speaking of Democrat Socialists.

Thomas Paine may have been best known for “The Rights of Man”. It should be read, especially by those who tout the Democrat Socialist form of governments. Here’s a clue for you; neither Medicare for All nor a college education are a “Right”. In both cases, you get what you pay for. No national government is capable or responsible for providing either. Nowhere is it written that either is a Right of Man. Those are the prerogative of the States and/ or the People.

Our “Rights”?

Where are these children getting their information on our “Rights”? I am pretty familiar with our founding documents—the Preamble, the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights; the only place where I find a listing of our rights. I find nowhere that we have a “right” to a college education. About 18% of us receive a baccalaureate. Generally speaking, this demographic is largely from middle to upper middle income group. Why would this 18% get the idea that they should receive special treatment to a free college education? Where is it written; in our founding documents or anywhere for that matter? It is not even in the Magna Carta. Our Founders were quite familiar with that document. Where do these mindless nymphs find that healthcare is a right? Where is that written, anywhere? The rights granted to us are Natural Rights, bestowed by our Creator. Healthcare is not “free” in any system of government, under any economic system. Either we pay for it individually or we pay the government to provide it through taxation. That seems to be a concept not understood by these upstarts. WE, YOU AND I, pay for it one way or the other. Proponents of a government managed healthcare system seem unable to understand that their idea of “free healthcare” simply adds an unnecessary middle man to administer healthcare, the federal government. Our founding documents provide Art 1 Sect 8, spelling out what our federal government can provide. Neither a college education nor healthcare is listed. Anything not on that list is left to the States and to the People. The rights we are provided are not commercial goods or services having a price tag. So, where do they get this nonsense? Now we have charlatans and snake oil salesmen selling this nonsense as candidates for public office, humoring these spoiled rotten children. Poppycock!

I simply cannot find written anywhere that we have a “right” to anything even remotely related to a “free” anything.

White People Socialism

I am pretty sure that AOC and her genre have no idea what it is exactly but it does have a classical definition:
socialism noun
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
All in favor, say "AYE" :-)
It is clear to me that most of her genre are willing to give it all up as long as the government is her nanny. I think they do need a babysitter. JS

White People Socialism
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-want-white-people-socialism?fbclid=IwAR0mF0LlpeQe7jJJR-kSUcIMklHQDaCs0xS6axB6C6ugEM9lqJ_H1FFUfvc

Falsies

The argument, now being employed by Republican Senators to oppose the Declaration of a National Emergency is a false argument and is as transparent as are they. They stipulate that it sets a bad precedent, further stipulating that the next president may be a fruitcake and follow that precedent. They know better.

From Abraham Lincoln’s decision to suspend habeas corpus in 1861 to Harry Truman’s ordering the Secretary of Commerce to seize control of the steel mills amid a 1952 wartime strike, presidents have occasionally seen fit to step outside the bounds of normal government. By proclaiming a national emergency, the President “may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”

Since Congress further legislated on the matter in 1976, EVERY President has asserted a National Emergency and most have been rather silly, unlike this one, which goes to the very heart of the Constitution and this Sovereign Republic—Provide for the Common Defense and Insure Domestic Tranquility, two of the three prongs guaranteed in our original document. I listed here previously the 31 National Emergencies just since 1976, under President Jimmy Carter.

Declaration of Emergency in the Constitution

Article II, which vests the Executive Power in the President, also specifically makes her/ him Commander in Chief of the army and navy, as well as of the militia when called into actual federal service (§ 2), and charges her, among other things, with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed (§ 3). In addition to these allocations of responsibility to particular branches of the federal government, the Constitution contains one other empowering provision relating to similar circumstances, namely Article IV § 4, the so-called "guaranty clause", which calls on the federal government not only to guarantee to every state a republican form of government, but also to protect it against invasion and (when asked) domestic violence.

First, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (permitting a person to obtain judicial review of the validity of his detention, in a proceeding independent of that, if any, in which the detention was ordered) cannot be suspended, "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." [Art 1 Section 9 Clause 2].

Second, no one may be charged with a capital or otherwise infamous crime without an indictment by a grand jury, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger." [5^th Amendment Clause 1].

Third, no state may engage in war, "unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." [Art 1 Sect 10 Clause Para 3].

Finally, one other provision of similar, if less specifically military character may be mentioned: that which allows the President "on extraordinary Occasions" to convene one or both houses of Congress. [Art 2 Section 3 Clause 2].

In summary, the President of the United States has ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, under the Constitution, notwithstanding the 1976 statute.

These US Senators are perpetuating a false argument.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1X43iWbGgUpb0N35iLwx7WNmO4bC54lqs