You're all over the map here. There's no clear point that you're making; it's a collection of random thoughts. Now, random thoughts aren't bad or evil; they're just, well, pointless.

I'm going to take off now. It's been interesting. I wish you well.

I'm sure that there were some happy slaves, and you can always find evidence for some slaves being happy. But when you're considering slavery as a whole, you should ask not whether there were SOME happy slaves, but whether there were MANY happy slaves. When slaves were emancipated at the end of the Civil War, how many chose to remain with their owners as "voluntary slaves"? Not many, as I recall.

I'll go there and perhaps respond if I see something I can make a useful comment on.

You're confusing socialism with atheism. Socialism is an economic system in which all wealth is owned by the community as a whole, and there's no private property. Wealth is distributed to people according to some defined system, usually based on need rather than contribution. The best examples of working socialism that we have are the Christian monasteries, which practiced pure socialism.

The concept of rights is a much more modern concept than socialism; it developed during the Enlightenment. The people who developed the concept thought in terms of "natural rights" -- that is, rights inherent in human nature. Some people later amended this phrase to "God-given rights". Most Enlightenment thinkers, such as Thomas Jefferson, preferred the phrase "natural rights", but they used the phrase "God-given rights" because it had more political punch with the common people.

" If the Government giveth the government can taketh away."
Yep -- that's called the democratic process. A year ago the people in California decided to take away from gays the opportunity to wed. From the gay point of view, the people took away their right to marry. And indeed, with a 2/3 majority vote, the people can take away any right in the Constitution. It's not government that gives and takes away, it's the people. Who else should make this decision? A committee of experts? You? Me?

OK, first, your argument that there were some actions taken to reduce slavery doesn't really have any logical force. Yes, there were some antislavery actions taken -- but slavery remained and in fact was built right into the Constitution in the 3/5ths rule. Your argument is rather like arguing that a mass murderer felt sorry for one of his victims and let her go. That doesn't make him a nice guy. Murder is still murder, and slavery is still slavery.

Your main argument is that you really meant to say that you would like to return to the principles of the founding fathers, but with all the subsequent amendments of the Constitution retained. That's not what you wrote in the paper. You wrote that you wanted to return to the principles of the founding fathers. Slavery was indeed one of those principles. I think it's good that you're modifying your position, but the professor was right to point out the logical problem with your paper as it was written.

" Where the People have the power, that we lend to the states and lend even less power to the federal government."
The big debate over the Constitution concerned the battle between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The former, led by Alexander Hamilton, wanted a strong central government, not at all what you are describing. The latter, led by Thomas Jefferson, wanted a weak central government. Washington remained neutral in the battle; he just wanted a constitution, and he felt that the proposed one was a solid work. Franklin famously answered, when asked what the new Constitution would confer, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Interestingly, most of the founders considered the original Constitution to be a clumsy patchwork and were sure that they'd have to have a new Constitutional Convention in 20 or 30 years, once the kinks in the existing Constitution had been identified.

I'm certainly with you on the undesirability of keeping military forces overseas. That could perhaps have been justified during the Cold War when there were good reasons to fear Soviet expansion, but nowadays there's just no call for these bases.

Your final comments regarding the government's CAFE standards are hyperbolic; that always detracts from their credibility. One of the rules of Internet debate that I read somewhere was "The first person to call somebody a Nazi loses the debate."

Anyway, I hope you read these comments of mine as criticisms of your writing, not attacks on your beliefs. I happen to disagree with some of your opinions, but I respect differences of opinion. When you boil it down to pure opinion, there's no way to say that one man's opinions are better or worse than another's. What we CAN do is tighten up the logic, get the facts straight, and express ourselves with greater precision. That's my intent here.

"All 3 are an attack on God because the Socialists hate unalienable rights. The socialist believes that all of our rights derive from government.. "

That first sentence is completely illogical. What on earth does socialism have to do with God? Perhaps you should read the New Testament more closely, especially Paul. Many of the early Christian communities practiced socialism. Indeed, the whole concept of a monastery is that of a purely socialistic community isolated from the evils of the world. Based on my understanding of Jesus' teachings, he comes out as much closer to socialism than capitalism. It may be, of course, that you are misusing the term "socialism". I'm using it to refer to an economic system.

When you write that "Socialists hate unalienable rights", you make several mistakes. First, you assume that there is a group of people who are socialists. The problem with that is that very few people fit so neatly into a simple category like "socialist". Indeed, there are very, very few people in the country who are purely socialist or purely capitalist. Most people agree that the free market is the best overall economic system, but that it needs some special exceptions, such as feeding and educating poor children, or preventing monopolies from abusing the market. There's plenty of disagreement about the correct blend of socialism and capitalism. But talking about "socialists versus capitalists" is rather like talking about "greedy people versus generous people". Everybody is greedy to some extent -- I haven't given away all my belongings and given it all to the poor. Everybody is generous to some extent -- I do give a lot to others.

Your second mistake is in assuming what socialists think. If you truly believe that socialists hate inalienable rights, you should back up your claim with some sort of evidence. My impression is that most people on the more socialist end of the spectrum believe that everybody has an inalienable right to a minimum level of economic support, such as food, clothing, housing, and education. It's not that they don't believe in inalienable rights, it's that they believe in DIFFERENT inalienable rights.

Your research into the Nazis is incorrect. Hitler was a Catholic and wrote that religion was the underpinning of a strong nation. I can find the quotes for you, if you'd like. Also, I'm not so sure about your claim that Hitler took away Germans' guns. I know of instances of German citizens hunting during the 1930s. If you have done any research on this point, I'd like to see your evidence. You are completely wrong that Hitler "took the banks, the auto industry, and other things". The Nazi economy was highly capitalist with very little intrusion from the government into corporate operations. For example, weapons procurement was done in exactly the same way we do it: the military put out a call for bids for a new weapons system, various companies submitted their designs, and the government chose the best proposal. Indeed, they were even capitalistic about their slave system! The workers they enslaved from other countries to work in Germany were, in some cases, sent out to work in companies doing government contracts. The poison gas they used in the death camps, Zyklon B, was supplied by a big German chemical company. In fact, the German economy was under less control by the government during World War II than the American economy at the same time. We organized the entire economy for war production; there was a company in Berlin manufacturing pianos that wasn't impressed into war production until January 1945. So, technically speaking, the American government was more socialistic than the Nazi government during World War II.

continued...

Next, you complain that "There is an all out assault against God. Whether it's in the public square with Crosses overlooking Military cemeteries, gay marriage, or Climate Change."

Wow, this one has a bunch of problems. Sure, there are people out there who don't like religion and are saying lots of nasty things about it. So what? This is a free country, they have every right to voice their opinions. What you want to focus on are specific cases where your religious freedoms are being trampled on. But the public square is not your personal property. The public square belongs to everybody, including the atheists. If you want to use the public square to proselytize your religion, then every other religion must have the same right. And who wants a public square that's crowded with all sorts of religious stuff from Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Animists, Satanists, and so forth? The best answer here is what we already have: the government must not get into the business of supporting any religion; the government is neutral on the point. You are free to worship in your church, your home, or any other private place. Just don't try to push your religion onto other people by commandeering the public square. Don't you agree that this is the fairest overall solution?

You think that gay marriage is evil. Other people think that it is good. You don't have an automatic right to ban gay marriage; you must go through the democratic process. They did this in California and banned gay marriage. As far as I'm concerned, that settles the matter; the people have spoken. But if the people later reverse their decision, or if the people in another state decide that gay marriage is OK, then that settles the matter, too. What makes this tricky is whether such laws violate the Constitution. There is a complicated debate here, and I won't go into it. If, in the end, the Supreme Court decides the issue one way or the other, then that will settle the matter for all the states. In any event, the important point is that in this country, we have ways of settling these disputes and we should all respect those procedures.

Lastly: climate change?!?!?! What on earth does this have to do with religion? There are lots of religious people who think that climate change is a real problem. There are lots of religious people who think that it isn't a problem. Religious belief has nothing to do with it; this is a scientific question.

continued...

OK, let's go over your points.

1. You reject his arguments about slavery. There are two places where he mentions slavery:
a. You wrote: "America is and has always been a beacon of freedom." He wrote: "Especially for the Black Slaves brought here on Slave ships." Your defense is that slavery was eliminated 90 years after the birth of the country. But slavery was legal for those 90 years. Therefore, your statement is false. If you had written it as "American is and has been since 1864 a beacon of freedom", then you would have been on more solid ground.
b. You wrote: "I believe we need to go back to the principals set forth by our founding fathers." He wrote: "So we should reintroduce slavery for Blacks..." First off, he should have dinged you for the spelling error -- but I suppose that I'm an old fuddy-duddy for things like correct spelling. More importantly, the founding fathers did indeed establish slavery as one of the principles on which the Republic was founded. So if we go back to the principles set forth by our founding fathers, as you recommend, we would indeed reintroduce slavery. The professor is logically correct on this point.

You next object to his statement regarding women's right to vote. This was a part of the same comment that I addressed immediately above. Again, the professor is logically correct on this point.

Next, you refer to the clause "the government is telling the automakers what to produce". I think that the problem here is that your wording is misleading. You are absolutely correct that various regulations such as the CAFE standards do indeed restrict the freedom of the automakers. However, regulatory constraints are not at all the same as "telling you what to do". Consider: the government requires you to drive on the right side of the road. Does this not mean, by your logic, that the government is telling you how to drive? I'm not arguing that you are outright wrong here; the truth is complicated. Yes, the government does restrict our freedoms. But the fundamental concept of government is that we all (as citizens) agree to accept the constraints that government puts upon us. I give up my freedom to shoot people in return for protection against being shot. The basic concept is this: do the constraints upon freedom provide social benefits that are worth the sacrifice? And who is to decide whether it's worth the sacrifice? These are tough questions to answer, and the best answer that we have is: democratically elected representatives of the people. The CAFE standards were created under the democratic process.

My overall recommendation on this point: If I squint hard and bend over backwards being charitable, I can agree that you're correct -- but I think that you've so oversimplified the issue that ultimately your point is useless.

continued...

I just happened, by pure happenstance, to stumble upon this blog, and out of curiosity I read this essay. I am certainly confused by it. On the one hand, you entitle it "When Liberal Professors Inject Their Politics"; on the other hand, you offer no defense against his criticisms, and they all seem factually correct to me. I ask you to list those comments from the professor that you consider to be incorrect. Perhaps that will clarify (to me, at least) the point you're making.