I chose the category "Media & Culture" for my first venture into blogging and hope it accurately reflects what I'm about to write.  This could be a little broader in scope, so I hope you will extend some tolerance to a newbie!

As a Christian, a passionate conservative, a soldier, and an American, I grow increasingly alarmed at what I'm seeing happen to my country; I fear we are more deeply divided than we were in 1861 with as little or even less possibility for compromise.  On the one side, you have folks like me who actually believe that there is such a thing as objective truth, that words have meaning in order to communicate that truth.  It is therefore axiomatic to me that documents such as the Bible contain meaning - original intentions - of authors spanning centuries in time, and  that their collective intentions and meaning can be ascertained by readers centuries later if they will respect this and take seriously grammar and usage, as well as the historical context.

I hold the same view when it comes to documents such as our Constitution and its heart and soul, the Declaration of Independence.  The Founders had certain intentions when they penned these documents, and it seems obvious to me that we ought to show respect for that meaning, since they comprise the founding charter and "rule book" for who we are, our values, and how we the people, both those in the government and those who are governed, are to conduct ourselves. 

On the other side, namely the Progressive and Secular Left (or Liberals), you have a dominant culture that doesn't seem to believe there's anything like objective truth, and even if such a thing exists, you can't sufficiently ascertain that meaning, and therefore can't honor "original intent" in the Constitution, let alone the Bible.

If the two sides are going to engage in productive debate, we have to at least agree on some common ground.  I may believe that the Framers intended one thing in the 1st Ammendment, for example, and they may stand by another conclusion.  But at least we're both in agreement that something like original intent exists, and we're therefore in the same "ball park".   But consider this:  If the Steelers and Patriots, for example, show up at the stadium for a game, they need to both agree on the basic rules of that game they are about to play (hopefully football!).  What would happen if a referee decided that the offsides rule was out of date, and threw it out, particularly on a crucial play?  Fans would have his head! 

And yet we are treated to "reasoning" like this on a regular basis from liberals in our courts, legislatures, and the executive branch on matters far more vital to our nation than the results of a football game.  That referee may think the offsides rule is out of date and stupid (Maybe it is!), but it's his job to make the best effort possible to call the game according to the rules that are in force at that time.  So it should be with justices.  So it should be with legislators and executives.

What I'm saying is this:  Those who do not adhere to the idea that the Constitution and the Declaration contain the values and rules, the covenant, if you will, between those in government and the governed may call themselves many things, but  they are no longer Americans!

Yes, I mean exactly what I say:  They are not Americans!  I'm not saying they are necessarily evil, horrible people, but they are no more Americans than I am a Liberal.  Clubs and organizations have rules and philosophies that state who they are and how they will conduct business.  If you wish to be a member of a particular club, then you agree to its rules, or seek out another club - no hard feelings!

Now, our Constitution does contain the capacity for revision, an orderly process for making changes in the way we do business; it's called the Amendment process.  The problem is, these folks, overwhelmingly on the Left, all too often won't follow the rules for orderly revision, but instead seek change illegitimately via litigation or judicial activism.  Such changes, though having the form of law are substantively illegal, un-Constitutional (e.g. Roe v. Wade, Kino v. New London, CT, etc.).  I further assert that those black-robed arbiters of the law, though adept at opining in flawless "legalese", citing common law and precedent, are themselves guilty of lawlessness.  In their contempt for the very document they are sworn to uphold - a document penned as a remedy for tyranny - they are  guilty themselves of engaging in a tyranny every bit as offensive and obnoxious - no, more so - as that exercised by His Majesty, King George III and his parliament.

Un-Constitutionally conceived laws, amendments, and rulings, if allowed to stand, threaten our nation far more than Al Qaeda or any other external enemy.  "It's not the economy, stupid!"  Neither our Declaration nor our Constitution are holy writ, but they do contain the essential values and founding principles of who we are as a nation and a people, our identity.  "It's the identity thing, stupid!"

There can be no compromise on these principles.  Thus we have two nations, and I honestly fear "E Pluribus Unum" is threatened.