Sometimes it is strange how a series of events occur that inspire me to write. This week was one of those weeks that, by weeks end, an idea was beginning to formulate itself in my head for an article. Then my good friend, the Grassroots Granny (www.grassrootsgranny.com)sent out an e mail that capped it all off. But I am getting ahead of myself, so let me go back to what started this process in the first place.
It all began with a discussion I had at work concerning who I intended to vote for. After I told them if I could not cast a vote for Ron Paul I would probably not bother to cast a vote for president, even though I would still vote on ballot measures and other issues.
This person asked me why I wouldn't vote for Hillary or Barack Obama? I told them there are many reasons, and began listing them. When I got to their desire for universal health care, the woman stopped me and asked what is wrong with everyone having health insurance. I told her nothing is wrong with the idea of everyone having health insurance, as long as the federal government does not tax me for it, or run it.
She said, but isn't that what our government is for? Aha, I thought to myself, another person who knows not the function of their government. I then asked if she could tell me where in the Constitution it says the federal government is responsible for making sure everyone has health insurance. She could not, but said, "It must be in there somewhere."
After counting to ten, well maybe twenty, I answered that it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution that the federal government is responsible for providing Americans with health insurance. I then told her that the Constitution does say that whatever powers are not granted the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people, by 10th amendment. Therefore, I continued, if you really want everyone to have health care, why don't the people contact their respective state legislator and ask that they sponsor a bill to create a state run program, (a thought I find repulsive and unwise, but nevertheless within the legal guidelines of our Constitution.)
She tried again to say that it would be better if the federal government did it so all the states could have the same program. I finally said, 'Listen, if the federal government assumes powers it is not authorized by the Constitution, what is to stop if from assuming powers that you may not want it to?' (As though this hasn't happened already, but I didn't want to get into that with her at this point in time.)
She said, well we could always stop them? I said, could we? How? She didn't know what else to say, except that she intended to vote for Hillary anyway.
This person obviously could not grasp the concept that there is a right way to do things, and a wrong way to do things. I find that quite prevalent in discussing politics with many. It is quite frustrating to say the least. I often have to refrain from insults or just slapping some sense into them. I have developed a lot of patience because of people like her. I guess that is a blessing in disguise.
The next event took place yesterday. A woman came to my home early in the morning and left some religious information, no, not Jehovah's Witnesses, it was a local Baptist Congregation. She was a pleasant woman, so we discussed politics, gardening, and other subjects for about an hour before she departed.
That evening my son was reading the pamphlet she gave me and asked me why a person can't go to Heaven just because they are nice, or at least nicer than a lot of other people.
I began by telling him that he should not worry about comparing himself to others when it comes to his worthiness to enter Heaven, he should compare himself to Jesus. He then said, but Jesus was perfect, and I am never going to be perfect. I said, that is true, but your goal should be to come as close to perfect as you can.
Next I told him to get into Heaven he would have to accept Jesus as his Savior. Just believing in Jesus would not be enough. He has to accept the sacrifice Jesus made for him, admit to Him that you are a sinner and then ask for his forgiveness and help in your life. Then you should begin to try and live by the teachings of Jesus.
He did not like the idea, not because he was worried he couldn't do those things, but because his friends were not likely to do them as well, and he didn't want all his friends going to hell. Noble thought, but not of his concern until he first made sure he was on the right path himself.
Somehow our discussion ended up on the subject of eternity. I told him that our life here on earth is nothing more than a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. Would it not be prudent to be on the safe side and do what you know is right to prevent yourself from being damned for all eternity. I told him that there is not middle ground, you either accept Jesus into your life, or you don't. You can choose to work towards going to Heaven, or you can sit back assured that you are going to hell. He looked a bit despondent after our conversation, but at least he has thought it over.
That was yesterday, then this morning, my good friend, the Grassroots Granny sent me an e mail asking that we make a list of opposites, good/bad, woman/man, right/wrong, well, you get the picture. The idea was to show that in most things there are opposites, with no middle ground. You are alive, or you are dead. You are obeying law, or you are disobeying them.
Those are the same concepts I have been dealing with all week, and her e mail was just the icing on the cake for me. This has been the hardest subject for me to get through to people, that there is no middle ground on many of the issues I discuss. Our government is either obeying the Constitution, or they are not. We are either paying attention to what our elected representatives are doing, or we aren't.
Sometimes this issue has me feeling as though I am banging my head against the wall, I get so frustrated that I cannot get people to understand this simple concept. I explain the facts, present documentation, quotes, and news articles to people, then I show them in the Constitution where it says the government is not supposed to be doing this, or they are supposed to be doing something they aren't. I get the 'dumb cow' look.
I recently got an e mail from a gentleman who called it 'dumbass syndrome'. I found it an apt title, but not one help me when attempting to get my point across.
Anyway, my point is that it has been an interesting week, with all these events tying in together like that. The Lord sure does work in mysterious ways. On a side note, I did get a boost around Wednesday. I got an e mail from a woman who had discovered my articles on the Federal Observer. She was genuinely interested in learning about the subjects I write about. So I am closing the week out with a glimmer of hope that there are people out there who are willing to learn, unlike the woman at work who will vote for Hillary, no matter what.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Rights and Responsibility
After writing my article 'Just Who Is In Charge' I received a few unexpected comments. Some people accused me of insulting their government and spreading anti-American propaganda. One person even went to far as to say I hated my country, which came as quite a shock to me.
I do not hate my country, I hate what it has become. I am angered and saddened by the people of this country who do not take the time to understand how their government is supposed to function, and how those elected to represent us have violated and abused the trust we have placed in them.
In response to some of the comments made to me, I came up with a quick ten question quiz to see how much people knew about their government and its history. They were all simple questions that shouldn't take too much thinking to answer. They were as follows:
1. Can you name the first five presidents of the United States.
2. Can you name the president who was never elected by the people of this country.
3. Which Article of the Constitution concerns the duties and powers of the President?
4. Name at least three of the powers granted Congress by the Constitution?
5. Who was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence?
6. According to the Declaration of Independence, from whom are our liberties derived?
7. Where in the Constitution does it grant the president the power to make laws?
8. Who does the Constitution say the Senators are supposed to represent?
9. According to the Constitution, who can enact new taxes?
10. Who has the power of impeachment, and who acts as the courtroom during impeachment proceedings.
I took my test to those who commented on my article and asked them to take it. Some refused, others did and failed miserably. I even let others take it if they so desired. Overall I was disappointed that nobody got more than 50% of the answers correct.
After taking the test I asked some of them why they should be allowed to vote. They told me that they should be allowed to vote because it is their right. That is true, the right of suffrage belongs to all, except ex-felons. Yet along with that right comes a responsibility, the responsibility to understand the principles upon which our system of government is supposed to operate.
In this country we have many rights and privileges. We have the right to drive a vehicle, but we must first learn the rules of the road before we are allowed to do so. We have the right to own firearms, (for how much longer is a good question), but we have the responsibility to know the proper safety precautions as well. Why should it be any different with voting?
Daniel Webster once said, "Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government."
You may ask why I rely so heavily upon quotes from the founding fathers and patriots of the revolutionary war era. That is simple, they were alive when this nations system of government was first established. They understood best the way it was supposed to work.
If someone makes a complicated recipe for a dish and you attempt to make it and run into problems, who are you going to ask for help? The person who gave you the recipe most likely. Why not then rely upon those who wrote our Constitution, who fought for our nations independence when asking how is our system of government supposed to work?
Thomas Jefferson, once said, "We, I hope, shall adhere to our republican government and keep it to its original principles by narrowly watching it." Have we done this? Hardly, not when we have those sitting in power who have violated the trust placed upon them who should have been removed from office for their violation of their oath of office. Yet these same people are continually re elected by the people. Some, like Senator Edward M. Kennedy, have been disgracing their office since I was nine years old, and I am fifty now! What does that tell you about how well we have watched our government?
James Monroe, our fifth President once predicted our future when he said, "It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin."
John Adams, our nations second President, once said, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies."
Returning to the words of Thomas Jefferson, he offered a stern warning to the people who wished to retain their liberty and freedom, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Is that were we sit today, a degenerated populace, lacking in virtue? I hate to admit it, but it certainly appears to be that way. When the people of this country cannot explain the basic principles upon which it is founded, they are, as Jefferson said, ignorant.
This nation is now in the midst of the process of deciding who will be its next President. If the outcome of this proceeding did not fill me with so much trepidation, I could almost laugh at the absurdity of it all. All three of our candidates are United States Senators who have a proven track record of ignoring our Constitution, and, in some instances, the overwhelming will of the people. Barack Obama wrote a book entitled, The Audacity of Hope. He has audacity alright, audacity to believe that he is even worthy to step foot into the oval office, let alone be the one who occupies it.
Samuel Adams, the leader of the Son's of Liberty during our nations fight for independence, once wrote, "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Vain and aspiring is what we have had for years now, and this current crop of phonies is not better, in fact they are the worst I have yet to have the displeasure of having to consider. For a woman whose only qualifications are a failed attempt to push socialized health care down our throats while First Lady, while her husband disgraced the office of President, does not bode well should she be elected.
John F. Kennedy once said, "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Far too many people are going to go to the polls with preconceived ideas of what they want their next President to do for them without even understanding that is not within the powers of the President to create new laws.
When JFK said we should ask what we can do for our country he may have meant that we should be willing to sacrifice more in the way of taxes to support programs that were not authorized by the Constitution.
So I am going to ask the question again, but my meaning is going to be entirely different. I am asking you to educate yourself about how our system of government was supposed to function. I am asking you to do some research in to those who you are offered up as candidates and how well they have upheld the Constitution. They are hoping that you will remain ignorant and easily fooled by their lies and empty promises. Why don't we surprise them by proving we are not the ignorant fools they take us to be while they lead our nation to its ruin? It is your country as well, and regardless of what others may say, I do love it and am hoping to save it from itself.
I do not hate my country, I hate what it has become. I am angered and saddened by the people of this country who do not take the time to understand how their government is supposed to function, and how those elected to represent us have violated and abused the trust we have placed in them.
In response to some of the comments made to me, I came up with a quick ten question quiz to see how much people knew about their government and its history. They were all simple questions that shouldn't take too much thinking to answer. They were as follows:
1. Can you name the first five presidents of the United States.
2. Can you name the president who was never elected by the people of this country.
3. Which Article of the Constitution concerns the duties and powers of the President?
4. Name at least three of the powers granted Congress by the Constitution?
5. Who was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence?
6. According to the Declaration of Independence, from whom are our liberties derived?
7. Where in the Constitution does it grant the president the power to make laws?
8. Who does the Constitution say the Senators are supposed to represent?
9. According to the Constitution, who can enact new taxes?
10. Who has the power of impeachment, and who acts as the courtroom during impeachment proceedings.
I took my test to those who commented on my article and asked them to take it. Some refused, others did and failed miserably. I even let others take it if they so desired. Overall I was disappointed that nobody got more than 50% of the answers correct.
After taking the test I asked some of them why they should be allowed to vote. They told me that they should be allowed to vote because it is their right. That is true, the right of suffrage belongs to all, except ex-felons. Yet along with that right comes a responsibility, the responsibility to understand the principles upon which our system of government is supposed to operate.
In this country we have many rights and privileges. We have the right to drive a vehicle, but we must first learn the rules of the road before we are allowed to do so. We have the right to own firearms, (for how much longer is a good question), but we have the responsibility to know the proper safety precautions as well. Why should it be any different with voting?
Daniel Webster once said, "Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government."
You may ask why I rely so heavily upon quotes from the founding fathers and patriots of the revolutionary war era. That is simple, they were alive when this nations system of government was first established. They understood best the way it was supposed to work.
If someone makes a complicated recipe for a dish and you attempt to make it and run into problems, who are you going to ask for help? The person who gave you the recipe most likely. Why not then rely upon those who wrote our Constitution, who fought for our nations independence when asking how is our system of government supposed to work?
Thomas Jefferson, once said, "We, I hope, shall adhere to our republican government and keep it to its original principles by narrowly watching it." Have we done this? Hardly, not when we have those sitting in power who have violated the trust placed upon them who should have been removed from office for their violation of their oath of office. Yet these same people are continually re elected by the people. Some, like Senator Edward M. Kennedy, have been disgracing their office since I was nine years old, and I am fifty now! What does that tell you about how well we have watched our government?
James Monroe, our fifth President once predicted our future when he said, "It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin."
John Adams, our nations second President, once said, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies."
Returning to the words of Thomas Jefferson, he offered a stern warning to the people who wished to retain their liberty and freedom, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Is that were we sit today, a degenerated populace, lacking in virtue? I hate to admit it, but it certainly appears to be that way. When the people of this country cannot explain the basic principles upon which it is founded, they are, as Jefferson said, ignorant.
This nation is now in the midst of the process of deciding who will be its next President. If the outcome of this proceeding did not fill me with so much trepidation, I could almost laugh at the absurdity of it all. All three of our candidates are United States Senators who have a proven track record of ignoring our Constitution, and, in some instances, the overwhelming will of the people. Barack Obama wrote a book entitled, The Audacity of Hope. He has audacity alright, audacity to believe that he is even worthy to step foot into the oval office, let alone be the one who occupies it.
Samuel Adams, the leader of the Son's of Liberty during our nations fight for independence, once wrote, "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Vain and aspiring is what we have had for years now, and this current crop of phonies is not better, in fact they are the worst I have yet to have the displeasure of having to consider. For a woman whose only qualifications are a failed attempt to push socialized health care down our throats while First Lady, while her husband disgraced the office of President, does not bode well should she be elected.
John F. Kennedy once said, "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Far too many people are going to go to the polls with preconceived ideas of what they want their next President to do for them without even understanding that is not within the powers of the President to create new laws.
When JFK said we should ask what we can do for our country he may have meant that we should be willing to sacrifice more in the way of taxes to support programs that were not authorized by the Constitution.
So I am going to ask the question again, but my meaning is going to be entirely different. I am asking you to educate yourself about how our system of government was supposed to function. I am asking you to do some research in to those who you are offered up as candidates and how well they have upheld the Constitution. They are hoping that you will remain ignorant and easily fooled by their lies and empty promises. Why don't we surprise them by proving we are not the ignorant fools they take us to be while they lead our nation to its ruin? It is your country as well, and regardless of what others may say, I do love it and am hoping to save it from itself.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Just Who Is In Charge
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people."
John Adams
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
James Madison
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
Thomas Jefferson
It is apparent from the quotes above that our founding fathers considered it essential that the people of this country be knowledgeable if they wished to retain their liberties, but knowledgeable about what? I don't think they were talking about trivial matters such as what is on television this evening. I think they just may have been referring to what their government was doing and whether their governments actions were within the confines of their Constitutional authority.
For the people to be able to determine if their elected representatives were governing according to the Constitution, they would first have to know what the Constitution says. In that instance I find the knowledge of many to be severely lacking.
Daniel Webster once said that "There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
So, as the title of this article suggests, just who is in charge? Most people would be inclined to say that the President is in charge. That is not true, we the people are in charge, at least we would be if we had the courage to be.
The Constitution was a compact, or a contract, agreed upon by the people of this country that gives the government certain specifically defined powers. Thomas Jefferson stated it this way, "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition."
In Federalist Paper #78, Alexander Hamilton wrote the following, and although it was in regards to the Judiciary, the meaning is clear. (For those who are not familiar with the Federalist Papers, they are a definitive collection of essays regarding the intent of the Constitution), "Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former."
Hamilton explained that in greater detail moments later in the same essay, "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. "
We, the people of this country, have allowed our government to take upon themselves powers which are not theirs to wield. Why have we allowed them to do this? There are numerous reasons. Over two hundred years ago, a man named Alexander Tytler wrote the following, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." In other words, we vote for the candidates who make the best sounding promises, regardless of whether the Constitution grants them the authority to keep those promises.
Returning to Federalist Paper #78, Alexander Hamilton had this to say about that exact scenario, "Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. "
Another reason we have allowed our government to assume powers it has no authority to assume is because of fear. We are warned of threats to our safety, or our national security that can only be answered by legislative action by our benevolent, (sarcasm intended), government. A perfect example is the many laws passed in the name of Homeland Security following September 11. James Madison warned us about that when he said, "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
Whatever our reasons may be, the desire for government subsidies, (handouts), fear, or just plain apathy, we have allowed our government to step outside the boundaries of power and authority which the Constitution grants them.
If we truly wanted our government to take these additional powers upon themselves, there is a way provided, and it is found in the Constitution itself. Article 5 of the Constitution states, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
If we want the government to have these powers, the only legal way to grant them those powers is by a Constitutional amendment. However, as Alexander Hamilton explained, "Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act."
In other words, unless we amend the Constitution to grant our government powers that are not currently clearly enumerated within the Constitution, they do not have those powers, and for them to assume them is ILLEGAL!
Although it is pure hypocrisy for Abraham Lincoln to even have said this, there is one final quote which I would like for everyone to consider, "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
Over the course of our nations history the people of this country have given their power and authority to the government. Now, instead of being the masters of the government, we are now their servants. We have forgotten the meaning of the words Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Our rights and our liberties come from God, not the government. We have given up those rights and are not likely to regain them. Samuel Adams expressed my sentiments much better than I ever could, "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; My your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
John Adams
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
James Madison
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
Thomas Jefferson
It is apparent from the quotes above that our founding fathers considered it essential that the people of this country be knowledgeable if they wished to retain their liberties, but knowledgeable about what? I don't think they were talking about trivial matters such as what is on television this evening. I think they just may have been referring to what their government was doing and whether their governments actions were within the confines of their Constitutional authority.
For the people to be able to determine if their elected representatives were governing according to the Constitution, they would first have to know what the Constitution says. In that instance I find the knowledge of many to be severely lacking.
Daniel Webster once said that "There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
So, as the title of this article suggests, just who is in charge? Most people would be inclined to say that the President is in charge. That is not true, we the people are in charge, at least we would be if we had the courage to be.
The Constitution was a compact, or a contract, agreed upon by the people of this country that gives the government certain specifically defined powers. Thomas Jefferson stated it this way, "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition."
In Federalist Paper #78, Alexander Hamilton wrote the following, and although it was in regards to the Judiciary, the meaning is clear. (For those who are not familiar with the Federalist Papers, they are a definitive collection of essays regarding the intent of the Constitution), "Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former."
Hamilton explained that in greater detail moments later in the same essay, "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. "
We, the people of this country, have allowed our government to take upon themselves powers which are not theirs to wield. Why have we allowed them to do this? There are numerous reasons. Over two hundred years ago, a man named Alexander Tytler wrote the following, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." In other words, we vote for the candidates who make the best sounding promises, regardless of whether the Constitution grants them the authority to keep those promises.
Returning to Federalist Paper #78, Alexander Hamilton had this to say about that exact scenario, "Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. "
Another reason we have allowed our government to assume powers it has no authority to assume is because of fear. We are warned of threats to our safety, or our national security that can only be answered by legislative action by our benevolent, (sarcasm intended), government. A perfect example is the many laws passed in the name of Homeland Security following September 11. James Madison warned us about that when he said, "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
Whatever our reasons may be, the desire for government subsidies, (handouts), fear, or just plain apathy, we have allowed our government to step outside the boundaries of power and authority which the Constitution grants them.
If we truly wanted our government to take these additional powers upon themselves, there is a way provided, and it is found in the Constitution itself. Article 5 of the Constitution states, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
If we want the government to have these powers, the only legal way to grant them those powers is by a Constitutional amendment. However, as Alexander Hamilton explained, "Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act."
In other words, unless we amend the Constitution to grant our government powers that are not currently clearly enumerated within the Constitution, they do not have those powers, and for them to assume them is ILLEGAL!
Although it is pure hypocrisy for Abraham Lincoln to even have said this, there is one final quote which I would like for everyone to consider, "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
Over the course of our nations history the people of this country have given their power and authority to the government. Now, instead of being the masters of the government, we are now their servants. We have forgotten the meaning of the words Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Our rights and our liberties come from God, not the government. We have given up those rights and are not likely to regain them. Samuel Adams expressed my sentiments much better than I ever could, "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; My your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Great Letter to the Editor
The following letter was in my local paper today. I am not including the authors name but I looked him up in the phone book and got his permission to send this out and post it on my blog. He even told me he considered sending it to Bush himself, but that Bush would never see it and why waste a stamp. He also told me that he hoped I realized it was pure sarcasm.
News reporters and business owners of small and larger companies have expressed a need for "undocumented" (illegal) workers.
Some say they cannot stay competitive without them. I suspect there is some truth there.
But what about the flip side? Are we then paying too much for other services? Mexico has qualified engineers, attorney, designers, councilmen and skilled craftsmen just as we do. Why not have these folks also set up shop here, and all of our wallets will thicken.
Professional people should be just as welcome and appreciated as the laborers. Some might say "This can't happen, you must be a citizen. You must have university degrees, certification, board approval and permits, etc." Well our immigration requirements seem to a be a little loose right now. There are "sanctuary cities" where citizenship requirements are ignored, and I hear some illegals can vote in city/county elections. Has the trend started?
Just think of it. If all our doctors, lawyers, bankers, teachers, contractors, politicians, well, everyone that provides a service were illegals, our bank accounts would increase tremendously.
Perhaps the greatest gain would be realized by applying this concept to state and federal governments. If congresspersons, attorneys general, even our president, had to compete with and/or be replaced with illegals, the savings would be stupefying.
I think its worth trying. Write or call your mayor, local council people, governor and the U.S. Congress and demand equal treatment in employment opportunities throughout the United States at all levels.
News reporters and business owners of small and larger companies have expressed a need for "undocumented" (illegal) workers.
Some say they cannot stay competitive without them. I suspect there is some truth there.
But what about the flip side? Are we then paying too much for other services? Mexico has qualified engineers, attorney, designers, councilmen and skilled craftsmen just as we do. Why not have these folks also set up shop here, and all of our wallets will thicken.
Professional people should be just as welcome and appreciated as the laborers. Some might say "This can't happen, you must be a citizen. You must have university degrees, certification, board approval and permits, etc." Well our immigration requirements seem to a be a little loose right now. There are "sanctuary cities" where citizenship requirements are ignored, and I hear some illegals can vote in city/county elections. Has the trend started?
Just think of it. If all our doctors, lawyers, bankers, teachers, contractors, politicians, well, everyone that provides a service were illegals, our bank accounts would increase tremendously.
Perhaps the greatest gain would be realized by applying this concept to state and federal governments. If congresspersons, attorneys general, even our president, had to compete with and/or be replaced with illegals, the savings would be stupefying.
I think its worth trying. Write or call your mayor, local council people, governor and the U.S. Congress and demand equal treatment in employment opportunities throughout the United States at all levels.
Friday, April 11, 2008
No, It's Not A Fairy Tale, But It Certainly Is Grim
Once upon a time there was a nation inhabited by people who came from a multitude of other nations. These people believed in a philosophy which was described by the following words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This nation fought a war against an more prepared and equipped oppressive enemy to secure their independence. After gaining independence it decided that it needed some form of government which would "...form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
Sounds like the beginning of quite the fairy tale doesn't it? Well it isn't, and I am sorry to say that the story, although not completed, appears not to have a happy ending. It is the story of our nation, the United States of America.
The principles upon which this nation was founded are sound, no matter how many mistakes were made by the men who held positions of power throughout the course of its history.
The principles upon which this nation was formed were conceived and actualized by men of honor, men of courage, and men of great wisdom. Men with names like Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Franklin, Henry, and Hamilton. Men like Nathan Hale who stated just before he was to be hung, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." How many men would be willing to make that claim today?
These men had a vision for this nation, which John Jay described in Federalist Paper #2, "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."
This nation opened its doors to people from all over the world who wished to come and participate in this great experiment, that people from all nations could live together, united, working for the common good of the nation as a whole. This concept was explained perfectly by Thomas Jefferson when he said, "Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules."
When compared to the entire history of the world, this nations existence has merely been the blink of an eye, yet in our short time here we have already brought about our imminent downfall. Just as a child grows into adolescence and forgets much of what it was taught in its early years, our nation has forgotten the principles upon which is was founded. The names of our founding fathers are fading from our memories, and the principles they left us have long since been forgotten. Once again I am reminded of something said by Thomas Jefferson, "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction."
Without character... The first amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Patrick Henry could have been predicting our future when he stated that "It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."
John Adams, our second president declared, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."
We have forgotten these principles, and in so doing have chosen the path that is leading to the end to this once great nation. I find it ironic that the people of this country are fond of using the phrase God Bless America. Why should he when we have turned our backs on Him?
Thomas Jefferson once said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
James Monroe, the fifth president must be weeping in his grave, as he predicted exactly what has happened to this country, "It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin."
The country that was founded by those men over two hundred years ago is long gone, the country which contained "a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs..."
It has been replaced by a politically correct quagmire of multiculturalism, full of ignorant and apathetic people more concerned about the outcome of some sporting event, or the next American Idol, than they are about their freedom and liberty.
When voting for their representatives, and make no mistake, they represent us, not lead us, they take the word of these pathological liars splattered across their televisions in slick 30 second sound bites. They are too lazy, apathetic, or both to research the truth regarding the people upon whom they place the sacred trust to uphold the Constitution.
For instance, those seeking office are always telling us how their policies will create more jobs. However, James Garfield, the twentieth president made the following comments regarding that very subject, "It is no part of the functions of the National Government to find employment for the people, and if we were to appropriate a hundred millions for his purpose, we should only be taxing 40 millions of people to keep a few thousand employed."
Benjamin Franklin was more to the point when he made the following comment over two hundred years ago, "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
Theodore Roosevelt was less politically correct than would be acceptable today, but his thoughts cut to the very heart of the situation in the following two quotes,
"The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight."
"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs."
When Theodore Roosevelt spoke of 'an American' he meant exactly that as he explains in the following, "There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100 percent. Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else."
Thinking like that is just not acceptable today. To expect someone to pull their own weight, to not place his burdens upon his fellow men, and to claim total allegiance to this country? Those thoughts would be cause enough today to label Roosevelt a racist, and unsympathetic to the poor and downtrodden at the minimum. In this politically correct multicultural society it is totally unacceptable to hold people accountable for their actions, and to expect allegiance to our nation and the principles upon which it was founded goes completely against the concept of multiculturalism.
It is now commonplace that this we bend over backwards to accommodate beliefs other than those upon which our nation was founded. While we are tolerant of the beliefs of others, the very beliefs that made America what it is are now considered to be politically incorrect. English is no longer the language that binds this country together, and if we demand it be spoken we are labeled racist and intolerant.
The ability to publicly display our religious beliefs, the same beliefs as those held by our founding fathers, is now publicly shunned, and worse prohibited by our Supreme Court. Yet we make accommodations for those with other beliefs, we practice tolerance while their religion preaches intolerance. From the Quran, or Koran, whichever way you wish to spell it, Surah 4, verse 89 states, “They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and be on the same footing as they, so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever ye find them and take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
And if that isn’t bad enough, the ultimate goal of their religion is plainly stated in Surah 8 verse 39, “Fight them until their is no dissension and the religion is entirely Allah's.”
We are no longer a nation “speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs” When I speak out on these issues I am told that I am intolerant, but anyone who judges me by my actions knows better. The simple fact is that people come to this country to live of their own free will, we do not import them under duress. The least they could do is respect our customs, our language, and most of all, our laws.
Again, it is due to our ignorance and our apathy that we so easily fall for the concepts of political correctness and multiculturalism. It is for the same reasons that our nation has come to the point it is at today, the point where our elected representatives are mere puppets being controlled by hidden masters.
It is at this point that I am labeled a nut, a conspiracy theorist. Yet Theodore Roosevelt believed it, so did Woodrow Wilson.
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”
Theodore Roosevelt
“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
Woodrow Wilson
Our country is at a tipping point, at the edge of an abyss from which if we fall into, we will never be able to restore those freedoms and liberties upon which we were founded. In November we will once again go to the polls to elect a new president. It is up to us to think seriously about who we intend to vote for. A vote for any of the three main candidates is a vote to push us off into the abyss. Ron Paul would have been a good choice, but the media ignored him and the people never accepted what he was telling them about our country’s future.
We have a very short window of opportunity to reverse the damage that has been done if this nation is to survive. Our children are being educated in this politically correct multicultural society. When the generation that still remembers the principles upon which our nation was founded passes into history, it will be over for America unless we can educate the youth in regards to the principles which made America great.
However I am not holding my breath. And that is why I say that the story about the United States of America is all but concluded. I don’t believe the people of this country care enough to do what is right for our nations future. As long as they have a roof over their head, three meals a day and a television to numb their minds, they are content.
The end is coming, and coming quickly. Believe me or not, but when it gets here I don’t want to hear people say that someone should have warned them. When the end comes, if you have any complaints, take them to your benevolent government because I don’t want to hear them.
This nation fought a war against an more prepared and equipped oppressive enemy to secure their independence. After gaining independence it decided that it needed some form of government which would "...form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
Sounds like the beginning of quite the fairy tale doesn't it? Well it isn't, and I am sorry to say that the story, although not completed, appears not to have a happy ending. It is the story of our nation, the United States of America.
The principles upon which this nation was founded are sound, no matter how many mistakes were made by the men who held positions of power throughout the course of its history.
The principles upon which this nation was formed were conceived and actualized by men of honor, men of courage, and men of great wisdom. Men with names like Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Franklin, Henry, and Hamilton. Men like Nathan Hale who stated just before he was to be hung, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." How many men would be willing to make that claim today?
These men had a vision for this nation, which John Jay described in Federalist Paper #2, "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."
This nation opened its doors to people from all over the world who wished to come and participate in this great experiment, that people from all nations could live together, united, working for the common good of the nation as a whole. This concept was explained perfectly by Thomas Jefferson when he said, "Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules."
When compared to the entire history of the world, this nations existence has merely been the blink of an eye, yet in our short time here we have already brought about our imminent downfall. Just as a child grows into adolescence and forgets much of what it was taught in its early years, our nation has forgotten the principles upon which is was founded. The names of our founding fathers are fading from our memories, and the principles they left us have long since been forgotten. Once again I am reminded of something said by Thomas Jefferson, "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction."
Without character... The first amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Patrick Henry could have been predicting our future when he stated that "It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."
John Adams, our second president declared, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."
We have forgotten these principles, and in so doing have chosen the path that is leading to the end to this once great nation. I find it ironic that the people of this country are fond of using the phrase God Bless America. Why should he when we have turned our backs on Him?
Thomas Jefferson once said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
James Monroe, the fifth president must be weeping in his grave, as he predicted exactly what has happened to this country, "It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin."
The country that was founded by those men over two hundred years ago is long gone, the country which contained "a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs..."
It has been replaced by a politically correct quagmire of multiculturalism, full of ignorant and apathetic people more concerned about the outcome of some sporting event, or the next American Idol, than they are about their freedom and liberty.
When voting for their representatives, and make no mistake, they represent us, not lead us, they take the word of these pathological liars splattered across their televisions in slick 30 second sound bites. They are too lazy, apathetic, or both to research the truth regarding the people upon whom they place the sacred trust to uphold the Constitution.
For instance, those seeking office are always telling us how their policies will create more jobs. However, James Garfield, the twentieth president made the following comments regarding that very subject, "It is no part of the functions of the National Government to find employment for the people, and if we were to appropriate a hundred millions for his purpose, we should only be taxing 40 millions of people to keep a few thousand employed."
Benjamin Franklin was more to the point when he made the following comment over two hundred years ago, "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
Theodore Roosevelt was less politically correct than would be acceptable today, but his thoughts cut to the very heart of the situation in the following two quotes,
"The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight."
"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs."
When Theodore Roosevelt spoke of 'an American' he meant exactly that as he explains in the following, "There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100 percent. Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else."
Thinking like that is just not acceptable today. To expect someone to pull their own weight, to not place his burdens upon his fellow men, and to claim total allegiance to this country? Those thoughts would be cause enough today to label Roosevelt a racist, and unsympathetic to the poor and downtrodden at the minimum. In this politically correct multicultural society it is totally unacceptable to hold people accountable for their actions, and to expect allegiance to our nation and the principles upon which it was founded goes completely against the concept of multiculturalism.
It is now commonplace that this we bend over backwards to accommodate beliefs other than those upon which our nation was founded. While we are tolerant of the beliefs of others, the very beliefs that made America what it is are now considered to be politically incorrect. English is no longer the language that binds this country together, and if we demand it be spoken we are labeled racist and intolerant.
The ability to publicly display our religious beliefs, the same beliefs as those held by our founding fathers, is now publicly shunned, and worse prohibited by our Supreme Court. Yet we make accommodations for those with other beliefs, we practice tolerance while their religion preaches intolerance. From the Quran, or Koran, whichever way you wish to spell it, Surah 4, verse 89 states, “They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and be on the same footing as they, so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever ye find them and take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
And if that isn’t bad enough, the ultimate goal of their religion is plainly stated in Surah 8 verse 39, “Fight them until their is no dissension and the religion is entirely Allah's.”
We are no longer a nation “speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs” When I speak out on these issues I am told that I am intolerant, but anyone who judges me by my actions knows better. The simple fact is that people come to this country to live of their own free will, we do not import them under duress. The least they could do is respect our customs, our language, and most of all, our laws.
Again, it is due to our ignorance and our apathy that we so easily fall for the concepts of political correctness and multiculturalism. It is for the same reasons that our nation has come to the point it is at today, the point where our elected representatives are mere puppets being controlled by hidden masters.
It is at this point that I am labeled a nut, a conspiracy theorist. Yet Theodore Roosevelt believed it, so did Woodrow Wilson.
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”
Theodore Roosevelt
“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
Woodrow Wilson
Our country is at a tipping point, at the edge of an abyss from which if we fall into, we will never be able to restore those freedoms and liberties upon which we were founded. In November we will once again go to the polls to elect a new president. It is up to us to think seriously about who we intend to vote for. A vote for any of the three main candidates is a vote to push us off into the abyss. Ron Paul would have been a good choice, but the media ignored him and the people never accepted what he was telling them about our country’s future.
We have a very short window of opportunity to reverse the damage that has been done if this nation is to survive. Our children are being educated in this politically correct multicultural society. When the generation that still remembers the principles upon which our nation was founded passes into history, it will be over for America unless we can educate the youth in regards to the principles which made America great.
However I am not holding my breath. And that is why I say that the story about the United States of America is all but concluded. I don’t believe the people of this country care enough to do what is right for our nations future. As long as they have a roof over their head, three meals a day and a television to numb their minds, they are content.
The end is coming, and coming quickly. Believe me or not, but when it gets here I don’t want to hear people say that someone should have warned them. When the end comes, if you have any complaints, take them to your benevolent government because I don’t want to hear them.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Charlton Heston Speech From 1999
I didn't write this, but it is worth sharing.
Neal
The following is a speech NRA President Charlton Heston gave to the Harvard Law School Forum on February 16, 1999.
I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people."
There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo. If you want the ceiling repainted I'll do my best. There always seems to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.
As I pondered our visit tonight, it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty...your own freedom of thought...your own compass for what is right.
Dedicating the memorial at a Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."
Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you...the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.
Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve...I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured senile, crazy old man." I know...I'm pretty old...but I sure Lord ain't senile.
As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that.
I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.
For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.
I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.
I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.
Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.
From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"
But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys - subjects bound to the British crown.
In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction.
Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it."
Let me read a few examples.
• At Antioch College in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation...all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive.
• In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDS, the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not...need not...tell their patients that they are infected.
• At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name.
• In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.
• In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic.
• At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students.
Yeah, I know...that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes." Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said "black." But it's a no-no now.
For me, hyphenated identities are awkward...particularly "Native-American." I'm a Native American, for God's sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux. On my wife's side, my grandson is a thirteenth generation native American...with a capital letter on "American."
Finally, just last month...David Howard, head of the Washington, D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.
As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn't know the meaning of niggardly, (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance."
What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind.
Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?
Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe?
It scares me to death and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.
You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that...and abide it...you are - by your grandfathers' standards - cowards.
Here's another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayors...pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers.
I don't care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me."
If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.
Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.
But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation?
The answer's been here all along.
I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.
You simply...disobey.
Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely.
But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom.
I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King...who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.
Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea in to Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in Viet Nam.
In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous law that weaken personal freedom.
But be careful...it hurts.
Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies.
You must be willing to be humiliated...to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma.
You must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me. Let me tell you a story.
A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world.
Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so - at least one had been murdered. But Time/warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black.
I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time and decided to attend.
What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop Killer" - every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.
"I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF I'M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF I'M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF..."
It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that.
Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore.
"SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY..."
Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can't print that." "I know," I replied, "but Time/Warner's selling it."
Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warner, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk.
When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself...jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office.
When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors...choke the halls of the board of regents.
When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment...march on that school and block its doorways.
When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you...petition them, oust them, banish them.
When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month...boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.
So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.
If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.
Thank you
Neal
The following is a speech NRA President Charlton Heston gave to the Harvard Law School Forum on February 16, 1999.
I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people."
There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo. If you want the ceiling repainted I'll do my best. There always seems to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.
As I pondered our visit tonight, it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty...your own freedom of thought...your own compass for what is right.
Dedicating the memorial at a Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."
Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you...the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.
Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve...I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured senile, crazy old man." I know...I'm pretty old...but I sure Lord ain't senile.
As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that.
I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.
For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.
I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.
I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.
Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.
From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"
But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys - subjects bound to the British crown.
In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction.
Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it."
Let me read a few examples.
• At Antioch College in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation...all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive.
• In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDS, the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not...need not...tell their patients that they are infected.
• At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name.
• In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.
• In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic.
• At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students.
Yeah, I know...that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes." Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said "black." But it's a no-no now.
For me, hyphenated identities are awkward...particularly "Native-American." I'm a Native American, for God's sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux. On my wife's side, my grandson is a thirteenth generation native American...with a capital letter on "American."
Finally, just last month...David Howard, head of the Washington, D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.
As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn't know the meaning of niggardly, (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance."
What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind.
Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?
Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe?
It scares me to death and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.
You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that...and abide it...you are - by your grandfathers' standards - cowards.
Here's another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayors...pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers.
I don't care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me."
If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.
Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.
But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation?
The answer's been here all along.
I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.
You simply...disobey.
Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely.
But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom.
I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King...who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.
Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea in to Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in Viet Nam.
In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous law that weaken personal freedom.
But be careful...it hurts.
Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies.
You must be willing to be humiliated...to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma.
You must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me. Let me tell you a story.
A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world.
Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so - at least one had been murdered. But Time/warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black.
I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time and decided to attend.
What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop Killer" - every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.
"I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF I'M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF I'M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF..."
It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that.
Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore.
"SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY..."
Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can't print that." "I know," I replied, "but Time/Warner's selling it."
Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warner, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk.
When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself...jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office.
When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors...choke the halls of the board of regents.
When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment...march on that school and block its doorways.
When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you...petition them, oust them, banish them.
When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month...boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.
So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.
If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.
Thank you
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Just 8 Short Months To Decide
"My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy!"
Thomas Jefferson
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams
"Give me liberty or give me death."
Patrick Henry
The 2008 presidential election is just eight short months away. That is both a good thing, and a bad thing. It is good because we will finally be rid of George W. Bush, unless of course something terrible happens and he uses all those unconstitutional powers he has granted himself and cancels the election, declares martial law, and declares himself King George.
The upcoming election is a bad thing as well. It is bad because look at who we have to choose from. We have Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who are fighting bitterly for their parties nomination, although both are campaigning on pretty much the same issues. It is amazing how arrogant both of them are, thinking that they are best qualified to become president when neither of them seems to understand what powers the Constitution grants the president, or the government for that matter. I defy either of them to show me which Article and Clause in the Constitution grants them the power and authority to enact universal health care. Then again the American people aren't much wiser in that regard, otherwise they wouldn't have the support they do now.
Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama seem to think they are the most qualified to become president, as they are so fond of reminding us. What a difference between these two and George Washington, who humbly accepted the call of the people to become our first president, "On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence one who (inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration) ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies."
On the other side of the aisle we have Senator John McCain who, although he is running as a Republican, seems to be suffering from an identity crisis. Anyone who had taken the time to look into Senator McCain's stance on the issues would be forced to come to the conclusion that he cannot decide if he wants to be a Republican or a Democrat. And this is the best that the Republican Party has to offer?
Congressman Ron Paul was the best chance this country had of changing course and returning to a government based upon Constitutional principles, but his campaign was sabotaged by his own party, the media, and the puppet masters who actually run things in this country.
Although Ron Paul gathered a substantial amount of support I feel that he might be a bit naive in thinking that a true awakening has taken place in this country that will continue to spread his philosophy of government according to the Constitution.
Ron Paul supporters fall into two categories, those who have been aware for many years that our country is going down the tubes, and those who supported him based upon his stance on one particular issue.
Those of us who realize how serious things are in this country looked to Ron Paul almost as a ’last chance’ to save this country, at least within the system. Then there were those who supported Dr. Paul because of his stance on the war, or his stance on the FED and the IRS, or some other issue. I would hope that in supporting Dr. Paul their eyes may have been opened to some of the other issues that face us, but I am not holding my breath. Americans tend to have a very short memory and will soon forget about Ron Paul. Some will choose not to vote, others will vote Republican, because any Republican is better than a Democrat. Back to business as usual, while America and our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties continue circling the drain.
People just do not want to take the time to study the issues and the problems that face this nation, and that is something that those in power are counting on. There are two more quotes that I feel are appropriate at this time. The first is by Thomas Jefferson,
"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” The second is by General Douglas MacArthur, "No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation."
How vigilant are the people of this country, how much do they participate? Not very much, of that I can assure you. To give you an example, most people where I work are aware that I am interested in politics and government. So I am often asked who I intended to vote for. I would, without hesitation, say Ron Paul. Nine times out of ten they would reply with, ‘Who’s that?’
It makes no difference if the supported him or opposed him, but to be aware of the issues, and the stances the candidates take on them, they should have at least watched a few of the many debates held by both parties. So they should have been at least aware of who Ron Paul was. There ignorance shows how uninformed they are, yet many of them still intend to vote. They will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, or Barack because he is black, or McCain because he is a POW. When I hear that reasoning I just want to scream and shake some sense into them. But then, what good would it do? People are too concerned with the cost of gas, or the economy. It would be too much to ask that they understood that all the problems this country faces have been orchestrated to bring us to a pre-planned destination, which is the end of our Constitutional form of government and the end of the sovereign United States.
Not too many people have heard of it, but there is a thing called the Hegelian Principle. What it boils down to is that a problem is created, this is called the thesis. Next there is an anti-thesis to generate opposition to the problem. The final step is synthesis, which provides a solution to the problem. This brings about change which would have been unacceptable unless it was offered as a solution to a problem.
Think about it this way. I am sure everyone has seen some form of gangster movie in which the mob terrorizes businesses and then offers them protection from that harassment, at a cost of course. Would the businesses have been willing to just pay the mob for no reason? Of course not, therefore a problem was created which required the solution the mob offered. That is Hegel’s Principle in a nutshell.
This principle has been used to condition the people of this country into accepting so many things that we would otherwise have found repulsive, and the cycle continues. Each solution brings problems of its own that require a new solution, which in turn bring about more problems, until the ultimate goal is achieved, whatever that goal may be.
This theory can be applied to the War in Iraq, the problem with illegal aliens, the current economic situation in America, the loss of our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties, etc. etc. Each solution gives those in power more power, more control and at the same time takes away another slice of our freedom in the process.
Where does it end? When we have lost all our rights, all our freedom, and all those little things our founding fathers thought shouldn’t be messed with which are contained within the Bill of Rights.
You can call me a kook, a conspiracy nut, or anything you want. When the time finally arrives when the jackbooted storm troopers come knocking on your door or you see the military marching through the streets of your cities and towns, then you will realize I was right and that you should have listened. By then it will be too late. I would rather be safe than sorry. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.”
As Jefferson said, it is better to resist your government even if you are wrong, than not to do so at all. I would argue that it is better to resist your government before you no longer have the right to do so.
Since you have put up with my ramblings for this long, I would ask that you do one more thing, Google The United States Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, or Operation Garden Plot and see what you come up with. Then again, why don’t I just save you some time? Annex A, Section B of Operation Garden Plot “defines tax protesters, militia groups, religious cults, and general anti-government dissenters as Disruptive Elements. This calls for the deadly force to be used against any extremist or dissident perpetrating any and all forms of civil disorder.”
You wanted to know where all this ends, well that is the end right there. When you lose the right to protest, to seek recourse against injustices perpetrated upon you by your government, you have become a slave to them.
Now that you know the ultimate goal of those in power you have one of two options. You can either get informed and join the ranks of those who are fighting to stop this madness. Or you can go back to your television sets and hide from the truth. Your choice, but go back to the beginning of this article and re-read the quote by Patrick Henry to know my choice.
Thomas Jefferson
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams
"Give me liberty or give me death."
Patrick Henry
The 2008 presidential election is just eight short months away. That is both a good thing, and a bad thing. It is good because we will finally be rid of George W. Bush, unless of course something terrible happens and he uses all those unconstitutional powers he has granted himself and cancels the election, declares martial law, and declares himself King George.
The upcoming election is a bad thing as well. It is bad because look at who we have to choose from. We have Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who are fighting bitterly for their parties nomination, although both are campaigning on pretty much the same issues. It is amazing how arrogant both of them are, thinking that they are best qualified to become president when neither of them seems to understand what powers the Constitution grants the president, or the government for that matter. I defy either of them to show me which Article and Clause in the Constitution grants them the power and authority to enact universal health care. Then again the American people aren't much wiser in that regard, otherwise they wouldn't have the support they do now.
Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama seem to think they are the most qualified to become president, as they are so fond of reminding us. What a difference between these two and George Washington, who humbly accepted the call of the people to become our first president, "On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence one who (inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration) ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies."
On the other side of the aisle we have Senator John McCain who, although he is running as a Republican, seems to be suffering from an identity crisis. Anyone who had taken the time to look into Senator McCain's stance on the issues would be forced to come to the conclusion that he cannot decide if he wants to be a Republican or a Democrat. And this is the best that the Republican Party has to offer?
Congressman Ron Paul was the best chance this country had of changing course and returning to a government based upon Constitutional principles, but his campaign was sabotaged by his own party, the media, and the puppet masters who actually run things in this country.
Although Ron Paul gathered a substantial amount of support I feel that he might be a bit naive in thinking that a true awakening has taken place in this country that will continue to spread his philosophy of government according to the Constitution.
Ron Paul supporters fall into two categories, those who have been aware for many years that our country is going down the tubes, and those who supported him based upon his stance on one particular issue.
Those of us who realize how serious things are in this country looked to Ron Paul almost as a ’last chance’ to save this country, at least within the system. Then there were those who supported Dr. Paul because of his stance on the war, or his stance on the FED and the IRS, or some other issue. I would hope that in supporting Dr. Paul their eyes may have been opened to some of the other issues that face us, but I am not holding my breath. Americans tend to have a very short memory and will soon forget about Ron Paul. Some will choose not to vote, others will vote Republican, because any Republican is better than a Democrat. Back to business as usual, while America and our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties continue circling the drain.
People just do not want to take the time to study the issues and the problems that face this nation, and that is something that those in power are counting on. There are two more quotes that I feel are appropriate at this time. The first is by Thomas Jefferson,
"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” The second is by General Douglas MacArthur, "No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation."
How vigilant are the people of this country, how much do they participate? Not very much, of that I can assure you. To give you an example, most people where I work are aware that I am interested in politics and government. So I am often asked who I intended to vote for. I would, without hesitation, say Ron Paul. Nine times out of ten they would reply with, ‘Who’s that?’
It makes no difference if the supported him or opposed him, but to be aware of the issues, and the stances the candidates take on them, they should have at least watched a few of the many debates held by both parties. So they should have been at least aware of who Ron Paul was. There ignorance shows how uninformed they are, yet many of them still intend to vote. They will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, or Barack because he is black, or McCain because he is a POW. When I hear that reasoning I just want to scream and shake some sense into them. But then, what good would it do? People are too concerned with the cost of gas, or the economy. It would be too much to ask that they understood that all the problems this country faces have been orchestrated to bring us to a pre-planned destination, which is the end of our Constitutional form of government and the end of the sovereign United States.
Not too many people have heard of it, but there is a thing called the Hegelian Principle. What it boils down to is that a problem is created, this is called the thesis. Next there is an anti-thesis to generate opposition to the problem. The final step is synthesis, which provides a solution to the problem. This brings about change which would have been unacceptable unless it was offered as a solution to a problem.
Think about it this way. I am sure everyone has seen some form of gangster movie in which the mob terrorizes businesses and then offers them protection from that harassment, at a cost of course. Would the businesses have been willing to just pay the mob for no reason? Of course not, therefore a problem was created which required the solution the mob offered. That is Hegel’s Principle in a nutshell.
This principle has been used to condition the people of this country into accepting so many things that we would otherwise have found repulsive, and the cycle continues. Each solution brings problems of its own that require a new solution, which in turn bring about more problems, until the ultimate goal is achieved, whatever that goal may be.
This theory can be applied to the War in Iraq, the problem with illegal aliens, the current economic situation in America, the loss of our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties, etc. etc. Each solution gives those in power more power, more control and at the same time takes away another slice of our freedom in the process.
Where does it end? When we have lost all our rights, all our freedom, and all those little things our founding fathers thought shouldn’t be messed with which are contained within the Bill of Rights.
You can call me a kook, a conspiracy nut, or anything you want. When the time finally arrives when the jackbooted storm troopers come knocking on your door or you see the military marching through the streets of your cities and towns, then you will realize I was right and that you should have listened. By then it will be too late. I would rather be safe than sorry. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.”
As Jefferson said, it is better to resist your government even if you are wrong, than not to do so at all. I would argue that it is better to resist your government before you no longer have the right to do so.
Since you have put up with my ramblings for this long, I would ask that you do one more thing, Google The United States Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, or Operation Garden Plot and see what you come up with. Then again, why don’t I just save you some time? Annex A, Section B of Operation Garden Plot “defines tax protesters, militia groups, religious cults, and general anti-government dissenters as Disruptive Elements. This calls for the deadly force to be used against any extremist or dissident perpetrating any and all forms of civil disorder.”
You wanted to know where all this ends, well that is the end right there. When you lose the right to protest, to seek recourse against injustices perpetrated upon you by your government, you have become a slave to them.
Now that you know the ultimate goal of those in power you have one of two options. You can either get informed and join the ranks of those who are fighting to stop this madness. Or you can go back to your television sets and hide from the truth. Your choice, but go back to the beginning of this article and re-read the quote by Patrick Henry to know my choice.
Our yard
It's that time of year again, time to fix this yard up and make it presentable. This my friends is why I haven't been writing too much lately...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)