Obama Says “Islam Woven Into Fabric Of Our Nation”: Yes, They Gave Us The Marines And Our First Wars

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Decatur_Boarding_the_Tripolitan_Gunboat

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and Keith Farrel at the Federalist Papers Project.

“Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.” Barack Obama, 2015

Really, Mr. President? How so?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama Claims Islam Part Of Founding; Here’s The Truth In The Founders Own Words

President Obama has continually asserted that Islam was “woven into the fabric” of the United States since its founding. Obama claims that Muslims have made significant contributions to building of this nation. The claim is laughable to anyone who has studied US history. Historian David Barton spoke to Glenn Beck and tore the president’s claims apart.

Barton found the first real contribution any Muslim made was in 1856 (80 years after the founding) when then Secretary of War Jefferson Davis hired one Muslim to help train camels in Arizona. Not exactly a resounding contribution, since the plan to fight Native Americans via camelback was soon dismissed.

But Muslims did have an influence on early America, and that influence was one of a foe. After winning its independence from England, American vessels no longer enjoyed British protection. France, dismayed that the US would not aid it in its war against England, also ceased protection of American ships. The result led to American vessels being raided and plundered by Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

After agreeing to pay 10% of the new nations dismal GDP in exchange for passage, attacks continued. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were sent as representatives to mediate the problem. It was there that they discovered that the Islamic law the pirates followed made it their duty to attack non-Muslims.

“The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise,” Jefferson wrote to Secretary of State John Jay, explaining peace was not possible.

Ben Franklin wrote of his experience: “Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book (the Qur’an) forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.”

John Adams, in his report to Jay, wrote of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and called him a “military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.”

By the time Jefferson became president the Barbary coast was extorting 25% of US GDP and attacks were still occurring. Jefferson wasted no time in signing a war powers request which launched the US’s entire naval fleet to wage war on the Barbary pirates. The US Marines were born. Jefferson saw the fleet off, ordering the US sailors to chase the pirates all the way to Tripoli, giving rise to the famed verse from the US Marines’ anthem.

President Obama is correct when he says that Muslims shaped this country, just not in how he means. They provided the context and need for the US Marines and provided our first lesson in battling extremism: It cannot be appeased. Extremism must be routed out through force.

.

.

.

Share

How You Can Affirm Your Country Is Run By Idiots

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Found at the Mb50 blog, who, in turn, found it at The Conservative Citizen, the answer to today’s question is attributed to a Jeff Foxworthy. Here, without comment is Foxworthy’s “priceless” analysis:

– By Jeff Foxworthy –

jeff-foxworthy

If you can  get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for  entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a  nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If  you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take  an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a  nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by  idiots.

If you MUST  show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor,  or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs  the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses  but is run by idiots.

If the  government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun  magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter  jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that  was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the  nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one  24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat —  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by  idiots.

If an  80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair  can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or  a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might  live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by  idiots.

If your  government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of  debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was  founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a  seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is  “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade  school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was  founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard  work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation  and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks,  Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might  live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by  idiots.

If the  government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives  for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any  requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but  couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation that was founded by  geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay  your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while  your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma  screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he  defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by  geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being  stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more  “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was  founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

What  a  country!

.

.

.

Share

The Declaration of Independence: As Relevant Today as it was in 1776

Share

Note: This was originally posted on July 4, 2009.

It’s Independence Day. I wish you all a great day, and ask you to contemplate the meaning of the holiday. To assist, here is a transcript of the Declaration of Independence.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

  • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  • He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
  • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
  • He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
  • He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
  • He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
  • He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
  • He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
  • He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
  • For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
  • For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  • For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
  • For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
  • For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
  • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  • He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
  • He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
  • He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
  • He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
  • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

This document speaks to us through the centuries. It is just as relevant today as it was in 1776. Will we ignore it? Will we give up what has been bequeathed to us? Who will stand up to the current leaders that usurp out rights? That remains to be seen.

Share

Why the left demonizes our Founding Fathers

Share

foundingfathers1Yesterday while listening to the Sean Hannity radio show a caller who identified himself as a liberal questioned why conservatives hold such a godlike reverence towards our Founding Fathers.  After all these men were nothing but rich, white, slave owners who spoke of liberty and yet enslaved a people.  You could sense the caller’s contempt towards our founders in his visceral tone.  It had a healthy dose of arrogance seasoned with anger.  He further went on to call conservatives unintelligent people who only cared about huge corporations.   Mr. Hannity let the man continue on with his rant without saying a word.  Finally the caller asked, “What do you have to say about that?”  Paraphrasing Mr. Hannity’s reply, he said something to the likes of, sometimes the best thing to do is not to respond and let your words stand on their own.  For a long time this has been a tactic of the left.  They must demonize our founders.  They do this so they can delegitimize the founders’ message.

Most of us living in the real world know our founders were not men without flaws.  They struggled with same temptations we struggle with today.  They made both good and bad decisions.   They weren’t perfect and no matter what the left says, I still can’t find one conservative who believes they walked on water, healed the sick, and raised the dead.  They were as flawed as we are today.  But they were also good men of reason and virtue who were willing to sacrifice all they had to advance and secure individual liberty and freedom and this is the real target of the left.

For those on the far left, the notion of a group of men being willing to sacrifice everything they had to include their own lives if necessary in order to secure individual liberty for themselves and future generations is equivalent to sitting in a classroom and having someone run their nails across a chalkboard.  It sends chills through their being.  The reason for this is because individual liberty and the capacity of self-governance cannot coexist with their big government ideology.  They seek to perfect the union through the power of government and not through the power of the people.  Whereas the founders believed a more perfect union could only be achieved when individual liberty and freedom were secured through self-governance and a limited government.  It’s a message, if explained correctly that resonates with all liberty loving people.  This is the message the left is targeting and the best way to kill the message is to destroy the messenger.

This is why they dismiss our founders as rich, white, slaver owners who said one thing and did another.  They supported individual liberty yet condoned slavery.  You always hear them say the founders counted black people as only three fifths of a person.  They didn’t even consider a black person a whole person.  They will advance this as proof that the founders were not as virtuous and noble as history as portrayed them to be.  Never once will they stop and ask why they did this.  With a small amount of research they would discover that the southern states wanted to use slaves who had no rights as citizens as part of their population count so they could inflate their numbers and gain more representatives.  By gaining more representatives they could then control the conversation about slavery at the federal level and this did not sit well with most of the founders who were against slavery.  So in order to ratify the constitution a compromise was reached that led to slaves being counted as three fifths of a person.  It actually shows you how the slavery issue was a deep concern of the founders.  This simple truth collides with the anti-founders narrative that the left is trying to advance, so they just choose to ignore it.  This is why they attack all documents and institutions that have our founders’ finger prints on them.

The most glaring example of this is how the left views the constitution.  They see it as an antiquated document written by a bunch of rich, white, slave owners who couldn’t foresee or understand the complexities of our modern society.  This is why they promote the idea that the constitution is a living and breathing document that must change as our society change.  Forget about the amendment process, it can change just as easily as the wind can change direction.  It’s like building a house and replacing the foundation with wheels.  Forget the fact that the reason the constitution is such a timeless and remarkable document is because it’s the only document in history that limits the authority of a government.  Unlike people on the left our founders were students of history and they knew all too well the propensity of rulers to grab power and impose their will on the people.  So at the core of our constitution is the idea that human nature in regards to rulers must be checked and at times constrained because of the natural tendency of leaders to gravitate towards tyranny.  Human nature does not change like technology and this is the brilliance behind the constitution.  Again this line of thinking cannot coexist with the big government views of the left.  This is why they demonize the founders and make them into men they simply were not.  And what’s sad is more and more people are buying the garbage the left is selling because they don’t have the historical foundation to object to it.

We have a great deal of work ahead of us to reverse this trend.  This anti-founder mindset is being advanced in our public schools, in our colleges and universities, and in our neighborhoods.  So as you can see the mountain we must climb is high, but the reward when we reach the top just may lead to the salvation of our constitution, our nation and ourselves.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Share

Founding Fathers’ Quotes on the People’s Right to Bear Arms

Share

Just three days after the horrible shooting in Newtown Connecticut, progressive forces are in full “never let a crisis go to waste” mode to advance their anti-gun agenda.  They have allowed no time for mourning and are striking while the iron is hot.  It’s a selfish and shameful act that is driving the national debate towards gun control and the away from the root cause of our problem; the devaluing of human life.  I decided that the best people to help make the case for those of us who cherish America and our second amendment rights are our founding fathers.  Below are some quotes from the founders on the people’s right to bear arms.  Take a few minutes to read them.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

H/T cap-n-ball.com

The federal government should not be injecting itself in this issue.  First off they have no constitutional authority to restrict gun ownership no matter what President Obama believes.  Secondly this is a states issue and should be addressed at the local level.  A cookie cutter approach will not work because of the uniqueness of each community across America.  My question is where was all the progressive outrage over Fast and Furious?  Something to think about.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!  .

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Share

The power still resides in the people…see the Founding Fathers

Share

Last week the constitution and our individual liberties took a beating.  Rumors that Justice Roberts switched his position because of pressure from outside forces are beginning to surface.  If this is the case, and John Roberts caved because he feared how he and the court would be perceived by the left, then we are in deep trouble as a nation.  Supreme Court Justices must remain above opinions of both the left and right and examine the law strictly based on its constitutional merit.  They must do this without fear of reprisal.  This is why the founders established life time appointments for Supreme Court Justices.  They didn’t want the Justices to feel intimidated by the other branches of government.  If a Supreme Court Justice’s decision is swayed by public opinion or is driven by how the court will be perceived if it rules one way or another, then our system cannot work.  If this is the place we find ourselves at then we must look back to the words of our founding fathers.

You see our founders knew the one thing that many have forgotten; that the power resides in the people.  We can change all of this if we choose to because we have the power to do so.  We have the power to throw out of office those who would claim to be our masters.  We deserve better than the likes of Nancy Pelosi who stumbles in the below clip about whether ObamaCare is a tax or penalty.

If our founders were alive today, they would be appalled by the actions of most of our elected representatives.  They would be disgusted with us and how we could allow the election of such a dimwit.  And yet that’s exactly what the people from her district do over and over again.  So in honor of our founding fathers I handpicked some quotes from them to help us regain our senses going into November.  Please take a few moments to read their words of wisdom.

“In these sentiments sir, I agree to this constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become to corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”

Benjamin Franklin, speech at the constitutional convention, Sept 1787.

“The powers reserved by the people under the constitution render them secure, and until they themselves become corrupt, they will always have upright and able rulers.”

John Hancock, Massachusetts ratifying convention, 1788

“The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”

James Madison, The Federalist Papers, 1788

“The written may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people: they fix too for the people the principles for their political creed.”

Thomas Jefferson, 1802

“No people will tamely surrender their liberties nor can they be easily subdued when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved.  On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders.”

Samuel Adams, 1775

“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine the foundation of our confederated fabric…A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.”

Thomas Jefferson, Dec 1820

“It is very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters if all constitutional questions.  It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Thomas Jefferson, 1820

The power still resides in the people.  The Founding Fathers knew this and we need to exercise that power this November.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Share

The Declaration of Independence: As Relevant Today as it was in 1776

Share

Note: This was originally posted on July 4, 2009.

It’s Independence Day.  I wish you all a great day, and ask you to contemplate the meaning of the holiday.  To assist, here is a transcript of the Declaration of Independence.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

  • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  • He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
  • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
  • He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
  • He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
  • He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
  • He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
  • He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
  • He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
  • For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
  • For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  • For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
  • For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
  • For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
  • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  • He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
  • He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
  • He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
  • He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
  • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

This document speaks to us through the centuries.  It is just as relevant today as it was in 1776.  Will we ignore it?  Will we give up what has been bequeathed to us?  Who will stand up to the current leaders that usurp out rights?  That remains to be seen.

Share

Why We Fight: Unalienable Rights; Does Government Exist to Protect Rights, or to Grant Them?

Share

Note from Matt:  Given the current political climate, I thought it might be a good idea to review some differences between the right and the left.  So, here is an article from November 2009.  Since we are about ideas, I think this is similar to the “Why we Fight” films from WW II.

“A free people claims their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as a gift from their chief magistrate.”

Thomas Jefferson

We are engaged in an ideological struggle.  The lines are drawn cleanly between the opponents.  One is the side of individual freedom and liberty, born of the American Revolution. The other is the soft (for now) totalitarianism of the nanny state, seeking to grow the government’s level of control over all aspects of human life.    While the words “freedom” and “liberty” tend to evoke reactions to some degree from all Americans, looking at the general ideas behind those words helps us to understand the true nature of the current struggle.  These ideas look to the very view of human nature between the sides, and are important.  The implications of these ideas will largely determine our fate as a people.

Perhaps the most important of these underlying ideas is the concept of unalienable rights, or rights that cannot be taken away or otherwise abridged.  Obviously, the idea rights that cannot be violated or reduced by government fiat is a significant factor in any debate about government intervention, or the very nature of man.  The nature of man, either as a free individual, or intelligent mammal to be managed, will have implications for any view of humanity and it’s relationship to government.  Without the underpinnings, the resulting arguments are loose and meaningless.

One cannot view the American idea of individual freedom without considering the works of John Locke, a 17th Century political figure who is considered by many to be the intellectual father of our nation.  Here are some quotes regarding Locke.

The political philosophy of Locke’s mature years stemmed from the commonly-accepted Natural Law, under which man had Natural Rights, not given to him by any ruler. Under Natural Rights the right of property is paramount. Men came together in an organized community under a Social Contract between every member in order to gain advantages they could not have individually in a state of nature.

This Contract of Society was the foundation of the Contract of Government, under which all political power is a trust for the benefit of the people, and the people themselves are at once the creators and beneficiaries of that trust. The State is based on a contract between ruler and subjects, who give him power only so that their own welfare is increased and their property protected in a way not possible in the State of Nature, where it may be taken away by unprincipled forces. They, if he keeps the contract, owe him their loyalty.

It was Thomas Jefferson’s passionate belief in these ideals that made him base the powers of government on “unalienable rights.” Most of his Declaration of Independence is a bill of particulars in an indictment of King George III for his failure to keep the contract with his American subjects. He had broken it, and it was therefore void. The signers agreed with him. Contract, therefore, is fundamental to our system of government.

The state, Locke maintained, was concerned only with public order. It extended solely to those aspects of behavior, which had to be regulated for the protection of the public.

I think that one of the most important aspect of Locke’s idea is his use of Natural Law; that individuals have rights that preexist government, and they are not granted or created by government.  The idea that rights are intrinsic, and cannot be discarded, disregarded, or superseded by the government have obvious and far-reaching repercussions on the relationship between the individual and the state, as the idea does intentionally limit the role of government.   For example, as we debate free speech, and Mark Lloyd’s thoughts on the press, we see that his philosophy is one of censorship and control, which would naturally be opposed by Locke’s ideas.  When we look at the health care debate, we see the government seeking to control the Doctor-patient relationship, to ration care, and to limit access.   Also, when we also look at the writings of Ezekiel Emanuel, White House Special Adviser on Health Care, we see the government seeking to control decisions of life and death itself.  When Cass Sunstein talks about animals being able to sue their owners in court, and advocates for gun control, other aspects of rights come into play.  When Universities limit the free speech of professors and students, and punishes those who dissent, they show a different view of rights than the rest of us.  When the President is caught on tape talking about income-redistribution, important issues are raised regarding our freedom. We can see more proposed government regulations that would control or otherwise limit what we can drive, where we can live, what we can eat, what we can say, and what our children can or cannot be taught.  But can government take rights from others that it never granted, and therefore over which has no claim?

Both the left and the right invoke the concept of the social contract.  However, it seems that the left quotes the words, but not the substance.  As Locke states, the people are the creators and beneficiaries of the contract.  While the people created our government, they did not create the thousands of bureaucracies that dictate so many different aspects of public life, nor are the bureaucrats that staff these monstrosities answerable to the people.  Were Kevin Jennings, Mark Lloyd, or Van Jones even confirmed by the Senate, which does answer to the people?   Also, when these bureaucracies and regulators regularly usurp the rights of the people, has the government violated the contract?  The left would say no, but as we will discuss, the left views the contract as a license to steal, control, and dominate.  If unalienable rights cannot be transferred or abridged, can the people elect a government that will transfer or abridge them?

Also, it is vital to note that Locke stressed that the role of government was to protect the rights of the people, not to limit them, regulate them, or render them irrelevant.  Government is to be limited to protect the public in ways that they cannot protect themselves, i.e., defense, setting up courts, and so on.  Locke contends that, “The State is based on a contract between ruler and subjects, who give him power only so that their own welfare is increased and their property protected in a way not possible in the State of Nature, where it may be taken away by unprincipled forces.”  If government actions reduce the welfare and property rights of the people, as they admit that they will, are they betraying their obligations under the contract?  If government does not protect the welfare, and instead decreases it; and does not protect property, but instead takes it, has government then not become the “unprincipled force” of which we should be wary?

If we are “endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights,” what gives the government the right to reduce or otherwise take them?  Government does not grant rights, rights are built into humanity by its very nature.  Leftists and others would simply take this point and use it to attack Christianity.  However, I would submit that any view of a creator would suffice in this argument.    This idea even applies to an atheistic worldview.  For example, what if nature, via evolution, created a sentient race.   Is not a sentient being free by it’s very nature?  Are not  individuals possessing  free will, as humans demonstrably are, born in a state of freedom?  Even in that scenario, humans are free, and government serves to protect freedoms, not to take them.  After all, government cannot take away what is has not granted, can it?  To me, freedom is a concept that applies to every human, regardless of their belief in a particular creator, or even lack of one.

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Alexander Hamilton

Another important aspect of Locke’s work seems to be his views on property.  However, property does not necessarily extend to simply a piece of land.

He was concerned with principles and rights, and property rights are uppermost. He wrote in “The Second Treatise of Government,” . . . every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his . . . ” He said that whatever is removed out of the state that nature provided and is mixed with someone’s labor, becomes that person’s property. James Madison later explained that “property” means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual . . . it embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.”

This is a view of property that is at once practical, expansive and libertarian. It is the essence of political freedom. Who can argue that a man does not have a property in his own person? No government could take the fruits of one’s labor and intellect without a compelling public need and without compensation, and then only through due process of law. A person was free to contract away his property, or any of his several rights in it, for gain. The contract with government was only to protect private contracts, and the government was not entitled to any of the gains therefrom.

The human right in property was meant by Locke and understood by the Framers of the Constitution to be the fundamental liberty. Obviously, it was not necessary to organize government to protect free speech from government or to protect freedom of assembly against government. It was only necessary to organize it to protect property and life (one’s life was his property), and once organized other freedoms had to be protected against government’s power. He wrote in the Second Treatise that men unite in a society “for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name ‘property’.” He said that the supreme power (the legislative) “cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. For the preservation of property being the end of government and that for which men enter into society . . . ” He noted that for the protection of government everyone should pay his share (a small, flat tax), but only with the consent of the majority.

Do you own you own body?   Apparently not, according to the left, as they take the stance that people can be “nudged (Cass Sunstein)” into doing as the state wishes.  Also, is it not Mr. Sunstein that suggests that organs might be removed from living people?  Do you control your body when the government wishes to determine what you can or cannot eat, or otherwise consume, or what type, amount, or frequency of health care you can receive?  Again, the left seems to act as if  YOU belong to them, and that all that you do is subject to government intervention and supervision.  Hate crimes laws take into consideration what an individual may or may have been thinking when they committed a crime, are we then to assume that the government means to legislate our thought processes?

Beyond the basic control over one’s body, the basic property that all of us have is our labor.  We contract with an employer, or a customer, in order to exchange currency, goods , and services.  We own our labor, and Locke and the founders suggest that this too, is an unalienable right.  However, do we own our own labor when the government takes ever increasing amounts  of it?  Do we own our own labor when, depending on where one works, a labor union can take from you and use it against your own best interests?  For that matter, can one be forced to join a union against their will?  Also, why does government turn a blind eye to the violence committed by labor unions?  Do we own our own labor when the government advocates forcing you to “volunteer” that labor (The GIVE act)?  For that matter, do we own our own labor when, this year, the average American worked into August to pay off their tax bills?

A common deception of the left is to not ban something that they want to “go away.”  Rather, they use increasing levels of taxation or regulation to make it either impossible to exercise a right, or create so many administrative hoops that one can only exercise a right within a narrow window of government regulation.   Can we use our property as we see fit, or do we have to leap through many hoops to do what we want?  Can we control the heat and power consumption of our home, or will the “smart grid” do that for us?  Can government take our property and hand it over to private developers?  It’s happening all over.  Are sustainable development regulations being translated into zoning and building codes all over the US?  Yes, they determine where you can build, what you can build, and how big it can be, and a myriad of other requirements that have to be met.  Is the government “nudging” us into living in certain areas, all in the name of eliminating “suburban sprawl?”   In the end, are we really free to own and use property, or does the government create an environment in which we can (at least for now) own property, but can only do with it as they allow?

“This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life altogether. For a man not having the power of his own life cannot by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases. Nobody can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.” (Locke, op. cit.)

As usual, this is a topic that can be expanded into a book.  There are a myriad of directions, examples, and solutions that this post could take.  For the sake of brevity, I will sum it up this way:

Either we are free, and government must guard those freedoms, or we are not.  In which case, government is free to do to us what it wills.  The answer to that question will determine our future.  We must therefore must choose our leaders wisely, or our political differences will pale in comparison to what is to come.

Source: http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/read/464/free-speach/unalienable-rights/

Share

Gridlock: It's not a Flaw, It's a Feature

Share

The pundits often complain of gridlock, and how government cannot get anything “done” for the people.  While we would certainly argue that what is often done does little more than make matters worse, but that isn’t exactly today’s topic matter.  What we are really talking about is the fact that our Founders planned for, and sought to prevent rapid, sweeping changes to government and society.  The American Prospect, a regressive publication, t has a rather interesting article on the subject, and unintentionally makes many points for us…

Washington has ground to a halt, paralyzed by a political division deeper than any we have seen since the days when Abraham Lincoln warned that a house divided against itself cannot stand. “Nothing” also isn’t doing much to commend the American way to other countries. Much of the developing world now sees China and its model of capitalist authoritarianism as more efficient than the creaky workings of democracy. Nations still marvel at the United States, but today, it’s our gridlock that draws the world’s wonder.

It shouldn’t. The current impasse between the Republican House and the Democratic president and Senate has only highlighted what is a chronic—indeed, constitutional—condition: Just as the American people have a bias for action, the American government has a bias for stasis. Governmental gridlock is as American as apple pie.

The root cause of all this inactivity is our peculiar form of democracy. While most democracies are governed by parliamentary systems, our Founders opted for a presidential system, which they consciously booby-trapped with multiple veto points to impede decisive legislative action and sweeping social change.

In America, for instance, presidents take office, but they don’t form a government, as prime ministers do in virtually every other democracy. Presidents can form no more than an executive branch. They appoint cabinet members, sub-cabinet officials, military commanders, ambassadors, and the heads of regulatory agencies. They don’t appoint congressional leaders; often as not, their party may not control either or both houses of Congress. Indeed, the White House, the Senate, and the House have been controlled by the same party during just 8 of the past 30 years. Even when the same party holds Congress and the presidency, the system still fragments power.

That’s the point, dear reader.  Our Founders may have predated Cloward-Piven by almost 200 years by creating a system that is resistant to tyranny.  It has strained attempts to destroy it until the attackers have been broken.  Multiple checks on power prevent rapid or radical changes, in spite of the regressive’s efforts to undo them.  The results, even though we have been badly weakened, are clear.  We have remained strong and prosperous while Europe spent decades burying themselves in socialism, and the Russian, Chinese, and others spent decades slaughtering their own people by the tens of millions.  Those systems allowed for quick and more radical changes, and their populations have suffered accordingly.   It is through the wisdom of the Founders that we have survives as long as we have, especially considering that freedom have been under regressive onslaught for a century or more.   Sadly, the Founders were not able to create a system that is completely immune to tyranny-that’s where we come in.  It is up to us to elect the people needed to restore the Republic.  While the task seems insurmountable, we still must try.  The fate of human freedom, just not in the US, but planet wide, is at state.

I would encourage you to read the entire linked article.  It is long, but you will come away knowing another viewpoint.  It’s not something I would agree with, but a look at the Constitution from another perspective makes one think, and thinking is no vice.

Share

America Was Never Intended To Be A Democracy

Share

Few things will cause my blood to boil more than hearing somebody touting the virtues of democracy. I am especially infuriated when I hear one of our political leaders talk such nonsense. Yet we do hear “the blessings” of democracy being preached by those in government, often by our own State Department.

Our Founders did everything possible to avoid democracy in the new nation they were creating. You will not find the word democracy in the declaration of Independence or in the Constitution of the United States of America or in the constitutions of any of the  fifty states. Our Founders new very well the dangers of democracy’s tyranny of the majority over the minority. They deliberately established a republic to constrain the excesses of democracy.

Democracy inevitably leads to bigger and bigger central governments. Big central governments inevitably leads to less and less freedom. Less freedom inevitably leads to tyrannical dictatorships.

Why then has our government, over the last century or more, promoted democracy to undeveloped countries around the world; Central and South America,  Africa, Asia and, most recently in the Middle East? Have they learned nothing from the historical results of their efforts? Surely it can not be due to ignorance, can it?

As a result of our education system being taken over by the so-called progressives since the sixties,  I think we would be stunned by how so few Americans today understand that America is a republic and not a democracy. I fear that most Americans today do not even know what the difference is between a democracy and a republic.

Below you will find a marvelous ten minute video that explains the differences in the various forms of government devised by man. Please take time to watch it. Pay special attention to the last two minutes where the description of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire is chillingly similar to what is happening in America today. If you have teenagers in your family, you may want to consider having them watch this video. If you know any teachers personally, maybe you could suggest that they use this video in their classrooms. I really think the video is that good.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

H/T to Questioning With Boldness for the video.

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Image H/T: Liberty Stickers

Share

Happy Fourth of July!

Share

Happy Independence Day to all the readers and contributors at CH2.0. No long story here, just wanted to post these two videos, I think they say it all.

Share

The Declaration of Independence: As Relevant Today as it was in 1776

Share

Note: This was originally posted on July 4, 2009.

It’s Independence Day.  I wish you all a great day, and ask you to contemplate the meaning of the holiday.  To assist, here is a transcript of the Declaration of Independence.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.


He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.


He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.


He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.


He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.


He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.


He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.


He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.


He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.


He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.


He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.


He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.


He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:


For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:


For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:


For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:


For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:


For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:


For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences


For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:


For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.


He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.


He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.


He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.


He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

This document speaks to us through the centuries.  It is just as relevant today as it was in 1776.  Will we ignore it?  Will we give up what has been bequeathed to us?  Who will stand up to the current leaders that usurp out rights?  That remains to be seen.

 

Share

George Washington’s First State of the Union Address

Share

In a few weeks on January 25th President Obama will deliver his address to congress on the State of the Union.  I thought I would use today to take the opportunity to post the first State of the Union address delivered to congress by George Washington on this day 221 years ago.  At the time of the first address, 12 of the 13 colonies original colonies had already ratified the new constitution with Rhode Island the only hold out.  The debt from the war for independence was crippling the States and stifling economic growth.   The young nation faced serious threats to its security both at home and abroad and there was a large segment of society that vehemently opposed the constitution feeling it created too powerful of a central government that threatened the sovereignty of the individual States.  These were times of great angst and hope as George Washington stepped up and delivered his first address to the congress.  His words would set the tone for a nation embarking on a great journey; one of self-governance.  Below is a transcript of that first address.

The State of the Union Address of President George Washington

January 8, 1790

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I embrace with great satisfaction the opportunity which now presents itself of congratulating you on the present favorable prospects of our public affairs. The recent accession of the important state of North Carolina to the Constitution of the United States (of which official information has been received), the rising credit and respectability of our country, the general and increasing good will toward the government of the Union, and the concord, peace, and plenty with which we are blessed are circumstances auspicious in an eminent degree to our national prosperity.

In resuming your consultations for the general good you can not but derive encouragement from the reflection that the measures of the last session have been as satisfactory to your constituents as the novelty and difficulty of the work allowed you to hope. Still further to realize their expectations and to secure the blessings which a gracious Providence has placed within our reach will in the course of the present important session call for the cool and deliberate exertion of your patriotism, firmness, and wisdom.

Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is on e of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.

There was reason to hope that the pacific measures adopted with regard to certain hostile tribes of Indians would have relieved the inhabitants of our southern and western frontiers from their depredations, but you will perceive from the information contained in the papers which I shall direct to be laid before you (comprehending a communication from the Commonwealth of Virginia) that we ought to be prepared to afford protection to those parts of the Union, and, if necessary, to punish aggressors.

The interests of the United States require that our intercourse with other nations should be facilitated by such provisions as will enable me to fulfill my duty in that respect in the manner which circumstances may render most conducive to the public good, and to this end that the compensation to be made to the persons who may be employed should, according to the nature of their appointments, be defined by law, and a competent fund designated for defraying the expenses incident to the conduct of foreign affairs.

Various considerations also render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of citizens should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule of naturalization.

Uniformity in the currency, weights, and measures of the United States is an object of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to.

The advancement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures by all proper means will not, I trust, need recommendation; but I can not forbear intimating to you the expediency of giving effectual encouragement as well to the introduction of new and useful inventions from abroad as to the exertions of skill and genius in producing them at home, and of facilitating the intercourse between the distant parts of our country by a due attention to the post-office and post-roads.

Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of government receive their impressions so immediately from the sense of the community as in ours it is proportionably essential.

To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways – by convincing those who are intrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness – cherishing the first, avoiding the last – and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.

Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature.

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

I saw with peculiar pleasure at the close of the last session the resolution entered into by you expressive of your opinion that an adequate provision for the support of the public credit is a matter of high importance to the national honor and prosperity. In this sentiment I entirely concur; and to a perfect confidence in your best endeavors to devise such a provision as will be truly with the end I add an equal reliance on the cheerful cooperation of the other branch of the legislature.

It would be superfluous to specify inducements to a measure in which the character and interests of the United States are so obviously so deeply concerned, and which has received so explicit a sanction from your declaration.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I have directed the proper officers to lay before you, respectively, such papers and estimates as regard the affairs particularly recommended to your consideration, and necessary to convey to you that information of the state of the Union which it is my duty to afford.

The welfare of our country is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed, and I shall derive great satisfaction from a cooperation with you in the pleasing though arduous task of insuring to our fellow citizens the blessings which they have a right to expect from a free, efficient, and equal government.

GEORGE WASHINGTON

Source: University of Oklahoma, College of Law

Note the paragraph I bolded; it says it all.  We must look to the past to understand where we came from and what truly matters; liberty and freedom my friends.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post: Sentry Journal

Share

Why We Fight: Unalienable Rights; Does Government Exist to Protect Rights, or to Grant Them?

Share

Note from Matt: Considering how close we are to the election, I thought it might be a good idea to review some differences between the right and the left.  So, here is an article from last November.  Since we are about ideas, I think this is similar to the “Why we Fight” films from WW II.

“A free people claims their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as a gift from their chief magistrate.”

Thomas Jefferson

We are engaged in an ideological struggle.  The lines are drawn cleanly between the opponents.  One is the side of individual freedom and liberty, born of the American Revolution. The other is the soft (for now) totalitarianism of the nanny state, seeking to grow the government’s level of control over all aspects of human life.    While the words “freedom” and “liberty” tend to evoke reactions to some degree from all Americans, looking at the general ideas behind those words helps us to understand the true nature of the current struggle.  These ideas look to the very view of human nature between the sides, and are important.  The implications of these ideas will largely determine our fate as a people.

Perhaps the most important of these underlying ideas is the concept of unalienable rights, or rights that cannot be taken away or otherwise abridged.  Obviously, the idea rights that cannot be violated or reduced by government fiat is a significant factor in any debate about government intervention, or the very nature of man.  The nature of man, either as a free individual, or intelligent mammal to be managed, will have implications for any view of humanity and it’s relationship to government.  Without the underpinnings, the resulting arguments are loose and meaningless.

One cannot view the American idea of individual freedom without considering the works of John Locke, a 17th Century political figure who is considered by many to be the intellectual father of our nation.  Here are some quotes regarding Locke.

The political philosophy of Locke’s mature years stemmed from the commonly-accepted Natural Law, under which man had Natural Rights, not given to him by any ruler. Under Natural Rights the right of property is paramount. Men came together in an organized community under a Social Contract between every member in order to gain advantages they could not have individually in a state of nature.

This Contract of Society was the foundation of the Contract of Government, under which all political power is a trust for the benefit of the people, and the people themselves are at once the creators and beneficiaries of that trust. The State is based on a contract between ruler and subjects, who give him power only so that their own welfare is increased and their property protected in a way not possible in the State of Nature, where it may be taken away by unprincipled forces. They, if he keeps the contract, owe him their loyalty.

It was Thomas Jefferson’s passionate belief in these ideals that made him base the powers of government on “unalienable rights.” Most of his Declaration of Independence is a bill of particulars in an indictment of King George III for his failure to keep the contract with his American subjects. He had broken it, and it was therefore void. The signers agreed with him. Contract, therefore, is fundamental to our system of government.

The state, Locke maintained, was concerned only with public order. It extended solely to those aspects of behavior, which had to be regulated for the protection of the public.

I think that one of the most important aspect of Locke’s idea is his use of Natural Law; that individuals have rights that preexist government, and they are not granted or created by government.  The idea that rights are intrinsic, and cannot be discarded, disregarded, or superseded by the government have obvious and far-reaching repercussions on the relationship between the individual and the state, as the idea does intentionally limit the role of government.   For example, as we debate free speech, and Mark Lloyd’s thoughts on the press, we see that his philosophy is one of censorship and control, which would naturally be opposed by Locke’s ideas.  When we look at the health care debate, we see the government seeking to control the Doctor-patient relationship, to ration care, and to limit access.   Also, when we also look at the writings of Ezekiel Emanuel, White House Special Adviser on Health Care, we see the government seeking to control decisions of life and death itself.  When Cass Sunstein talks about animals being able to sue their owners in court, and advocates for gun control, other aspects of rights come into play.  When Universities limit the free speech of professors and students, and punishes those who dissent, they show a different view of rights than the rest of us.  When the President is caught on tape talking about income-redistribution, important issues are raised regarding our freedom. We can see more proposed government regulations that would control or otherwise limit what we can drive, where we can live, what we can eat, what we can say, and what our children can or cannot be taught.  But can government take rights from others that it never granted, and therefore over which has no claim?

Both the left and the right invoke the concept of the social contract.  However, it seems that the left quotes the words, but not the substance.  As Locke states, the people are the creators and beneficiaries of the contract.  While the people created our government, they did not create the thousands of bureaucracies that dictate so many different aspects of public life, nor are the bureaucrats that staff these monstrosities answerable to the people.  Were Kevin Jennings, Mark Lloyd, or Van Jones even confirmed by the Senate, which does answer to the people?   Also, when these bureaucracies and regulators regularly usurp the rights of the people, has the government violated the contract?  The left would say no, but as we will discuss, the left views the contract as a license to steal, control, and dominate.  If unalienable rights cannot be transferred or abridged, can the people elect a government that will transfer or abridge them?

Also, it is vital to note that Locke stressed that the role of government was to protect the rights of the people, not to limit them, regulate them, or render them irrelevant.  Government is to be limited to protect the public in ways that they cannot protect themselves, i.e., defense, setting up courts, and so on.  Locke contends that, “The State is based on a contract between ruler and subjects, who give him power only so that their own welfare is increased and their property protected in a way not possible in the State of Nature, where it may be taken away by unprincipled forces.”  If government actions reduce the welfare and property rights of the people, as they admit that they will, are they betraying their obligations under the contract?  If government does not protect the welfare, and instead decreases it; and does not protect property, but instead takes it, has government then not become the “unprincipled force” of which we should be wary?

If we are “endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights,” what gives the government the right to reduce or otherwise take them?  Government does not grant rights, rights are built into humanity by its very nature.  Leftists and others would simply take this point and use it to attack Christianity.  However, I would submit that any view of a creator would suffice in this argument.    This idea even applies to an atheistic worldview.  For example, what if nature, via evolution, created a sentient race.   Is not a sentient being free by it’s very nature?  Are not  individuals possessing  free will, as humans demonstrably are, born in a state of freedom?  Even in that scenario, humans are free, and government serves to protect freedoms, not to take them.  After all, government cannot take away what is has not granted, can it?  To me, freedom is a concept that applies to every human, regardless of their belief in a particular creator, or even lack of one.

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Alexander Hamilton

Another important aspect of Locke’s work seems to be his views on property.  However, property does not necessarily extend to simply a piece of land.

He was concerned with principles and rights, and property rights are uppermost. He wrote in “The Second Treatise of Government,” . . . every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his . . . ” He said that whatever is removed out of the state that nature provided and is mixed with someone’s labor, becomes that person’s property. James Madison later explained that “property” means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual . . . it embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.”

This is a view of property that is at once practical, expansive and libertarian. It is the essence of political freedom. Who can argue that a man does not have a property in his own person? No government could take the fruits of one’s labor and intellect without a compelling public need and without compensation, and then only through due process of law. A person was free to contract away his property, or any of his several rights in it, for gain. The contract with government was only to protect private contracts, and the government was not entitled to any of the gains therefrom.

The human right in property was meant by Locke and understood by the Framers of the Constitution to be the fundamental liberty. Obviously, it was not necessary to organize government to protect free speech from government or to protect freedom of assembly against government. It was only necessary to organize it to protect property and life (one’s life was his property), and once organized other freedoms had to be protected against government’s power. He wrote in the Second Treatise that men unite in a society “for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name ‘property’.” He said that the supreme power (the legislative) “cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. For the preservation of property being the end of government and that for which men enter into society . . . ” He noted that for the protection of government everyone should pay his share (a small, flat tax), but only with the consent of the majority.

Do you own you own body?   Apparently not, according to the left, as they take the stance that people can be “nudged (Cass Sunstein)” into doing as the state wishes.  Also, is it not Mr. Sunstein that suggests that organs might be removed from living people?  Do you control your body when the government wishes to determine what you can or cannot eat, or otherwise consume, or what type, amount, or frequency of health care you can receive?  Again, the left seems to act as if  YOU belong to them, and that all that you do is subject to government intervention and supervision.  Hate crimes laws take into consideration what an individual may or may have been thinking when they committed a crime, are we then to assume that the government means to legislate our thought processes?

Beyond the basic control over one’s body, the basic property that all of us have is our labor.  We contract with an employer, or a customer, in order to exchange currency, goods , and services.  We own our labor, and Locke and the founders suggest that this too, is an unalienable right.  However, do we own our own labor when the government takes ever increasing amounts  of it?  Do we own our own labor when, depending on where one works, a labor union can take from you and use it against your own best interests?  For that matter, can one be forced to join a union against their will?  Also, why does government turn a blind eye to the violence committed by labor unions?  Do we own our own labor when the government advocates forcing you to “volunteer” that labor (The GIVE act)?  For that matter, do we own our own labor when, this year, the average American worked into August to pay off their tax bills?

A common deception of the left is to not ban something that they want to “go away.”  Rather, they use increasing levels of taxation or regulation to make it either impossible to exercise a right, or create so many administrative hoops that one can only exercise a right within a narrow window of government regulation.   Can we use our property as we see fit, or do we have to leap through many hoops to do what we want?  Can we control the heat and power consumption of our home, or will the “smart grid” do that for us?  Can government take our property and hand it over to private developers?  It’s happening all over.  Are sustainable development regulations being translated into zoning and building codes all over the US?  Yes, they determine where you can build, what you can build, and how big it can be, and a myriad of other requirements that have to be met.  Is the government “nudging” us into living in certain areas, all in the name of eliminating “suburban sprawl?”   In the end, are we really free to own and use property, or does the government create an environment in which we can (at least for now) own property, but can only do with it as they allow?

“This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life altogether. For a man not having the power of his own life cannot by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases. Nobody can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.” (Locke, op. cit.)

As usual, this is a topic that can be expanded into a book.  There are a myriad of directions, examples, and solutions that this post could take.  For the sake of brevity, I will sum it up this way:

Either we are free, and government must guard those freedoms, or we are not.  In which case, government is free to do to us what it wills.  The answer to that question will determine our future.  We must therefore must choose our leaders wisely, or our political differences will pale in comparison to what is to come.

Source: http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/read/464/free-speach/unalienable-rights/

Share

Today is Pulpit Freedom Sunday

Share

Today, 100 pastors will intentionally violate the law.  They will advocate for political causes and candidates.  I know, it sounds like the crime of the century, but before we discuss it further, let’s take a look at the Alliance Defense Fund’s statement on the event.

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — Pastors participating in the Alliance Defense Fund’s “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will preach from their pulpits Sept. 28 about the moral qualifications of candidates seeking political office.  The pastors will exercise their First Amendment right to preach on the subject, despite federal tax regulations that prohibit intervening or participating in a political campaign.

“Pastors have a right to speak about Biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment.  No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley.  “If you have a concern about pastors speaking about electoral candidates from the pulpit, ask yourself this:  should the church decide that question, or should the IRS?”

Pulpit Freedom Sunday is an event associated with the ADF Pulpit Initiative (www.telladf.org/church), a legal effort designed to secure the First Amendment rights of pastors in the pulpit.  A document explaining what the Pulpit Initiative is and is not is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/WhatIsPI.pdf.

“ADF is not trying to get politics into the pulpit.  Churches can decide for themselves that they either do or don’t want their pastors to speak about electoral candidates.  The point of the Pulpit Initiative is very simple:  the IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church’s tax-exempt status.  We need to get the government out of the pulpit,” said Stanley.

Stanley explained that, contrary to the misunderstandings of many, tax-exempt status is not a “gift” or “subsidy” bestowed by the government.

“Churches were completely free to preach about candidates from the day that the Constitution was ratified in 1788 until 1954.  That’s when the unconstitutional rule known as the ‘Johnson Amendment’ was enacted,” explained Stanley.  “Churches are exempt from taxation under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy religion than to begin taxing it.  As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, the power to tax involves the power to destroy.  The real effect of the Johnson Amendment is that pastors are muzzled for fear of investigation by the IRS.”

After Sept. 28, ADF plans to provide via news release a list of pastors who participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

I believe that this is a statement referring to last years event, however, ABC News is confirming that tomorrow is the day for this year’s exercise of free speech.

Here is some coverage from the  Beck.

So, there it is, they are calling the IRS’s bluff, and daring them to take action.  They are apparently convinced that they can sue, and win.  The IRS must agree, as they have done nothing.

I know some people are going to say, “OMG THEOCRACY!!!!!”  To that I must point out that as the ADF states, this type of political activity was not illegal until 1954.  Basically, we went from the day the Constitution was ratified, until 1954 without a theocracy, so I think we’re all safe from the inquisition.

Others are going to suggest that we keep our religion out of politics.   I must respond that there is a relationship between Christian ideas on the nature of man, and our founding documents.  Here is a brief description of the great awakening.

The Awakening’s biggest significance was the way it prepared America for its War of Independence.  In the decades before the war, revivalism taught people that they could be bold when confronting religious authority, and that when churches weren’t living up to the believers’ expectations, the people could break off and form new ones.

Through the Awakening, the Colonists realized that religious power resided in their own hands, rather than in the hands of the Church of England, or any other religious authority.  After a generation or two passed with this kind of mindset, the Colonists came to realize that political power did not reside in the hands of the English monarch, but in their own will for self-governance (consider the wording of the Declaration of Independence ).  By 1775, even though the Colonists did not all share the same theological beliefs, they did share a common vision of freedom from British control.  Thus, the Great Awakening brought about a climate which made the American Revolution possible.

So, not only does our founding, and our founding documents have a connection to the religious teachings of the time, there is also a built in protection against theocracy in those same ideas.  The Great Awakening was, in many respects, an anti-authoritarian movement.  The questioning of religious and political authority, free will, the ability of man to self govern, and make his own decisions, mitigate against a the foundation of a theocratic, or other totalitarian state.  Those ideas  are  additionally reinforced in our Constitution.

From this very brief description, we can see why our “progressives” have great disdain for our traditional ideology.  Thinking that is truly independent, and encourages the people to challenge, or even revolt against authority, is a stumbling block for any politician or party that wants to establish a totalitarian system.  As I have said before, the United States is not just a geographical area, it is a set of ideas.  And it is those ideas that the “progressives” wish to either co-opt or eliminate.  We can then, therefore, see why our founding is ignored in our schools, and the founders discredited.  We can see the reasons that we are dismissed and derided by our “elites” for stating our support of those ideas.  And, we can see why those same elites have a stated desire to control speech.

In the end, we cannot deny the religious connotations to our nation’s founding.    At the same time, we have to recognize that the American ideas about the relationship the state and religion, and the nature of man, protect us from abuses, as long as we the people, remain vigilant.

Image H/T: Malta Exposed


Share

Blog Focus: Negating the Electoral College and the Trolls that Love it

Share

Over the years, there has been some talk from the “progressives” about doing way with the Electoral College.  I remember folks in the Clinton Administration talking about it in the 90’s.  It came back again in 2000.  Lately, there are a number of states that have been passing laws to do just that.  I first heard about this at Kristen’s Mishmash.  Here is a quote from her original article on Bypassing the Electoral College

A bill is working its way through the Massachusetts state legislature that would bypass the electoral college and give all electoral votes to the candidate who won the national majority. Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington already have this kind of legislation.

This is another way that Progressives are chipping away at the Constitution and the vision of our Founders. Our Founders believed that the people should not elect the president directly, so they set up the Electoral College whereby the people of a state would vote for an Elector who would have pledged to vote for a specific person for president.

Obviously, we are already a long way from this method (I can’t help but think of the 17th Amendment here, but that’s another story). These laws will further erode the Republic. A candidate who was not supported by the citizens of a state could easily win the state’s electoral vote.

There is a reason Progressives, Communists, Marxists and their ilk like to call the United States a Democracy, not a Republic. Our Founders warned about democracies. A democracy is the enslavement of the minority by the majority. Venezuela is a democracy.

Seems simple enough, however, there was a development that After Kristen’s first post, she was visited by a troll by the name of “toto.”  This person created a blogger profile this month, and suddenly spams Kristins comment section with talking points and links to sites that support this law.  She then did her second post.  Here is the comment that I left on that post…

Their reasoning is simple. Most of the population is concentrated on the coasts in blue states. By mass of numbers, they’ll carry most election. If you’re in “flyover country,” you might as well stay at home on Election Day. It won’t matter how you vote. The millions of libtards in the cities will render your vote irrelevant.

The Electoral College, much like the structure of the Congress, is set up to give less populous states a voice in elections. Do away with the college, and folks in, for example, the plains states will have no voice. It’s a perfect way to gain “progressive” dominance, and silence all of us “rednecks.”

At the time, I didn’t think much about seeing a troll.  We all see them from time to time.  I didn’t see “toto” as being worth the time, so I didn’t engage.

Then, I did my daily visit with Steve at America’s Watchtower.  He was covering the Electoral College story as well.  Not only did “toto” arrive, but they also brought some friends.  They didn’t leave permalinks, and they all agreed with each other.  They also linked the same websites that were left at Kristen’s place.

Steve and Kristin do not link each other, so “toto” and friends (or sockpuppets), must be searching Google for anyone that is covering this, and spamming up the boards.  For me, this is actually the most interesting part of the story.  I know that the left wants to co-opt the electoral process.  That’s not at all a surprise.  When you consider that Holder will not enforce the parts of Motor Voter that force states to purge voter rolls of deceased, or otherwise ineligible to voters, and that the Dems have sought to control Secretaries of State all over the nation (they certify elections), we see that there is a pattern of electoral malfeasance.  Also consider the fact that ACORN added who knows how many fake voters to the rolls, and will again now that they split into dozens of smaller organizations with different names.  In the end, once you piece it all together, there is a pattern of interfering with the electoral process.  The elimination of the Electoral College can  simply be seen as another part of that overall effort.

We have also documented that the left will use trolls to attack, silence, spam, or otherwise disrupt Conservative sites and forums.  We also know that some are paid.  I have no idea if that is the case here, but who knows?  Maybe they’re doing some of Cass Sunstein’s “cognitive infiltration.”  No matter the cause or impetus, these same messages are being spammed extensively.  This is clearly an indication of a coordinated effort.

Here is a list of sites that have been spammed with the same “copypasta:”

The Baltimore Sun Forum

Stuck in Massachusetts

The Ten O’clock Scholar

Philadelphia Speaks

Hannity

I could go on, but you get the point.  Someone really wants to support this destruction of our electoral system, and they are quite persistent in doing so.

To sum it up, let’s hear from Thomas Jefferson…

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Share

Happy Fourth of July!

Share

Happy Independence Day to all the readers and contributors at CH2.0. No long story here, just wanted to post these two videos, I think they say it all.

Share