The Old "New Deal" Redux

Franklin D. Roosevelt became President as the Great Depression was already in full swing. He had a plan however and nothing was going to keep him from implementing his New Deal with American society. People wrote letters decrying their circumstances with the expectation that he and his administration would elevate the country and bring it out of the financial morass it was mired in. He believed that his New Deal was the only solution. Many people were simply trying to survive and either couldn't or didn't have the available time it takes to express their opinions. It was the Depression after all and people were consumed with living from day to day. Today's current technology, the advance of private computing, the connectivity and availability of the Internet into a majority of households, has lent itself to providing a more robust forum of supporting and opposing views for a vast majority of people. FDR also used modern technology to his advantage as well and in that arena, during that time, he held all the cards. His preferred delivery method for communicating to the masses was the radio.

While FDR had really struggled to complete his education, he was certainly a person with the ability to speak to peoples' hearts and minds. It was this natural talent for public speaking that overcame his own shortcomings since he had no business acumen, nor had he been able to graduate from law school. His mastery of public speaking produced in many Americans a guarded believability of his intentions. Many regular folk listened to his promises with rapt attention during his Fireside Chats and were uplifted simply by his choice of words and inflections of tone and pitch. To his complete advantage, radio was one-way communication. Having this technical advantage allowed him to promote his "New Deal" directly to the people. To further his "New Deal" agenda, he instituted a group of professors from Columbia University that he called "The Brains Trust". This group was comprised of academic people who had proven their loyalty to his agenda, much like the group of "czars" that are currently advising President Obama. FDR needed these people to express his rhetoric into persuasive language that average Americans would then accept at face value and even support. These intellectual ideas, although completely hypothetical, were touted as fact. Roosevelt held firm to the belief, ignorant though it was, that to attain economic stability and social equality, only the intervention of the federal government into the private sector would succeed. Roosevelt believed it so firmly, he set out to prove it over the course of his four Presidential terms. Even though after two terms his own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgantheau - who was also a close confidant - testified to the Ways and Means Committee in 1939 that "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work", Roosevelt forged ahead. Decades later, upon reviewing the history of his actions in simple cause and effect rationality, his agenda failed to accomplish its goal of creating a more "just society".

The premise of FDR's "New Deal" was to provide relief for the needy, economic recovery, and financial reform. These are certainly erstwhile endeavors and they are no different at all from the progressive rhetoric Americans are hearing again today from modern Progressive politicians of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. During those harsh, depressive times in the 1930s, there were many people who were truly in need; the economy had tanked, financial institutions had engaged in nefarious business practices and many people were completely destitute. Progressives jumped at the opportunity to correct what they believed were errors in the Constitution. As Roosevelt implemented his "New Deal", Americans garnered hope for the future. However, his policy did very little, if anything, to truly help Americans across the country. Much of the federal assistance was closely tied to states, districts, and cities that fully supported FDR and the progressive, "government knows best" Democratic Party. Far too many American tax dollars were distributed through his use of "patronage", thereby he was able to silence most of the real and valid opposition against his social engineering experiment. Times were hard, this cannot be denied, however many Americans at that time were also simply unaware of how one-sided the distribution of federal assistance truly was. Historical review of monetary distribution of funds reveals that most of the federal aid went directly to those areas that fully supported FDR and the Democratic Party.

The New Deal was full of snappy catch-phrases and laudable arguments that spoke directly to the emotions of many Americans. This same tactic has been and is being used once again on the American public. The recent Democratic Presidential campaign utilized our modern-day equivalent of radio; the Internet. It worked quite well for them, just as the radio worked for FDR and his New Deal. Progressives, just like FDR, fully believe that the federal government is entitled, not limited, and has the rights beyond the Constitution that enables the government to legislate in all areas of job creation, education, the economy and now ultimately, health-care. However, this is completely contradictory to the simple but profound wording of our U.S. Constitution and dismisses the Bill of Rights. These two founding documents of the United States were drafted and written in direct response to the insidious pervasiveness of a non-representative government mandating to each individual what types of taxes they must pay, to which religion was sanctioned by the government, to how justice would be derived and to whom would govern the Colonies through appointments rather than votes. These very real issues have now risen again only they have now come from within our United States branches of government and not from a monarchical government reigning from across an ocean.

The Internet, for now, is neutral, as was the radio when it was the new method of communicating with the multitudes. The World Wide Web was utilized to its fullest potential in our most recent Presidential election. It worked and worked well. Now, however, those who are principled in the fundamentals of freedom are the very people who have taken to the Internet, the radio, the newspapers and to their neighbors to have their voice be heard, not ignored. FDR was able to ignore dissent by silencing his critics in ways that simply cannot be accomplished in our now modern times. Today, many politicians ignore, dismiss and even vilify those Americans who believe in these personal fundamental rights. They do so at the peril of losing their political positions because the "Sleeping Giant" is now fully awake. For those who are still dreaming of a government-mandated Utopian society, be forewarned; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights, not civil rights and Americans can recognize the differences. Americans do not want a New Deal Redux!

Intolerable Acts 2008-2009

The Coercive/Intolerable Acts - Then and Now

Prior to the American Revolution, Britain's Parliament enacted sweeping legislation that was intended to not only restore order and function to the Massachusetts colony after the Boston Tea Party, but to also reinforce Britain's jurisdiction and rule of law over the rebellious American colonies. English governance believed that these acts, although criticized by some, would dampen the defiance of the colonies. The actions of these British laws caused the Port of Boston to be closed until payment was rendered to the East India Trading Company. This act was designed to compensate this shipping company for the tea they lost when the Bostonians threw it into the Harbor. The Quartering Act required regular folks to house and feed British soldiers whenever and where-ever the soldiers desired, even by force. The Administration of Justice Act allowed British who were governing or enforcing the law in the Colonies, to be given a change of venue if they were accused of crimes by the colonists (i.e., the regular folks). The Massachusetts Act further enraged the colonists by declaring that government officials would be appointed, rather than elected, by either the governor or by the King. All four of these acts were expected to bring the colonists into submission to the total rule of Great Britain. No longer was England going to leave the riches America had to offer to those who lived there, the colonists, nor were they going to allow the colonists to behave as if the Crown didn't exist. These acts, often called the Intolerable Acts, were the final blow to the colonists and thus, the First Continental Congress was formed and eventually led to the American Revolution. The result of the American Revolution was freedom from taxation without representation, the freedom to govern themselves and liberty for all.

Intolerable Acts 2008-2010

In November 2008, the US Congress passed the following legislation Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 commonly referred to as TARP:

"An Act To provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes."

This act is commonly referred to as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 2008 and was passed under the Bush Administration. This act led to further implementation of funding into a program designed to slow or halt foreclosures of mortgages. This additional funding is called TARP or Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Citizens were told by their elected officials that this Stimulus Act would ensure that financial institutions that were "too big to fail" would be able to secure their "troubled assets" with a government loan from the US Treasury and that credit would once again begin to flow. Within this act, additional legislation allowed for tax credits for energy and energy improvement. The energy referred to in this division of the TARP act applies only to renewable energy and electric hybrid vehicles. This act basically provides to some consumers an incentive to purchase these types of vehicles, while other consumers receive no benefits from this part of the legislation. This same act also allowed for approximately 20 million middle-class families to be kept from being hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax, a secondary tax code implemented in 1970. The AMT was originally passed in order to tax persons of such higher-income in the 1960's that under the regular tax code they were able to avoid paying any taxes. The secondary program called TARP allowed the US Treasury to purchase troubled or toxic assets (generally defined as any asset that has lost enough monetary value as to be deemed unrecoverable by any accounting principle - i.e., worthless), these assets being held in mortgage loans by banks and other financial institutions, in an effort to prevent these institutions from experiencing huge losses on their balance sheets. Once the trading of these toxic assets begins again, the Treasury expects that profits will be realized not only by these institutions and banks, but also the federal government itself.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009

This legislation is too vast to break down into a simple statement as to its full purpose. Its expected intention was to flood the economy with money for shovel-ready projects, extend unemployment benefits, reduce COBRA payments for the unemployed, create or save millions of jobs, provide tax credits to name a few of the anticipated and expected results of this legislation. Total funding for this particular bill when enacted was set at 787 billion dollars which has now been calculated to actually cost approx. 80 billion dollars more than original estimates for a total of 860 billion dollars. At the end of fiscal year 2009, approx. 20% of the total amount has been used. Additional claims of success include statements that anywhere from “thousands of jobs created or saved” and “1.5 million jobs created or saved” were made as recently as mid-January 2010. The TARP program is included within this legislative act as well as within the original stimulus act of 2008. This stimulus act provided the federal government with the funds to be able to purchase General Motors as well as Chrysler in order to prevent those manufacturers from losing more money in bankruptcy court. Close to 60 billion dollars was used for this effort with hopes that the 60% stake the federal government now holds in GM will be sold when GM regains profitability.

Cash for Clunkers Bill

This additional stimulus program was intended for car owners to receive 3500 - 4500 in credit towards the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles. The 1 billion dollar program was so successful that it was extended and more money was infused for a total cost of 3 billion dollars. The funds for this program were pulled from the Stimulus 2009 legislation. This bill specifically allowed those car-owners who could afford to purchase new automobiles the ability to trade in and purchase these vehicles far below asking price. Those left out of the bill were the first time buyers of these more fuel-efficient vehicles as well as those whose vehicles did not meet the requirements set forth by this legislation to qualify for the credit. In addition, the vehicles that were traded in under this bill could not be recycled for any use in repairing the vehicles still left on the road due to the lack of qualifying under this bill but must be destroyed.
Within the time span of one year, from November 2008 to November 2009, the federal government authorized the use of over 800 billion dollars to fund legislation that was expected to turn the American economy around by increasing employment rolls and creating the financial environment whereby the banks and financial institutions will begin lending again not only to small business, but across the board to perspective home-buyers, small-business owners and entrepreneurs.

Aren't these modern legislative Acts just as intolerable and coercive as those that brought about the revolution that freed us from British rule? Do we no longer live and learn from our mistakes or has history become so irrelevant that we now dismiss it at having no bearing on current events?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" was written in direct response to those intolerable and coercive acts the government that was once in power over the colonies and the federal government as the entity it is needs to be reminded that the power belongs to The People.

RfR: Of Means and Ends

This chapter comprises a list of "rules pertaining to the ethics of means and ends" and uses examples from history instead of hypothetical situations to try to validate the rules. The following is the list and a couple of quotes from this chapter. I think it best you read the list and discuss with your book club(s) the pros/cons of each rule. Also try to determine whether the examples used to validate the rules is appropriate.

"To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles."

Ethics of means and ends:
1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

"[I]n action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter."

RfR: The Purpose

Science of Revolution

Alinsky claims there are few revolutionary writings which the Radicals "desperately" seek. They must turn to the writings of "communists, both red and yellow," instead. It's too bad there are no more copies of what our Founding Fathers read. You know, books from authors like Sir William Blackstone, John Locke or Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat or Montesquieu, Polybius or Plutarch. Nor even could those poor "Have-Nots" find anything to read from those revolutionaries themselves. Well except for this, this and this. And this, this, and this, and this, and this, and this, or just get out your 5000 Year Leap book and turn to the bibliography.

He laments that revolution is synonymous with communism. (Too bad for him, he's not around in 2009 when communism seems to have lost its stigma.) Also, revolution is associated with war, but he wants to create a revolution between the "Haves" and "Have-Nots". Since the "Haves" um, have, all the power and guns I assume war is not possible in the Radical's revolution.

The Ideology of Change

The main reason why it is impossible to argue with a Statist schooled in the Alinsky program is because a Statist has no root principles. S.A. says an organizer "does not have a fixed truth - truth to him is relative and changing." Also to make the simple complex, S.A. believes that no action can have a determinate result, therefore it is unnecessary to assume that any action is good or bad: "It frees one from the myth that one approach is positive and another negative." Otherwise known as the "judge by intentions not consequences" law. This is how he can put Moses, Thomas Jefferson and Gandhi in the same class of "great world leaders" as Lenin, Castro, and Mao.

Class Distinctions: The Trinity

"A major revolution to be won in the immediate future is the dissipation of man's illusion that his own welfare can be separate from that of all others."

Remember S.A. says truth is relative, but believe him when he classifies the absolute truth of classes (the "Haves", "Have-Nots", and "Have-a-Little, Want Mores") and their roles in society, you know, because he's a realist. The class S.A. seems to disdain more than the "Haves" are the "Do-Nothings." It is his philosophy to constantly move toward the goal. One of those goals is to enlighten man that "interdependence of man [is] his major strength" and "man is his brother's keeper."

"The moral life is the only road to survival." However, it is the philosophy that we are our brother's keeper that S.A. finds to be the moral way to live. If we live by this maxim than the Statist concludes everyone will be "Haves." Never mind history shows that social-justice is just the predecessor of social-destruction. Read the true story of Thanksgiving.

RfR: Prologue

The way to change our world

Alinsky claims there were few who survived the "McCarthy holocaust" though I say any number of Marxists/Communists who remains is too many.

A.D.D. Moment:
We conservatives may consider ourselves radical because we feel we're in the minority. However, any instance of the word radical in this book is a euphemism for Statist.

The main thesis of this book is change. And just like the '08 campaign rhetoric, there is no substance. It is change for the sake of change. How is this change to transpire? By working within the system and making the system appear broken and corrupt (see The Cloward-Piven Strategy). "[R]evolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change." Change is to happen by organizing. But the youth only, please. The older generations are out of touch and too stupid to understand. But as the devil understands, it takes time "to build a powerful organization," so patience is the key. Communication and keeping the pressure on are other key tactics to promote change.

The Statist's democratic ideal

"[T]he greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual." There are seemingly innumerable evil phrases in this book. Try this one: "People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others." Also, try out this next one where S.A. used de Tocqueville to prop up his words to warn citizens to remain active in self-government: "Citizen participation is the animating spirit and force in a society predicated on voluntarism." However, voluntary assumes an individual's choice, which is not the agenda of the Statist.

Change is the means. But what is the end game? What is the result of the Radicals' revolution of change? We conservatives know our end game, but hadn't until recently discovered the means or the strategy. So we organize and turn these strategies on the enemies of liberty.

Enjoy this inspiring message from Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West


Cloward-Piven Strategy:
American Daughter
Discover The Networks.org
Check out this archived article on Required Volenteerism
and this one on a made-up holiday.

Free Will

I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

As a Christian (of no particular denomination), I have been taught not to hate. But, I have to say that there are a couple of things that I actually hate. For instance, lying. I hate liars and lies and anything else evil. What else do I believe is evil? Communism. Why is Communism evil? Let's look at this from one of the political philosophers I turn to most (from my NIV Study Bible):

"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him."
Deut 30:19-20

This is God pleading to his followers as they enter the promised land to remain devoted to his commandments. However, the followers are not coerced or forced to listen to the commandments of the Lord. This is the governance of the divine of which our founding fathers based the Constitution and was initially pronounced in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and free.

The political philosophy of our founders and the conservatives with whom it is still estimable, is in direct converse to Marx's philosophy. In fact communists would consider God (if they were to believe in Him) the ultimate oppressor in the hierarchy of social status. For the communist, it is the duty of every man to live for the benefit of everyone else, putting the self second. "I am my brother's keeper" and all of that. Now, doesn't that sound Christian in a sense? Or maybe it's been bred in us to sound Christian. Yet, I'm not sure the "brother's keeper" line is ever a statement in the bible. I am sure of this line, from Jesus in reference to Deuteronomy 6:13, "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" Matthew 4:10

I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

Communism stifles the individual and the choices he was designed to freely make. Where Christian service is an individual choice, the slaves under communist rule are forced to serve.

I am reminded of a quote from Ayn Rand,

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

---

Can you imagine that an official or advisor of the White House of any preceding administration would ever make this statement:



We know that from reading The Forgotten Man that there were advisors with the President's attention that believed in communism, but would never have the audacity to publicly announce it.

Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech

Those of you in the National Association of Evangelicals are known for you spiritual and humanitarian work. And I would be especially remiss if I didn't discharge right now one personal debt of gratitude. Thank you for your prayers. Nancy and I have felt their presence many times in many years. And believe me, for us they've made all the difference.

The other day in the East Room of the White House at a meeting there, someone asked me whether I was aware of all the people out there who were praying for the President. And I had to say, "Yes, I am. I've felt it. I believe in intercessionary prayer." But I couldn't help but say to that questioner after he'd asked the question that - or at least say to them that if sometimes when he was praying he got a busy signal, it was just me in there ahead of him. I think I understand how Abraham Lincoln felt when he said, "I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go." From the joy and the good feeling of this conference, I go to a political reception. Now, I don't know why, but that bit of scheduling reminds me of a story - - which I'll share with you.

An evangelical minister and a politician arrived at Heaven's gate one day together. And St. Peter, after doing all the necessary formalities, took them in hand to show them where their quarters would be. And he took them to a small, single room with a bed, a chair, and a table and said this was for the clergyman. And the politician was a little worried about what might be in store for him. And he couldn't believe it then when St. Peter stopped in front of a beautiful mansion with lovely grounds, many servants, and told him that these would be his quarters.

And he couldn't help but ask, he said, "But wait, how-there's something wrong - how do I get this mansion while that good and holy man only gets a single room?" And St. Peter said, "You have to understand how things are up here. We've got thousands and thousands of clergy. You're the first politician who ever made it."

But I don't want to contribute to a stereotype. So I tell you there are a great many God-fearing, dedicated, noble men and women in public life, present company included. And yes, we need your help to keep us ever mindful of the ideas and the principles that brought us into the public arena in the first place. The basis of those ideals and principles is a commitment to freedom and personal liberty that, itself, is grounded in the much deeper realization that freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted.

The American experiment in democracy rests on this insight. Its discovery was the great triumph of our Founding Fathers, voiced by William Penn when he said: "If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants." Explaining the inalienable rights of men, Jefferson said, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." And it was George Washington who said that "of all the disposition and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supporters."

And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America's greatness and genius - and he said: "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America . . . America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

Well, I'm pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others cans we hope to survive this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.

I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, here people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities - the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.

Now, I don't have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority.

An example of that vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in Washington. And since I'm involved I've been waiting to hear from the parents of young America. How far are they willing to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?

Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated and deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, some time ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics have decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.

For some years now, the federal government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they've done so. Girls termed "sexually active" - and that has replaced the word "promiscuous" - are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate birth or abortion.

Well, we have ordered clinics receiving federal funds to notify the parents such help has been given. One of the nation's leading newspapers has created the term "squeal rule" in editorializing against us for doing this, and we're being criticized for violating the privacy of young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I've watched TV panel shows discuss the issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex.

Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm? And isn't it the parents' right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making mistakes that may affect their entire lives?

Many of us in government would like to know what parents think about this intrusion in their family by government. We're going to fight in the courts. The right of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers.

But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. When our Founding Fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.

The evidence of this permeates our history and our government. The Declaration of Independence mentions the Supreme Being no less than four times. "In God We Trust" is engraved on our coinage. The Supreme Court opens its proceedings with a religious invocation. And the members of Congress open their sessions with a prayer. I just happen to believe the schoolchildren of the United States are entitled to the same privileges as Supreme Court justices and congressmen.

Last year, I sent the Congress a constitutional amendment to restore prayer to public schools. Already this session, there's growing bipartisan support for the amendment, and I am calling on the Congress to act speedily to pass it and to let our children pray.

Perhaps some of you read recently about the Lubbock school case, where a judge actually ruled that it was unconstitutional for a school district to give equal treatment to religious and nonreligious student groups, even when the group meetings were being held during the students' own time. The First Amendment never intended to require government to discriminate against religious speech.

Senators Denton and Hatfield have proposed legislation in the Congress on the whole question of prohibiting discrimination against religious forms of student speech. Such legislation could go far to restore freedom of religious speech for public school students. And I hope the Congress considers these bills quickly. And with you help, I think it's possible we could also get the constitutional amendment through the Congress this year.

More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of fifty states statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.

You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and indeed, I'm sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life - infanticide or mercy killing. Tragically enough, those warnings proved all too true. Only last year a court permitted the death by starvation of a handicapped infant.

I have directed the Health and Human Services Department to make clear to every health care facility in the United States that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects all handicapped persons against discrimination based on handicaps, including infants. And we have taken the further step of requiring that each and every recipient of federal funds who provides health care services to infants must post and keep posted in a conspicuous place a notice stating that "discriminatory failure to feed and care for handicapped infants in this facility is prohibited by federal law." It also lists a twenty-four-hour, toll-free number so that nurses and others may report violations in time to save the infant's life.

In addition, recent legislation introduced in the Congress by Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois not only increases restrictions on publicly financed abortions, it also addresses this whole problem of infanticide. I urge the Congress to begin hearings and to adopt legislation that will protect the right of life to all children, including the disabled or handicapped.

Now, I'm sure that you must get discouraged at times, but you've done better than you know, perhaps. There's a great spiritual awakening in America, a renewal of the traditional values that have been the bedrock of America's goodness and greatness.

One recent survey by a Washington-based research council concluded that Americans were far more religious than the people of other nations; 95 percent of those surveyed expressed a belief in God and a huge majority believed the Ten Commandments had real meaning in their lives. And another study has found that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of adultery, teenage sex, pornography, abortion, and hard drugs. And this same study showed a deep reverence for the importance of family ties and religious belief.

I think the items that we've discussed here today must be a key part of the nation's political agenda. For the first time the Congress is openly and seriously debating and dealing with the prayer and abortion issues&150;and that's enormous progress right there. I repeat: America is in the midst of a spiritual awakening and a moral renewal. And with your biblical keynote, I say today, "Yes, let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream."

Now, obviously, much of this new political and social consensus I've talked about is based on a positive view of American history, one that takes pride in our country's accomplishments and record. But we must never forget that no government schemes are going to perfect man. We know that living in this world means dealing with what philosophers would call the phenomenology of evil or, as theologians would put it, the doctrine of sin.

There is sin and evil in the world, and we're enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might. Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal. The glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past. For example, the long struggle of minority citizens for equal rights, once a source of disunity and civil war, is now a point of pride for all Americans. We must never go back. There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country.

I know that you've been horrified, as have I, by the resurgence of some hate groups preaching bigotry and prejudice. Use the mighty voice of your pulpits and the powerful standing of your churches to denounce and isolate these hate groups in our midst. The commandment given us is clear and simple: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

But whatever sad episodes exist in our past, any objective observer must hold a positive view of American history, a history that has been the story of hopes fulfilled and dreams made into reality. Especially in this century, America has kept alight the torch of freedom, but not just for ourselves but for millions of others around the world.

And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as president, in answer to a direct question, I point out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas - that's their name for religion - or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.

Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates a historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930s. We see it too often today.

This doesn't mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with them. I intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that it was the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain and which now proposes a 50-percent cut in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an entire class of land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace. But we can assure none of these things America stands for through the so-called nuclear freeze solutions proposed by some.

The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength.

I would agree to freeze if only we could freeze the Soviets' global desires. A freeze at current levels of weapons would remove any incentive for the Soviets to negotiate seriously in Geneva and virtually end our chances to achieve the major arms reductions which we have proposed. Instead, they would achieve their objectives through the freeze.

A freeze would reward the Soviet Union for its enormous and unparalleled military buildup. It would prevent the essential and long overdue modernization of United States and allied defenses and would leave our aging forces increasingly vulnerable. And an honest freeze would require extensive prior negotiations on the systems and numbers to be limited and on the measures to ensure effective verification and compliance. And the kind of a freeze that has been suggested would be virtually impossible to verify. Such a major effort would divert us completely from our current negotiations on achieving substantial reductions.

A number of years ago, I heard a young father, a very prominent young man in the entertainment world, addressing a tremendous gathering in California. It was during the time of the cold war, and communism and our own way of life were very much on people's minds. And he was speaking to that subject. And suddenly, though, I heard him saying, "I love my little girls more than anything -" And I said to myself, "Oh, no, don't. You can't - don't say that." But I had underestimated him. He went on: "I would rather see my little girls die now, still believing in God, than have them grow up under communism and one day die no longer believing in God."

There were thousands of young people in that audience. They came to their feet with shouts of joy. They had instantly recognized the profound truth in what he had said, with regard to the physical and the soul and what was truly important.

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness - pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

It was C.S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable Screwtape Letters, wrote: "The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid 'dens of rime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do no need to raise their voice."

Well, because these "quiet men" do no "raise their voices," because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace, because, like other dictators before them, they're always making "their final territorial demand," some would have us accept them as their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simpleminded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

So, I urge you to speak our against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority. You know, I've always believed that old Screwtape reserved his best efforts for those of you in the church. So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride - the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.

I ask you to resist the attempts of those who would have you withhold your support for our efforts, this administration's efforts, to keep America strong and free, while we negotiate real and verifiable reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals and one day, with God's help, their total elimination.

While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I've always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.

Whittaker Chambers, the man whose own religious conversation made him a witness to one of the terrible traumas of our time, the Hiss-Chambers case, wrote that the crisis of the Western world exists to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God, the degree to which it collaborates in communism's attempt to make man stand alone without God. And then he said, for Marxism-Leninism is actually the second-oldest faith, first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation, "Ye shall be as gods."

The Western world can answer this challenge, he wrote, "but only provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as communism's faith in Man."

I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man. For in the words of Isaiah: "He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might He increased strength . . . But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary . . . "

Yes, change your world. One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said, "We have it within our power to begin the world over again." We can do it, doing together what no one church could do by itself.

God bless you, and thank you very much.

On Rumour - How Rumour Ruined America

Recently, Cass R. Sunstein, a noted Harvard College graduate in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law and behavioural economics, wrote this book “On Rumors – How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done”. This poor man must believe everything he sees reads and hears because he sure isn’t living in reality. What is truly astounding is that this individual is also Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This information on its own may not seem very threatening, until the facts of this person are revealed. Facts are simply NOT rumours.

Mr. Sunstein begins his book explaining about rumours and how long they have been around historically. Almost everyone knows what rumour is and why it spreads. The definition of rumour is quickly learned by most people. Clear-thinking people want to know what facts are or what theory is. Rumour is a statement based on a perception, and then spoken to another individual who then explains that same statement, but in their own words. This result is then that person’s perception of the original statement. The premise behind the rumour is twisted and warped by the time it reaches the end of the chain. The last individual in the chain may then have a completely different perspective of that original statement. This perspective is then completely in error. For the most part, the results will be circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is simply another phrase for rumour.

Since Cass Sunstein references many tipping points in his book, he is correct that tipping points with rumours are reached. His fear is that a tipping point is near, but his assumptions are not based in reality, but the rumours that have spread for far too long in America.

The Original Statement

Our Constitution is the statement. For several years, this statement stood as truth after the American Revolution.

The Rumour

At some point in Americas’ history, this statement was read by an individual who must not have understood the simple words that are clearly evident to most Americans who love this country as much as they love their families. Once that individual began his campaign to convince others that his perception was correct and that the Constitution contained errors, the rumour began to spread. Others were convinced and began using this rumour to convince others they were also correct in their assumptions. Based in part on the ability to create Amendments, our Congress and Senate (our government) applied these perceptions and enacted legislation that was based in circular reasoning (rumour). For decades, Amendments have been upheld by Supreme Court justices, many of whom based their decisions on this circular reasoning.

The Results of Rumour

The most recent, objectionable ruling was the Supreme Court in April, 2009 who upheld that the Environmental Protection Agency had the right to utilize cost-benefit-analysis when making environmental decisions. Since the rumour began many, many years ago, the federal government believed it had the right to shut off water to the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley to save a little minnow. This minnow was saved by the water being turned off, yet this little minnow simply swims through the river to reach its destination, the ocean. There, this little minnow dies. This was the purpose of the minnow swimming down the river in the first place. To reach the ocean so it could die in the ocean. America, we paid for this little fish to reach the ocean to die.

The Results of the Rumour

In this instance, the solution is so very evident. Turn the water back on.

Yet, this appears to be impossible. Instead of using simple, factual logic, the government adheres to the Supreme Court decision. This decision is not based in logic, but based on man-made legislation. This then is the conundrum. Does our government uphold the law that is now harming people in California? By upholding this law these farmers are watching their crops turn to dust and wither away, unemployment is around 40% in that area. Additionally, since California’s crops produce close to 12% of Americas’ produce (fruits and vegetables) other people in America will be suffering very soon. Lack of produce and when there is produce, it will be extremely expensive. How valuable is the American dollar today?

It cannot be understood by a hard-working, intelligent American who loves their families, believes in individual choice, how America has arrived at this scenario. The agency in charge of watching the environment has turned into the manager of the environment. No agency, no government can ever “manage” the environment. Nor can cost-benefit-analysis be used in making decisions of that magnitude. God and Nature manage that, even if humanity ignores its own progress.

Ultimately, the tipping point is being reached quicker and quicker as each day passes. The absurdity of the reports of news is impacting all Americans. Decisions cannot be made quickly because we’ve become a nation of “Law and Order”. The Constitutional Confusion is reigning supreme and the rumours that began a long time ago in our nation are becoming evident. Clear-thinking Americans MUST realize this, recognize where the Amendments were made in error and correct this enormous mistake. Our Constitution, our faith, our principles and values demand it be corrected.

If we want to remain free people.

Liberty vs Tyranny

Have I been shirking my responsibility in writing about Liberty & Tyranny? Ummm Yep. And I'm sorry for that. But I have a few things I would like to get off my chest.

Here is my thesis:
It has become increasingly evident that conservatism wins in the arena of ideas.

Does it bother you that you are labeled as Nazis and racists? Should it bother you? Well, somewhere deep inside of me screams "Yes!" I feel I must defend myself.

Why do conservatives have to keep defending themselves?

I am NOT a racist!

But consider why we are called bigots of every variety. It's because we have the winning argument. By calling us racists, the Statists are in essence on the one hand ceding the point, on the other merely projecting.

The Statist will claim conservatives have no constructive argument of our own, but nothing can be further from the truth. For us the answers are simple, because the answers are rooted in deep principled beliefs. However, here is the crux. Where conservatives' ideas are "simple" we have to work hard to formulate them, because we use history and experience as our guide and logic and knowledge as our tools. Antithesis to this method, the Statist uses his feelings and "good intentions" to promote ideas.

Consider the "stimulus" package, the troop withdrawal from Iraq, the release of prisoners from Gitmo, and the Cap-and-Trade and Health-care proposals. All these are devises of the Statist and have certain things in common. All are plans without thought to consequences and all are an attempt to unmake the reasons why this country has always prospered and led on the world stage. In their world, results don't matter. So damn the consequences and damn the USA. It's about power and that's it. These elitists think of us in the non-political class as ignorant and too stupid to run our own lives.

So when we, the silent majority begin to speak up, they 1. aren't used to it and don't know how to react and 2. react in the only way someone without principles and reason can react. Call us RAAAAACISTS.


Here are some more RAAAAACISTS!!!
h/t Other McCain for the nomenclature of racism
Another Black Conservative
Magic Negro Watch
Mary Baker
Booker Rising
My Voice on the Wings of Change
Star Parker
Joseph C. Phillips
Zo Rachel
Truth From A Non-Hyphenated American
Wait... those are Conservative, Black <gasp!> bloggers and writers!

Assault on Intelligence and The Constitution

While learning of Americas' history, most children and young people were given The Constitution to read and then write about what they had then read. The essays were the simple method the teacher used to determine whether students read and understood what the words meant to each of us. The majority of the students understood exactly what The Constitution was intended for. It was a document for future generations of Americans to read, understand and adhere to for our freedoms to remain intact.

We are intelligent people. We listen to the news reports from the press. People hear news on television broadcasts, cable channels or radio broadcasts. We also read newspapers and magazines. We look at the headlines on the New York Times, or other major papers. Most of us read the first pages, or watch and listen to the top stories. Those top stories are what the editors believe is the most important news for the people. That is the nature of news - information someone else believes is the most important news for the people. Yet, our intelligence is continually assaulted by what we hear and read because our American press has forgotten we are still here. This insult is enhanced further when the Internet, the major mass communication vehicle, is also used by not only the press, but those who believe the press. There is little regard to maintaining the human aspect when words are bereft of human intellect and only presented with human emotions. This is, by it's very nature, how the Internet operates. It is impersonal by its very nature. Unless the facts can speak for themselves, the meanings of the written words are overcome by the writers who allow their own personal feelings to creep into the articles or dialogues. So what mechanism to we turn to to find out what is taking place in the world around us? People are turning to other people who share common sense, positive human emotions and the human instinct of the search for truthful information, also called knowledge.

Throughout the last several years, even longer, we've been receiving more fiction than fact from our press. This is the reason so many news outlets are failing. It is also the reason we no longer pick up the major newspapers in any attempt to read the news stories. We simply want the facts presented to us so that we may form our own, intelligent decision about the information being presented as news that is happening around us. We know what misinformation is and this is misinformation.

At what time in America did this happen when the news is no longer the news, but opinions of the facts being presented as news? It’s been a slow, yet inevitable progression that has finally reached its pinnacle.

Our President made the rounds of the Sunday morning commentary shows. He was on more than 5 different channels, which ones they were really do not matter. Yet he declined an interview with Fox News. Why would he, our President, avoid answering questions by a man, respected by many people, who simply had questions to ask of our President? Could it be that President Obama may realize he isn’t going to convince clear-thinking, logical people that any proposed healthcare reform legislation is unacceptable? It appears he is unwilling to talk to those who pay taxes and are responsible adults. During his Sunday morning interviews, the President mentions the 30-47 million souls whom are either not insured or are underinsured, whether by choice or financial reasons. He tries to explain that it is all due to the rising costs of healthcare. Why are they rising? Would it possibly have anything to do with government legislation that has stifled our free market? Rising costs are due to government control of our wealth, not our taxes. It’s the nature of our economics and no force of government can truly stop that engine. The exception would be the fundamental transformation of our country we call America. Change we are expected to believe in.

We should be spending time with our families and friends, but we can no longer afford the time to devote it wholly to our families. Not when our lives, the lives of our children and the lives of future generations are truly at stake. We are simple, but highly intelligent people. We love and honor our freedom, what little we have left of it. This is what we give ourselves as Americans. No government, not even America, ever gives freedom to its people. Our government, from the time our Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, has failed its people by slowly eradicating the meaning of the words that are the very basis of our government. This is a living document; however, it's words live in our hearts, minds and finally, as we have matured as humanity, our instincts. How could this document ever change if we the people haven’t changed in our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?

The Question That Isn't Being Answered

From the time we are able to form sounds into words (language) as infants growing into children, questions are always asked by human beings. That is our nature. It is the answers to these questions that allow a child to begin filtering those responses into meaningful knowledge. This knowledge is more than just knowledge, it must be passed on from child to child, generation to generation. As this process transpires, language is built, knowledge is enhanced and common sense (the collective wisdom of humanity) grows. The baby-talk reaches our ears from that childs' voice and we are happy to be hearing these noises. But when an actual word is heard, we are amazed, pleased and proud. We finally recognize with our mind and sense of hearing that this child is learning language. We then brace ourselves for what comes next - the all-encompassing question......Why?
When the child asks this, the parents' minds begin to sift through the knowledge they have in attempts to answer that question. As we begin to answer Why? for the child, we realize that there is always more than one answer for Why?

How does the simple question of asking Why? ever change for the child? The natural curiousity all humans experience from birth is inherent to our nature, whether young or old. Does that natural curiousity get dampened by nature or nurture? Or is it from outside influences (society) that have convinced people that society (by definition today it has been created by our government) knows what is better for the child? The results of all this external influence on the family and children is that now, people who are asking Why? are not receiving the answers that satisfy the nature of the question, Why?

Most of the time, a single response to the question Why? simply doesn't satisfy the curiousity of the child. If the child receives an answer that doesn't resolve the question in the childs' mind, that question is asked over and over and over again. This is true up to the point the child either gives up because the question is not answered to that childs' satisfaction (human instinct) or the parents give up on the attempt to answer. The child perceives this and the natural curiousity is dampened. If numerous answers are provided to the question, Why?, the child will then reflect on all those different responses and begin questioning Why? all through life.

All clear-thinking people never stop asking Why? and are now wondering "How did our government arrive at this time in history where our elected politicians provide simple one-statement responses to our questions of Why?"

Why must we pay for healthcare for all?

Why must we pay for companies too big to fail?

Why must we accept the idealogy of one political party or the other?

Why have we accepted the lesser of the two evils when electing a person whom we expect will guide us through the next four years? Did his words convince all of us? Or was it due to the fact that he was provided with enough money to spread his word? That his message was full of hope and change which convinced some people that only he knew how to solve their life problems of water, food and shelter?

Why has our government reached the point where it believes it must always DO SOMETHING rather than leave us, we the people, alone to simply live our lives as we were intended by nature to do? Do laws allow us to live? Or must we constantly wonder which law we break each and everyday in our attempts to provide ourselves with our basic needs? Are we truly a nation of "Law and Order" where we now dampen our human instincts, yet promote the fallibility of human emotion so that now we only know how to live by rule of laws?

There are many, many questions that over the decades have never been answered satisfactorily to the people. Our time in history has proven this statement to be accurate and true.
Isn't it time to start asking the real question, Why? When this question can be answered, to the satisfaction of the majority of people, the time will be that we will move forward, as a nation, and our country will be ours again. By the people, for the people.

The Tipping Point is Now

Malcolm Gladwell has described a Tipping Point as “How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference”. Author of the book titled The Tipping Point, his example of a tipping point is based on the use of the word, epidemic. That much can be seen today with the current named influenza virus called H1N1 (formerly called swine flu...).

This influenza is a real epidemic; it has spread too quickly for anyone to believe otherwise. The moment we realized it was being carried on the wind quicker than we hoped, this is when epidemic status was attained. It must be noted, however, this influenza strain has not yet proved itself to be as fatal as the annual ritual of our influenza season.

Justice is another basis for an example of a tipping point. The Scales of Justice are balanced by Opposition and Support usually held in Lady Justices’ left hand. Her other hand holds the sword that is symbolic of Reason and Justice. These concepts that lead to what we know is Justice have lasted, throughout civilizations around the world, from the time of the Gods through today. The true balance of these scales has not been altered, simply our perception of Justice.

We haven’t yet realized this.
The scales are accurate; however, the weight is distributed unevenly on both sides.

Justice, as we all know, is also blind, not just a balance. Justice cannot see skin color, it cannot see human emotion, and Justice can only hear the arguments being presented by both the Opposition and the Supporter. The loss of the one sense, sight, limits Justice to using only what she can hear as well as all the wisdom she has gained over history. Our government, from decades ago till today, has tipped her scales in their favour, not ours, we the people. Reason and Justice are warped and this is evident if we truly admit this to ourselves. We can admit this only when we see for ourselves, with open eyes, the situation we as people, in this lifetime, find ourselves in.

We’ve simply reached our tipping point in America and must realize this.

We’re wrapped up once more with the progressive nature of humanity, tethered to those who believe themselves to be representative of us. They are failing us once more and we know this. Some are holding to their firm convictions that the administration they believe they placed into power, are working to (change) restore our country. These convictions are simply ideals and are empty of humanity. Our values and principles are the force behind our humanity. This is the true will of the people. Most of us are busy about our lives, which is as it should be. Yet we are also aware that something is tipping, something is off balance. It didn’t happen overnight, although it feels as if it did. It’s simply escalated in the last 9 months, although it’s been happening all of our lives.

We must be paying closer attention before we ask ourselves, what happened? Our tipping point is here. Reason and Justice must prevail again before only Opposition and Support become the basis for our free will – the direction the scales are tipping towards in September 2009, A.D. (A.C.E)

Common Sense and Human Instinct

Thomas Paine wrote about Common Sense many years ago – so long ago in fact, that we do not know of any one who was there at the time. The basic premise is that Common Sense applied appropriately by clear-thinking people will provide us by its very nature, the freest and best life possible. Thomas Paine understood what Common Sense truly is and wrote Common Sense. Our Founding Fathers understood his writings and wrote the Constitution. We as people lost much of our common sense somewhere in the course of our history. Now, we are all fighting for our very lives. But, we were warned.

We ask, "How did this happen to us?"

It was one law and one only, personal income tax. How does Common Sense apply to this American law?

No government that is by the people, for the people can ever place a monetary value on the work that any person or persons either can or can’t perform. The person sets that value and either accepts the offer of financial gains for the work performed and never the other way around. Common Sense and Human Instinct tells us this.
People have become so frustrated with their lives, never having time for what they know is important in life, but feeling helpless because they constantly feel like they cannot reach their goals. Generations past allowed our government to take a portion of our earnings, which we know is our time, called it a temporary tax and convinced the people that they were going to use it for our “general welfare”. I’m sure it all sounded pretty good to them. Common Sense simply didn't prevail. Those generations believed their politicians. We today are all now paying the price for that folly. We’re fighting for our very lives now that our government believes it can provide the best life (healthcare) to us.
Thomas Paine recognized Common Sense as the intellectual thread that binds humanity; our Founding Fathers used that Common Sense. They wrote our Constitution.
Thomas Paine understood the deep value of what that little phrase means – Common Sense. It’s a sense we all have and we share it as Americans. We’ve realized that instead of them doing what we tell them we want them to do, they are telling us what we need and that only they (our government) can give it to us. They are, however, just politicians and no one special. They have no inherent birthright. Education is simply knowledge and does not reflect wisdom. They may speak well to people, but they don’t speak for the people. We listen to them with great confidence at times and great trepidation at times. A few of us now believe their last hope has arrived and must rely for their very lives on our government. These few who are so confused, their lives are just a mess; they just want someone to help because they do need help. Instead of relying on family, friend, neighbour and community, they foolishly believe they can elect someone to give them that help. That’s very sad since it reflects lack of Common Sense.

However, we were warned by Thomas Paine even before our Constitution was written.

Liberal Fascism - It's really here

Education… Just the word invokes thoughts of reading, writing, and of course, arithmetic. Not so long ago, children in school would have also included thoughts of play time as well. Now, most children do not exhibit positive enthusiasm when they are informed it’s time for “Back to School”. That enthusiasm is also lacking with the parents, although they stoically push that nagging feeling to the back of their minds and still continue to place their children, their trust, into our public school system.

Liberal Fascism…Sufficient to say, this term has actually been around a very, very long time, but not as the phrase we read today. Jonah Goldberg references that H.G. Wells was the first person in “modern” history to coin that particular phrase. Wells must have struggled with his life growing up. He suffered in pain over a broken leg at the young age of 8 (1874) as well as having parents who could not agree to disagree, being only human and having emotions as we all do. Once his parents were no longer together in life, Wells drifted here and there. A job here, an odd job there, but all of those jobs seem to be a form of manual-skilled labor. Wells, being the thinker he was yearned for an education. But, his education had already begun. He’d learned how to read when he had his broken leg. From that point in his life, he never stopped reading. In fact, his love for reading is what led to the great books he did write. His imaginations, fictions and other musings were based in solid life experiences. His perceptions were developed throughout his life as we all do as human beings.

His words (thoughts) played so well together, they flowed onto the pages. His writings were then read down through generations. Yet, instead of reading the thoughts of a brilliantly self-educated man, his words were no longer taken at face value. They were picked apart, piece by piece in a vain attempt at defining what was being read instead of the simple understanding that words are words. It only takes the human mind to interpret those words. But, the human mind tends to focus more on the meaning of the word, rather than the word itself. This limitation is the sole reason humans have common sense.

Common sense is the sum of knowledge gained by humanity over long periods of time.

Liberal fascism occurs when a person truly has no education.

Education is simply not just facts, numbers and additional information; it is what the mind does with all that knowledge. Too much knowledge without introspective human thought is total lack of wisdom. Knowledge is only gained when the age of reasoning occurs, but reason only prevails with knowledge. If the two do not balance, we have a lot of people that will speak and reference others writings (thoughts) as having total validity and will live their own lives based on those assumptions. Yet, even those without what we now call education, they tend to live simpler, self-sufficient lives without all the added information that they simply cannot fit in their own lives.

First, we must understand education. Can it be measured by whether a child retains certain dates and times of historic events? Is it how that child learns the method to solve some mathematical equation? Or is it the child learning to apply that knowledge of dates and time when a past event transpired, which then allows that child to understand it in the context of the present? If that is education, then how can we say that we haven’t been failing our young children for a very long time?

My parents, other family members all taught me what a family is, what it means to have friends and to keep those you love in your life. It was my mother, who loved me, that taught me to read before I ever attended 1st grade in a public school back in 1966. From the time I grasped what the written words could tell me, I never looked back at any point in my life and told myself, I’ve failed. Not by my standards, ever.
That is the true quality of a good, solid and well-rounded education. Once those values are taught to children, they will never lose this for the rest of their lives. It never left me, no matter what I was able to do, or not do in my life.
Can these values and knowledge truly be taught in a liberal fascist society? Of course not. That requires a free society that allows its parents to be parents. A free society will be able to exactly pinpoint a fault in the education system. That fault could then be resolved, without legislation that attempts to promote, but fails. If our children are being educated in a free society, how is it that there are more and more children who are truly failing, then falling through the cracks in our society? Liberal fascism?

What is it our children are being taught then through the public school system? Do we want them to gain knowledge that allows us as humans to understand other people, communicate with other people and to discuss the very words we read? Or, do we leave even more of them behind to languish in the environment they live in because well-intentioned people (liberal fascists/progressives) believe they have the solution to poverty? Yes, a good education results in success.
Poverty levels, a governments’ measure of success or failure, have only been increased by our very own government. I’ve lived below “the poverty line” a few times in my life, but never, ever felt like I was in poverty. Did Wells? Lack of adequate finances is simply not poverty. The working poor-class becomes poverty-stricken when there is no hope of overcoming the frustration and despair of living in America without real education. Liberal fascism, anyone?

These principles simply cannot ever be taught by anyone other than family, friends and community. If we must ask that basic question regarding our childrens’ education, this is the only question that must be asked and answered. The government has made its futile attempts at solutions, but is failing and will continue miserably in its attempts to accomplish those goals. The reason is simple and truthful. The government may be made up of people, but it’s been far too long that it hasn’t been a government by the people, for the people. The liberal fascism that has bubbled below the surface for literally decades is now being revealed. That fact is as true as knowing the air I breathe keeps me alive. Impossible standards now apply since those standards do not address the variance of the individual as they attempt to learn through the current “liberally fascistic” teaching process. The result will be catastrophic. This lack of educated people will actually escalate due in large part to the legislation called “No Child Left Behind”. It’s been made to all sound very good and necessary for America, but values and principles simply cannot be legislated. The birth of liberal fascism begins at some point in any free society and our version of fascism is already getting older.

Jonah Goldberg made this statement recently in response to some of the “Nazi” rhetoric swirling in the media currently. He was referring to liberal fascism:

“That sort of system could seduce Americans into becoming chestless subjects of the State in exchange for bottomless self-gratification and liberation from the necessity of adult decision-making.”
Link

How can any person with common sense and human instinct, not truly understand that liberal fascism has already gained control of the education of our young peoples’ minds?

“I will never let my schooling interfere with my education” – Mark Twain

Federalist Paper #1

Alexander Hamilton, under the pen name “Publius” begins the Federalist Papers by discussing the topics which will be covered within the articles while also warning Americans about allowing other individuals to influence their judgment and thoughts on the Constitution.

Publius begins by asking Americans to consider the newly written constitution from the convention in Philadelphia. After the experience of an ineffectual and inefficient federal government under the Articles of Confederation, Publius calls on his audience to necessarily consider this new constitution for the preservation of the Union. It is left to the people of the Nation, as it has always been, to deliberate this new government which the Convention had placed before them. “…it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country…to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”[1] The question of the ratification of the new constitution lay before the people of America, and if America were to make the wrong choice, it may be seen as “the general misfortune of mankind.”[2]

Publius warns Americans that there may be individuals who are opposed to the new constitution because they are in positions of power, and do not wish to limit their existing power, or those who wish to see a weak central government. He calls on Americans to deliberate and weigh this new document with unbiased reasoning for the common good and for the preservation of the Union. He also warns that “a torrent of angry malignant passions will be let loose.”[3] Much of this passion may come from a love for America, from errors within their understanding of the Constitution, as well as a fear of beginning anew. “It will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty” and that “History will teach us that [dangerous ambition] has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than [a zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government], and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.”[4]

After warning of those who speak against the new Constitution and warning them about what may occur if it is not passed, Publius then tells his audience truthfully that he believes that they ought to adopt this new constitution, He openly tells the audience that he truly feels this is the right path for America. He openly says this, adding that he will be straightforward about his feelings from the start and that anyone who disagrees will be able to critique his arguments. “My arguments will be open to all and may be judged by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.”[5]

Publius then outlines the topics of the articles that he will write:
- The utility of the Union to your political prosperity.
- The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union.
- The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object.
- The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government.
- Its analogy to your own State constitution.
- The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property.[6]
Publius also states that along with the points he outlined, the articles will also cover arguments from those opposed to the new constitution along the way.

Hamilton or “Publius” ends this first article by discussing the rumor that there is no way one federal government can form a Union among these States and varied regions of America. So, the first argument to be addressed is the necessity of a Union of States “for nothing can be more evident to those who are able to make an enlarged view of the subject than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union.”[7] It is with this subject that Publius begins article two.

---

[1] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. The Federalist Papers. Ed. Rossiter, Clinton and Intro. Kesler, Charles R (New York: Signet Classic, 1999), p. 27.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid, p. 29.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid, p. 30.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid, p. 31.

Common Sense: Appendix

"What is strangely astonishing, perfect Independence contending for dependence."

At the time of the Revolution, America was held together by a weak Continental Congress with little authority. You can picture Thomas Paine reflecting on how surreal it was to live in a completely free society, without law, or government. Yet this was testimony to the fact that man can live in a society with unbridled freedom. Why was this a surreal opportunity? "The instance is without precedent; the case never existed before ... We have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth." Because of the sacrifice of the men and women who endured and those who died in the American Revolution we have a system more noble than any ever created on earth.

"We have it in our power to begin the world over again."

This section contains many great quotable passages. Here is another one: "We neither mean to set up nor to put down, neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with them." Who/What is the "them" that we want nothing to do with in our current situation?

Full Text...

SINCE the publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or rather, on the same day on which it came out, the king's speech made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy directed the birth of this production, it could not have brought it forth at a more seasonable juncture, or at a more necessary time. The bloody-mindedness of the one, shows the necessity of pursuing the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge. And the speech, instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the manly principles of independence.

Ceremony, and even silence, from whatever motives they may arise, have a hurtful tendency when they give the least degree of countenance to base and wicked performances, wherefore, if this maxim be admitted, it naturally follows, that the king's speech, IS being a piece of finished villany, deserved and still deserves, a general execration, both by the Congress and the people.

Yet, as the domestic tranquillity of a nation, depends greatly on the chastity of what might properly be called NATIONAL MANNERS, it is often better to pass some things over in silent disdain, than to make use of such new methods of dislike, as might introduce the least innovation on that guardian of our peace and safety. And, perhaps, it is chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the king's speech hath not before now suffered a public execution. The speech, if it may be called one, is nothing better than a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants.

But this general massacre of mankind, is one of the privileges and the certain consequences of kings, for as nature knows them not, they know not her, and although they are beings of our own creating, they know not us, and are become the gods of their creators. The speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is not calculated to deceive, neither can we, even if we would, be deceived by it. Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves us at no loss: And every line convinces, even in the moment of reading, that he who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less savage than the king of Britain. Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining jesuitical piece, fallaciously called, "The address of the people of England to the inhabitants of America," hath perhaps from a vain supposition that the people here were to be frightened at the pomp and description of a king, given (though very unwisely on his part) the real character of the present one: "But," says this writer, "if you are inclined to pay compliments to an administration, which we do not complain of (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham's at the repeal of the Stamp Act) it is very unfair in you to withhold them from that prince, by whose NOD ALONE they were permitted to do any thing." This is toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even without a mask: And he who can calmly hear and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to rationality an apostate from the order of manhood and ought to be considered as one who hath not only given up the proper dignity of man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawls through the world like a worm.

However, it matters very little now what the king of England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through every moral and human obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet, and by a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty procured for himself an universal hatred. It is now the interest of America to provide for herself. She hath already a large and young family, whom it is more her duty to take care of, than to be granting away her property to support a power who is become a reproach to the names of men and christians, whose office it is to watch the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are of, as well as ye who are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty, if ye wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by European corruption, ye must in secret wish a separation. But leaving the moral part to private reflection, I shall chiefly confine my further remarks to the following heads:

First, That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain.

Secondly, Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, RECONCILIATION or INDEPENDENCE? with some occasional remarks.

In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men on this continent: and whose sentiments on that head, are not yet publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position: for no nation in a state of foreign dependence, limited in its commerce, and cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any material eminence. America doth not yet know what opulence is; and although the progress which she hath made stands unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is but childhood compared with what she would be capable of arriving at, had she, as she ought to have, the legislative powers in her own hands. England is at this time proudly coveting what would do her no good were she to accomplish it; and the continent hesitating on a matter which will be her final ruin if neglected. It is the commerce and not the conquest of America by which England is to be benefited, and that would in a great measure continue, were the countries as independent of each other as France and Spain; because the specious errors of those who speak without reflecting. And among the many which I have heard, the following seems the most general, viz. that had this rupture happened forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the continent would have been more able to have shaken off the dependence. To which I reply, that our military ability, at this time, arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty years' time, would be totally extinct. The continent would not, by that time, have a quitrent reserved thereon will always lessen, and in time will wholly support, the yearly expense of government. It matters not how long the debt is in paying, so that the lands when sold be applied to the discharge of it, and for the execution of which the Congress for the time being will be the continental trustees.

I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independence; with some occasional remarks.

He who takes nature for his guide, is not easily beaten out of his argument, and on that ground, I answer generally that independence being a single simple line, contained within ourselves; and reconciliation, a matter exceedingly perplexed and complicated, and in which a treacherous capricious court is to interfere, gives the answer without a doubt.

The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflection. Without law, without government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by, courtesy. Held together by an unexampled occurrence of sentiment, which is nevertheless subject to change, and which every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition is, Legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect independence contending for dependence. The instance is without a precedent, the case never existed before, and who can tell what may be the event? The property of no man is secure in the present un-braced system of things. The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion presents. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason, wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories would not have dared to assemble offensively, had they known that their lives, by that act, were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of distinction should be drawn between English soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty, the other his head.

Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions. The continental belt is too loosely buckled: And if something is not done in time, it will be too late to do any thing, and we shall fall into a state, in which neither reconciliation nor independence will be practicable. The king and his worthless adherents are got at their old game of dividing the continent, and there are not wanting among us printers who will be busy in spreading specious falsehoods. The artful and hypocritical letter which appeared a few months ago in two of the New York papers, and likewise in two others, is an evidence that there are men who want both judgment and honesty.

It is easy getting into holes and corners, and talking of reconciliation: But do such men seriously consider how difficult the task is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the continent divide thereon? Do they take within their view all the various orders of men whose situation and circumstances, as well as their own, are to be considered therein? Do they put themselves in the place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier, who hath quitted all for the defence of his country? If their ill-judged moderation be suited to their own private situations only, regardless of others, the event will convince them that "they are reckoning without their host."

Put us, say some, on the footing we were in the year 1763: To which I answer, the request is not now in the power of Britain to comply with, neither will she propose it; but if it were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question, By what means is such a corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its engagements? Another parliament, nay, even the present, may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretence of its being violently obtained, or not wisely granted; and, in that case, Where is our redress? No going to law with nations; cannon are the barristers of crowns; and the sword, not of justice, but of war, decides the suit. To be on the footing of 1763, it is not sufficient, that the laws only be put in the same state, but, that our circumstances likewise be put in the same state; our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up, our private losses made good, our public debts (contracted for defence) discharged; otherwise we shall be millions worse than we were at that enviable period. Such a request, had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the heart and soul of the continent, but now it is too late. "The Rubicon is passed." Besides, the taking up arms, merely to enforce the repeal of a pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce obedience thereto. The object, on either side, doth not justify the means; for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast away on such trifles. It is the violence which is done and threatened to our persons; the destruction of our property by an armed force; the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms: and the instant in which such mode of defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to have ceased; and the independence of America should have been considered as dating its era from, and published by, the first musket that was fired against her. This line is a line of consistency; neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition; but produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were not the authors.

I shall conclude these remarks, with the following timely and well-intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there are three different ways by which an independency may hereafter be effected, and that one of those three, will, one day or other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the people in Congress; by a military power, or by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual. Should an independency be brought about by the first of those means, we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now.

The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the events of a few months. The reflection is awful, and in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little paltry cavilings of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world.

Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period, and independence be hereafter effected by any other means, we must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather whose narrow and prejudiced souls are habitually opposing the measure, without either inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons to be given in support of independence which men should rather privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating whether we shall be independent or not, but anxious to accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis, and uneasy rather that it is not yet began upon. Every day convinces us of its necessity. Even the Tories (if such beings yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most solicitous to promote it; for as the appointment of committees at first protected them from popular rage, so, a wise and well established form of government will be the only certain means of continuing it securely to them. Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough to be WHIGS, they ought to have prudence enough to wish for independence.

In short, independence is the only bond that tie and keep us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as cruel, enemy. We shall then, too, be on a proper footing to treat with Britain; for there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court will be less hurt by treating with the American States for terms of peace, than with those, whom she denominates "rebellious subjects," for terms of accommodation. It is our delaying in that, encourages her to hope for conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have, without any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part of England, will be still with us; because, peace, with trade, is preferable to war without it. And if this offer be not accepted, other courts may be applied to.

On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that either the doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that the party in favor of it are too numerous to be opposed. WHEREFORE, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us hold out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND, and of the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA.