Naomi Wolf; The End of America: Tipping Point, Now! Pt7

To all the globalists; what happens when you no longer like your one world government? Where will you go to be free then? Think people and wake up before we are all slaves.

Hillary and Walter Cronkite - Not JBS - For World Government

Hillary and Walter Cronkite - Global Government Advocates.
Is there a plan for world government?
Absolutely and here is just some of the iron clad proof and nobody can deny.
There is more where this came from, just Google "New World Order", "World Government" and "Global Governance".
Look up the Pope calling for "New World Order", H. Bush calling for "New World Order" W. Bush calling for the "New Order of Ages" Bill Clinton saying that he agrees with H. Bush and said he also uses the term "New World Order" - "Global Government".
Find all the video clips here on YouTube of what is mentioned above and on Google Video.
Look for Charlie Roses multiple interviews with Henry Kissinger saying we need and there will be a "New World Order".
It's no secret nor is it theory but it is in fact a plan being made behind our backs without our consent.
Find out for yourself and then tell everyone. We have to save the United States of America - and we should bring these traitors to the US of A to justice and make big stinking example of them and treat them like the traitors that they are.

The American Resistance

Ron Paul: Don't Blame Wikileaks!

THE COST OF FREEDOM

THE COST OF FREEDOM
http://www.myspace.com/555388150/blog/541885273

Michael Rivero

Politicians and pundits use the phrase “Cost of Freedom” a lot, usually in reference to something they are asking you to do that you probably prefer not to, such as pay higher taxes, wear a uniform, submit to intrusive surveillance, or simply keep quiet about any doubts you may have about the former.

Before going into the cost of freedom, however, perhaps we need to take a closer look at what we mean by freedom, exactly.

There is no pure, perfect freedom. We all agree that there are certain things we should not be free to do, such as to walk in and out of each others’ homes removing TV sets and jewelry, or shoot the neighbor who is hard of hearing and falls asleep each night in front of the too-loud TV set. We understand and agree to certain rules required to create a society in which specialized skills operate together in mutually beneficial commerce.

So, let us start out by defining a free society not as a society where people are free to do what they wish, but as one in which we freely choose to surrender certain behaviors in exchange for the benefits of living within that society. A covenant exists between the rulers and the ruled in which each freely agrees to follow a set of rules of behavior, in exchange for a certain set of rights. In the United States, that covenant is enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a contract which lays out what the government may, and more importantly may not do.

In a free society, the covenant must be enforced on both the rulers and the ruled equally. To enforce the covenant upon the people there is law enforcement, and when needed, prison. To enforce the covenant on the side of the government, the Founding Fathers created a government of three components, each charged with keeping an eye on the other two, and when needed, to legally restrain excess of authority.

The Founding Fathers created a nation in which government was broken into separate components that enforced the covenant on each other because history has shown that power attracts the very sort of people who should never have it. With precious few exceptions, most people who seek power do so for very selfish reasons, and willing to do anything to get it, are usually equally willing to do anything with it. A free society must be one in which the freedoms of the rulers are subject to the same limits as the freedoms of the people.

At the dawning of the Third Millennium, the United States has fallen from the Republic created by the Founding Fathers to a society in which the government is not enforced to adhere to the covenant, and rights and freedoms are surrendered by the people not in exchange for benefits, but by trickery and deception.

The US Government has fallen from the high and noble ideals on which the nation was founded. The covenant is broken, and the US Government rules the nation by fear, not only of its direct authority but of an endless and unbroken chain of manufactured fears used to terrorize the people of the nation into agreeing to surrender more rights, more money, even the lives of their children.

For almost 50 years following WW2, the US Government waved the fear of “The Communist Menace” at us all, in response to which We The People surrendered trillions of dollars building nuclear weapons to point at the Soviets. Looking back, we see that the Communist government was at the same time waving “The Capitalist Menace” at their citizens, to trick them into surrendering their wealth into building of nuclear weapons to point back at the USA.

Following the collapse of the USSR, the United States Government lost its most potent demon to wave at the masses. But it was quickly replaced with SARS, Aids, Swine Flu, Avian Flu, Ebola, Global Warming, Global Cooling, inflation, deflation, and most recently terrorists. Each and every demon was waved at us to trick us into surrendering more of our money, more of our children’s lives, more of our rights, and each and every demon had no more substance than the paper-mache’ heads used by the Wizard of Oz to trick Dorothy into making war on the Wicked Witch of the West. Fear gave politicians issues to run on, defense and medical corporations markets for their products, and media sensational content for their periodicals and broadcasts.

That it was all trickery and deception with the purpose of tricking us out of our rights was best illustrated by President George W. Bush’s plan to deal with Avian Flu, which not only enriched his good friend Donald Rumsfeld, but also included gun confiscation. It should be noted that firearms (and the second amendment) do not increase one’s susceptibility to infection by viruses. Clearly, the real agenda isn’t to save the populace from a flu virus (which as of this writing has actually killed few humans), but to grab the guns and remove the right to firearms recognized by the Founding Fathers.

The problem with a government that rules by fear is that once they have started to use fear on their own population they can never stop, never allow the fear to subside, never allow the population to calm down and think rationally. Because when the population stops being afraid, when they start to think, they will start asking why they cannot have all the rights, freedoms, and money back. This actually happened following the collapse of the USSR in 1990, when Americans, tired of the trillions in taxes collected and spent on the nuclear deterrent, demanded a drastic reduction in military spending. So, in 1991, the US tricked Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait by promising they would not object, then invaded Iraq, thereby having a convenient war to keep the military budget inflated.

Today we are in two wars, both of which now appear to have been started with outright lies by the US Government. Americans are starting to say “no” to more wars and that is a good thing, for above all else freedom means the freedom to say “no” to the government,; to remind them that they too are bound by the covenant to restrict their actions to the letter of the Constitution and the laws.

The Cost of that Freedom isn’t paying more taxes or wearing a uniform; it is simply to decide one will not be afraid of the manufactured demons put forth in print and in TV that serve no purpose than to keep the people meek and under control. That is all it takes; the will to not be afraid.

Of course the government does not like people who refuse to live in fear, or who say no. Every time a citizen stands up and says “no” the tyrant fears. Every time a citizen refuses to be afraid the government will work extra hard to make that person afraid, and even today we see those who speak out, because they are no longer afraid, subjected to harassment and intimidation. Yet they remain unafraid, for they see the harassment and intimidation for what it is, a symptom of a government losing control of the people, and they choose to remain unafraid.

So, that’s really all there is to it. Refusing to be afraid. Refusing to be tricked out of your rights.

Freedom is the freedom to say “no”, and the freedom to live your life unafraid.

Patriot's Response to the State of the Union

He spoke of "hope and change" and cited stories of Americans who have overcome adversity, and rightfully so -- that has been the heritage of the American spirit. To be sure President Obama is a skilled and artful presenter and tonight was no exception.

But beyond the flowery prose I found the substance to be contradictory and insulting to the intelligence of the American People. President Obama acknowledged the great debt our nation is under and the need to reduce our deficit. His plan to rectify that deficit is more of what he has been doing for the last two years, which has amounted to more than 3 Trillion dollars in our deficit, and that is increased spending. Only this time he is not calling for bailouts, or stimulus, it is now called "investment." By any definition what he is telling us is that he plans to spend even more of the American taxpayer's money.

He spoke of encouraging innovation and sparking American Entrepreneurship that was made possible by the free enterprise system. He then offers more investment (spending) to assist those that may not have the money to pay for that innovation and offered that if they come to the government with their ideas he will make it possible for them.

He spoke of investment for education and expansion of his "race to the top" program as a means to incentivize better state education performance. If the state does better it gets more money - money we don't have. But of all the education announcements made tonight one bright shining moment was the plan to repeal "no child left behind" laws; which many of you know has assisted the ruination of our public education system..

There was talk of increased spending; I mean investment, in infrastructure and building more roadways and high speed rail. This sounded very much like the Trans-Texas Corridor of the Bush administration. He spoke of digital infrastructure where information would be available to 98% of all Americans and how medical records are already available to some patients who can access them from their home computers. I have to believe that this new infrastructure could also be used to provide government with data on 98% of Americans as well.

President Obama also hinted at his desire for Amnesty for the children of illegals and the potential for educating them all the way through college as part of our future;again at a cost to the American taxpayer.

According to President Obama things are strong for our Union yet he talked of our Democracy multiple times never once acknowledging our Republic.

He spoke of the new rules he put into place to prevent another financial crises. How quickly we forget our own history. The central bank and the Federal Reserve were put into place to prevent financial crises and we ended up with the great depression - I shudder to think what we have in store for our future.

His plan to offset all this spending, I mean investing, is to freeze the Annual Domestic Spending. He spoke of this "cut" as a necessary step to reduce the deficit. But a freeze is not a cut it is merely staying where you are. If you are driving a car and you are approaching a cliff you don't set the cruise control you hit the brakes.

He talked in generalities about saving Social Security for future generations and then talked of not subjecting future retirees to the "whims of the Stock Market." We heard talks of this the past year of government wanting to nationalize private retirement accounts - well I guess he really means it.

He spoke of the same old rhetoric that every President has uttered during hard times - streamline the government, tighter budgets, control the deficit, and this year he promised to really veto any bills that had earmarks in them. Perhaps saying that in his campaign really didn't count because he wasn't President then - I expect he really means it THIS time.

Finally he spoke of foreign affairs, ending the war in Iraq, and starting troop drawdowns in Afghanistan in July. Actually not a bad idea but we probably ought to not be telling the enemy what we are going to do before we do it.

All in all I think President Obama missed the mark of what the American people have been telling him since he took office. We do not want more government we want less. We do not want more spending we want less. We do not want more taxation we want less. All in all we want to be left alone.

Mr. President, if you are serious about wanting to control government spending and doing the right thing - let's start with this:


Discontinue all programs that do not fall under the powers of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution - Start with department of Education and Department of Energy and return them to the states
Cut the personal income tax from federal law and institute a national consumption tax and leave the money with the people that earned it.
Remove all American military troops stationed overseas. We can defend and spot on the face of the earth, with pinpoint accuracy, from our war planes, ships, land based missile. We do not need a physical presence there.
Take those returned troops and place them on the border. 90% of all illegal traffic across the border would cease overnight. Your job is to protect our borders - now would be a good time to start.
Phase out Social Security and return that to the rightful party - the individual. Cut off all Social Security withholding from paychecks for anyone above the poverty line and then only on a volunteer basis. Create an actual fund that Congress cannot touch to cover these payments. Within a generation the Social Security deficit would be solved.
Repeal all unconstitutional laws and return control over those items to the states where they rightfully belong - starting with the massive expansion of the interstate commerce clause and intrastate firearms manufacture and sales.
Move the government back toward a policy of sound money and return the responsibility of that currency to Congress by repealing the Federal Reserve Act.

In short Mr. President stop what you are doing and return our Republic back to the sound principles upon which it was founded.

Lets Face some of the Facts

Lets Face some of the Facts
http://www.myspace.com/555388150/blog/541847717

by FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

1 Our Administration has completely lost its Mind and should be facing
not only simple impeachment but has worked its way into full-blown High
Treason

2 Our Congress continues to fail the people of this Nation, continues
to pass bad and even Unconstitutional law The greater number of our
legislators to include some that are now running for the first & second
seat in the white house should be impeached as they are clearly not
working with the best interest of We The People in mind

3 The Judiciary or should I say the majority of the entire ABA has
proclaimed their immunity from prosecution or in other words they have
taken; A "we are above the law" stance And many of our courts now
resemble something more akin to Organized Crime then that which our
Constitution intended

4 Some will say "well we can change all this with our vote" think
again, much of this system has revealed foul play and is routinely
manipulated by special interest efforts

5 The IRS has been stealing from the American work force since about
1913,
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a
moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance.
The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored
to the people to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson

6 The Department of Justice is routinely denying its mandated
responsibility in areas of Civil Rights, US Code Violations and
enforcement thereof, among other discrepancies

7 The FBI is routinely denying its mandated responsibility in areas of
Civil Rights, US Code Violations and enforcement thereof, among other
discrepancies

8 Food and Drug Administration appears to have lost its sense of
purpose

9 Approximately one out of 10 Americans are either in or have
experienced our prison system.Look to # three above

10 We now have more Federal policing agencies then one can count
members on a Chinese fire drill Can you say Uncle Sam needs to lose a
great deal of excess weight

11 Our dollar has devaluated to almost nothing and we are now borrowing
money from a Communist police state that still burns tons of coal as
their primary fuel source

12 Our US Constitution, the Supreme law of this land is all but fully
disregarded by most of our State and Federal governments And dammed
that inconvenient Oath of office

13 Our country is deluged with millions of Illegal aliens who have very
little to worry about at our wide-open borders And in complete conflict
with this the majority of Americans are unlawfully saddled with a
fascist inspired Patriot Act?

The question I have is, what the hell is our alleged government doing as
it certainly has nothing to do with the Majority of Americans and their
security or future prosperity? In addition I would ask are the majority
of Americans going to continue to sleep though all this? HEY, does
anyone remember "We the People" and what it once meant to be an
American.



Read The Federalist Papers

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute – the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)

President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential – if not likely – specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.

President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.

President Obama’s words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely “premature to commit” to signing America on.

However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama’s roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.

Obama’s former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.
“Until we’ve closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.
The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to “show a different face for America.” He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.

President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far “in America’s interests.” The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama’s Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans’ 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.

The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.

When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body who’s INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.

For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with “inviolable archives” from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.

This is the disturbing context for President Obama’s quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media.

Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.

Sovereignty Versus Safety

Sovereignty Versus Safety : American Intervention Abroad


http://www.myspace.com/555388150/blog

Everyone differs on America 's position in the global order . While
neoconservatives claim it is our goal to spread the American ideal of
liberal democracy to nations embroiled in dictatorship after
dictatorship , protectionists believe we have already spent too much time
and resources - both human and economic - on conflicts abroad with no
clear remedies for the future . Opinions outside of the U .S . are equally
contentious . Some critics ask where America was when violence irrupted
in Rwanda and question why it took them so long to take action in the
former Yugoslavia , while others condemn America 's current involvement in
Iraq .

The only thing most analysts do not disagree upon is American
preeminence in international relations .

Since the end of the World WarII

and America 's rise to power in a bipolar power system , there has been
no doubt of its super power status . At the end of the Cold War they
remained alone in that status . So what position should the United
States take on conflicts abroad ? The purpose of this paper is to
discuss America 's role in conflicts abroad and the viability of
intervention in countries with highly different cultural , political and
economic practices . It is within this discussion that the paper will
seek to answer one question : can and should the American model of
liberal democracy be transferred to countries abroad through methods of
intervention ?

Sovereignty versus Human Rights:

The supremacy of the nation state in international law has been in
decline for some time now . While for centuries nation states were
effective at rebuffing any attempts to limit their power over their territory the growing importance of human rights has
slowly chipped away at state sovereignty . Hundreds of years of debate
came to a culmination at the end of the Second World War with the
adoption by a great number of the world 's nations of the UN Charter . We
cannot claim that the co-existence of the two as seen through the
charter has been easy . Indeed while some support ``a modern concept of
sovereignty that involves a duty to protect human rights (Popovsky ,
2004 , 16 ) others hold that the sovereignty of a nation is of greater
concern and that intervention and its aftermath can in fact complicate
things further .

There is no doubt that the emerging norm of humanitarian intervention
derives from ``a fundamental shift in the understanding of sovereignty
in international relations - a move from 'sovereignty as authority ' to 'sovereignty as responsibility (Welsh , 2004 , 52 . Those supporting
the eminence of human rights refer to two documents , the UN Charter and
the Nuremberg Charter . While the first of these holds at its heart the
promotion , encouragement and respect for human rights , the second
outlines ``the individual accountability for war crimes and crimes
against humanity (Popovsky , 2004 , 16 . Following these documents came
others such as the Genocide Convention , the Geneva Conventions , and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Clearly outlined...

What Is Sovereignty and Who Has It

What Is Sovereignty and Who Has It

Today the Progressives and their two headed government party seek to make the exaltation of the central government

http://www.myspace.com/555388150/blog/541839452

What Is Sovereignty and Who Has It

By Dr. Robert R. Owens Sunday, May 16, 2010

Sovereignty is accepted as absolute uncontested authority. This definition of the concept of sovereignty emerged along with the nation-state. The nation-state hasn’t always existed. Everyone tends to see the circumstances of their own times as the static normality of history. And contrary to the endless lectures of History teachers tied to politically correct text books and standardized tests, History is not static it’s dynamic, it changes every day. The concept of the nation-state emerged in the sixteenth century evolving from countries as the private property of monarchs, and however hard to envision the nation-state will someday be replaced by something else.

If that’s what sovereignty is who has it?

In England it’s vested in Parliament. In China it’s vested in the Central Committee of the Communist Party. But in America sovereignty isn’t vested in any one place, which means there really isn’t any. No sovereignty? How can that be? Since sovereignty is an absolute, it either exists or it doesn’t and it’s a misapplied concept when striving to understand the American government.

This does not mean that the United States is not a sovereign nation. The Federal Government represents the United Sates on the world stage. To the other countries of the world the Federal Government is the sovereign power with which they must deal. However, domestically we face a different situation. In some areas the Federal Government is sovereign, in some areas the States are sovereign, and in some areas the people are sovereign. Since sovereignty by definition is an absolutist concept and not one of degrees, either something is sovereign or it is not. In the United States there is no one legitimate source or center of sovereignty.

The revolutionary theory the Framers advanced into practice is that several centers of power prevents the formation of an authority vortex swallowing all legitimate authority and paralyzing decision making, thus establishing the world’s first viable system of disassociated sovereignty.

Under the Articles of Confederation,

which preceded the Constitution as the foundational document and framework of organization of the United States, stated categorically in Article II, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” Nowhere in the Constitution is this retention of inherent sovereignty surrendered. The so-called sovereignty clause Article Six of the Constitution found in obviously gives precedence to the laws and treaties made by the Federal government it does not however expressly say anywhere in the document that the States surrendered or forfeited their inherent sovereignty. If it had it never would’ve been ratified. As expressly stated in the 10th Amendment neither the States nor the people surrendered their sovereignty to the Federal Government they delegated it.
There is a difference between these two actions. To surrender is to give entirely and irrevocably to another while delegation is a temporary action based upon continued agreement between the parties involved.

Another strong argument can be made that since all governments are the products of a social contract between those who govern and those governed sovereignty ultimately resides in the people and governments are therefore merely agents of the people’s will. According to this line of thought all governments wield delegated powers and can have no more power in and of themselves than the moon has light without the sun.

Amendment is the only legitimate process for change under the Constitution. If the design calls for a decentralized diffused sovereignty in an asymmetrical system how was change achieved from that to the current system of highly centralized power and control?
Was it by amendment or practice? Is it possible for an illegitimate practice to become a legitimate tradition? Is it possible for an illegitimate tradition to set a legitimate precedent?

All of these historically based academic discussions aside and for all intents and purposes the argument about who is sovereign was forever settled by Abraham Lincoln.
When the South attempted to succeed, an action not prohibited by the Constitution they were beat back into submission to the Federal Government. Debate over. Question answered. The Federal Government is supreme. However, though this is the reality of our circumstance since the Civil War this is a reality imposed through the use of military force not to be confounded with the original condition based upon the voluntary agreement between the people, the states and the national government in Constitution.

For years this question of who is sovereign has see-sawed back and forth.

Today the Progressives and their two headed government party seek to make the exaltation of the central government permanent. If this stands unchallenged America has devolved from the defused model established under the Constitution to a centralized version reminiscent of its original absolutist definition.

If this new normal is enshrined as reality it will become increasingly obvious as States strive to assert their rights and people seek to preserve their freedom. For if the central government is now absolutely sovereign it will eventually crush all rivals.

If the people are sovereign in time they’ll find their voice, reassert their power, re-establish the federal system, and return to the social contract as ratified in the Constitution.

What is love?

What is love?
http://www.myspace.com/555388150/blog/541799497

It is one of the most difficult questions for the mankind. Centuries have passed by, relationships have bloomed and so has love. But no one can give the proper definition of love. To some Love is friendship set on fire for others Maybe love is like luck. You have to go all the way to find it.
No matter how you define it or feel it, love is the eternal truth in the history of mankind.
Love is patient, love is kind. It has no envy, nor it boasts itself and it is never proud. It rejoices over the evil and is the truth seeker. Love protects; preserves and hopes for the positive aspect of life. Always stand steadfast in love, not fall into it. It is like the dream of your matter of affection coming true. Love can occur between two or more individuals. It bonds them and connects them in a unified link of trust, intimacy and interdependence. It enhances the relationship and comforts the soul. Love should be experienced and not just felt. The depth of love can not be measured. Look at the relationship between a mother and a child. The mother loves the child unconditionally and it can not be measured at all.

A different dimension can be attained between any relationships with the magic of love. Love can be created. You just need to focus on the goodness of the other person. If this can be done easily, then you can also love easily. And remember we all have some positive aspect in us, no matter how bad our deeds maybe. And as God said Love all

Depending on context, love can be of different varieties. Romantic love is a deep, intense and unending. It shared on a very intimate and interpersonal and sexual relationship. The term Platonic love, familial love and religious love are also matter of great affection. It is more of desire, preference and feelings. The meaning of love will change with each different relationship and depends more on its concept of depth, versatility, and complexity. But at times the very existence of love is questioned. Some say it is false and meaningless. It says that it never exist, because there has been many instances of hatred and brutality in relationships.

The history of our world has witnessed many such events. There has been hatred between brothers, parents and children, sibling rivalry and spouses have failed each other. Friends have betrayed each other; the son has killed his parents for the throne, the count is endless. Even the modern generation is also facing with such dilemmas everyday. But �love� is not responsible for that. It is us, the people, who have forgotten the meaning of love and have undertaken such gruesome apathy.
In the past the study of philosophy and religion has done many speculations on the phenomenon of love. But love has always ruled, in music, poetry, paintings, sculptor and literature. Psychology has also done lot of dissection to the essence of love, just like what biology, anthropology and neuroscience has also done to it.
Psychology portrays love as a cognitive phenomenon with a social cause. It is said to have three components in the book of psychology: Intimacy, Commitment, and Passion. Also, in an ancient proverb love is defined as a high form of tolerance. And this view has been accepted and advocated by both philosophers and scholars.
Love also includes compatibility. But it is more of journey to the unknown when the concept of compatibility comes into picture. Maybe the person whom we see in front of us, may be least compatible than the person who is miles away. We might talk to each other and portray that we love each other, but practically we do not end up into any relationship. Also in compatibility, the key is to think about the long term successful relationship, not a short journey. We need to understand each other and must always remember that no body is perfect.
Be together, share your joy and sorrow, understand each other, provide space to each other, but always be there for each others need. And surely love will blossom to strengthen your relationship with your matter of affection.

Joseph F barber

Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.
William Shakespeare.

What happens when they steal your freedom

What happens when they steal your freedom

It can happen here.



It happened in Czechoslovakia, Chile, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Laos, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Cuba,Mexico and dozens of other countries around the world. Free people woke up one morning and discovered they weren't free anymore. They lost it through invasion, or the manipulation of crooked politicians, or a coup by some army officers, or more often than we like to admit, through an election.

There weren't any atomic bombs, and most of the time, there weren't any devastated cities, executions in the streets, or massive occupation armies. For a good part of the population, it was sort of hard to tell they weren't free, for a while.

It takes time for a government to recruit secret police, get them spread throughout a society, and start the insidious process that turns men against neighbors and takes away the one thing humans must have to be happy-freedom.

In just about every country that's lost its freedom, there were a few people who have tried to do something about it. They joined resistance movements, fled into other countries, committed personal acts of sabotage, or tried to use whatever legal means were left in place to get some of their freedom back.

Unfortunately, almost always, there weren't very many people ready to take any risks to try to get freedom back. Most people in unfree countries decide it's easier to go along.

Too often, too many don't see the loss of freedom as that big of a deal.

That's the way the people who steal freedom want it. They want the average citizen still at the job, worried about what he is going to put in his mouth more than what he can say with it. The first day they take your freedom away, they are only too happy to let you get up in the morning, eat breakfast with the kids, take off for the office or the factory, and put in a full day's work.

It's only when you have gotten used to their being around that they start cracking down, taking a little piece at a time, a day at a time. Every inch of the way they will keep telling you it's all for your own good and safety.

That's bullshit. The only reason political leaders take freedom away is for their own good and safety. That's the way they make sure they keep their jobs.


TOO MANY PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A DAMN IF THEY ARE FREE OR NOT.


In every country that ever lost its freedoms, the men in power rule with the acquiescence of the general population. Ninety percent of the people in all those unfree countries not only tolerate the loss of their freedom, they actively cooperate with the authorities that have taken their freedom away. All too many of them, especially in those countries that lost freedom to clever politicians rather than invasion, think they are getting a good deal. They have bought the propaganda line sold by those who stole freedom. They believe that they really are better off losing a bit of freedom so they can be saved from hunger, political terrorists, Jews, blacks, Christians, commies, Nazis, crime in the streets, or whatever other fear stalks the streets of their own nightmares.

If you are living in one of those countries where freedom has been lost and you want to fight to get it back, you have to expect you are going to be in the minority. Most of your friends and neighbors aren't going to want to join you. In fact, most of them will gladly turn you in just so they can earn a little credit with the local boss. If you succeed in winning freedom back, they won't give a damn, they won't thank you, and they will probably hate your guts for taking away the goodies the local tyrant was handing out as rewards for people who would rather be comfortable than free.


DON'T SACRIFICE YOURSELF TO WIN FREEDOM FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.


All you want is your own freedom. If you do any of the things suggested in this opinion, you should only do them if it results in making you feel a bit more free.

You don't think it can happen here without at least a nuclear war? Don't kid yourself. Washington, D.C., is crammed with politicians who would love to trade large chunks of your freedom for promises to make life a bit easier, safer, or more secure.

What's worse, there are a lot of your fellow Americans out there that want that kind of trade, as long as they get to be the ones that benefit. Just make sure it's only the blacks, or the Jews, or the bankers, or the farmers, or the labor unions, or the people that like to wear cowboy boots and carry Winchesters in their pickups that get stomped on, and they'll sign up right away for the great crusade.

A couple of years ago some smartass showed several hundred city dwellers a copy of the Bill of Rights and asked them to sign a petition to make it a law. Sixty percent of the people who read it not only didn't recognize what it was, but they said they wouldn't vote for it.

One group or another is trying to take away every one of the rights guaranteed in Thomas Jefferson's inspired first ten amendments. They want to terminate your rights to own and use weapons for your own protection. They want to tell you what you can and can't read. They want to control how you spend the money you make. They want to tell you when, where, and how you can drink a can of Coors, and where you can go after you drink it. They want to tell you how to pray and when to pray. Every piece of freedom they want to take away, they'll do it while telling you it's for your own good, or for the good of "everybody."

If it's not enough that we have to put up with the vipers in our own country, there are all those other bastards out there, the Soviets, the Ayatollahs, the Red Guards, and the neo-Nazis that won't even bother with trying it through political means. They're waiting for one slip in our defenses and they'll be only too happy to move in and take our freedoms away by force.


IT CAN HAPPEN HERE.


Maybe it will come after a nuclear war that we lose but you survive. It's just as likely we'll do it to ourselves, voting the bastards in because too many people believe in their politicians instead of themselves.

You wake up one morning and find that the mayor has been carted off to a camp for reeducation, and some bearded kid wearing a cap with a red star is sitting in his chair signing orders to confiscate your tractor, your barn, your farm land, and your kid's pet calf.

Or maybe the sheriff has come around with a piece of paper in his hand and an apology while he collects your target pistol, two hunting rifles, and your kid's 410. Your favorite bar is selling nothing but Kool-Aid, the federal government has closed the bank and confiscated your checking account, and the only thing you can get on the TV is the mug of the new president appointed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff who is telling you what great things he is going to do for you.

What are you going to do then? You say you are going to take to the hills, that you have a food and weapons stash waiting for just this kind of thing to happen? You're going to do what the Afghan, the Nicaraguan, and the Angolan freedom fighters are doing: you're going to take up open rebellion and try to win freedom back through force of arms.

More power to you and lots of luck. You'll need it. Frankly, freedom fighters in the hills haven't been very successful in this century. They get good press and they die glorious deaths, but the countries they are fighting to make free get less free every day. Even so, I applaud you. If given the chance, I'll do what I can to help you. But I'm too honest with myself to try and fool you by promising I'll be up there in the hills with you. I look down at my gut and l'm honest enough to admit I'd just be in the way.


YOU DON'T HAVE TO RUN FOR THE HILLS TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM.


So what do you do if you love freedom and want it back, but you're like me? You're on the wrong side of forty, you can't run a twelve-minute mile, let alone a five. You've had too many years of the good life which shows in the overhang covering your belt.

Or maybe you are in good shape. You hunt and fish every chance you get, you raise a garden in the backyard, you do your own home repairs, and you work on a construction job.

The problem is you've got a couple of young kids and a wife that's a homemaker, not a career lady who will keep bringing in a paycheck to feed the family while you play hero. Your job hasn't been abolished, even though your pay's been cut and your hours increased, and you already have heard some not-too-gentle suggestions about what might happen to that pretty wife and the two little boys if you don't show up at the factory on Monday morning.

Well, you say, you'll join the underground support mechanism. Work in town as a courier, carry out sabotage missions, help print and distribute secret newspapers, spy on the movements of the government oppressors, and report to the rebels in the mountains.

Again, more power and good luck to you, if you can make the connection. That will be the problem, finding the people in the underground. If you already have some ideas about who that might be if things go haywire, the people who take over will know about them, too. The first thing they will do is round up the most popular school teacher, or the commander of the local VFW, or whoever else is a community leader that believes in freedom.

Those people will all be in a reeducation center, if they're still alive. You start asking questions about where you can join up and you'll end up in the same camp with them.

Believe me, if it happens here, there will be spies everywhere, trying to ferret out your kind of people, people who don't buy the promises, who still want to control their own lives, who still believe the only choice is to live free or die.

No, I am not arguing that you have to go along, to keep reporting to work, to cooperate and keep your mouth shut, hoping that some time in the future somebody will give you, or maybe your grandchildren, back their freedom.

Unfortunately, that is what most people are doing in all those countries that have little or no freedom. But there is an alternative, and that's what this book is about. The alternative has its risks-fighting for freedom always does-but the things that are described in this opinion are the kinds of things you can do while cutting down the personal risks you have to take for both yourself and your family.

You don't have to get organized; in fact, that is what you want to avoid. You work in secret, letting no one know what you are doing.


DON'T TRY TO GET YOUR FREEDOM BACK BY ORGANIZING.


Grab every bit of freedom you can on your own and run with it. I know that sounds strange and goes against everything you have ever been told about the importance of organizing, the need to play on a winning team, and how there is strength in numbers. The people who preach organization don't want you to be free, they want to control you so they can be free to do what they want.

A truly free society is disorganized. In that kind of society, everyone is doing exactly what they want to do and taking orders froi-n nobody. That doesn't mean you can stomp the other guy for the fun it gives you. He's entitled to freedom too. Because everybody respects everybody else's right, a free society is peaceful, but it is disorganized. Nobody is in charge. Nobody takes orders.

You might think such a disorganized society would be easy to conquer, but it is not. Any society in which people refuse to cooperate unless they agree it's to their own advantage to do so can't be governed except by the will of the people, or by the massive application of force.

It's the ordered societies where people are used to doing what they are told to do that are easy to conquer. That's why a handful of Spanish soldiers conquered Mexico in the sixteenth century. They lopped off the head of the Aztec Empire and had every Indian in the country instantly obeying the orders of the new rulers. The poor slobs had been so organized by the Aztec emperors that they didn't know how to do anything else but follow orders.

If a lot of people all over a country that's lost its freedom did the kinds of things described in this book, then the devil help the people in power, because they are going to need it.

If only ten percent of the men and women living in the unfree countries of the world followed the advice in this opinion, things in those countries would fall apart so fast that the rulers would have to grant a few more freedoms.

Unfortunately, this opinion probably won't be read in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Chile, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Laos, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, or Cuba. (Although let's hope somebody does smuggle a few copies into some of those countries.) This is the kind of book that the freedom stealers fear the most.

There will be more than a few politicians in this country that will condemn this book. It is pretty obvious that some of the things I propose could make it difficult to impose their grandiose schemes of social control.

Screw them. The more people who buy this opiion, the more those fancy bastards will be put on notice that they had better not try it here. We still have a few of our freedoms, and the time to prepare to fight to get them back is before we lose them.

So read this carefully, memorize the suggestions and programs, but don't get caught with a copy or with any notes you've made if it does happen here. Just be ready to start your career as a secret freedom fighter.

That's what this opinion is about. How to not cooperate, how to secretly carry out a campaign that, when combined with similar campaigns by hundreds and thousands of other people, each acting as a lone individual, will give whoever has taken over so much trouble that they will soon regret the day they stole freedom.

If you are the only person in the country who does these things, you get the personal satisfaction of knowing that there was one free man or women left. If a lot of other people start doing the same things, then you will get your freedom back.


A FREEDOM FIGHTER FIGHTS ALONE.


Nobody ever gives an ant an order. Yet, by picking up a single grain of sand and carrying it away, the ant helps dig the nest in the desert. The secret freedom fighter is like the ant. Working without instruction or orders from anyone, he follows his natural instincts, fighting the oppressor whenever and wherever he can. Yet in a freedom-loving society, he will not be working alone. Others, hopefully hundreds and thousands of others, will also be operating, acting without direction or order.

The total sum of thousands of individual acts will give the appearance of a massive organization. That's what the oppressor will think he is facing-an organized rebellion. He will look for leaders that aren't there, secret headquarters that don't exist, and couriers who carry no messages.

The organization will never be found. All there will be is a single individual, multiplied thousands of times.

Today i got this from a man and he lives in america

Today i got this from a man and he lives in america ask me my advice I have allmost reached homeless status. i live in a tent. i lost my job over a year ago. lost my truck. i was living on $700 or less a month due to child support. now with no truck, no phone, and my only transportation is a bike. nobody wants to hire me. i bath in a pond and im clean for an interview but nobody will hire me. so watch what you say about the homeless. one day we will come together. i am a hard worker with as many as 78 hours a week when i had work. everybody needs help sometimes.

We talked for awhile and after i left him I was so touched and at the same time I cryed for what I see coming to our world and with out unity in it we are all doomed to repeat the past and our children will suffer our wrongs,So I say to you know,To all people: Take Care of Each Other, regardless of nationality, race, gender, religion, or whether or not one deserves it. You will be saving yourself in the end.It is a lot easier to become homeless than a lot of people think! Some of us have jobs. Some of us have college degrees. Lots of us do not use drugs or alcohol. Lots of us are not mentally ill. Some of us have to spend half of our paychecks to cover the cost of medications. Lots of us have to spend a good part of our checks on food and medical bills. There is not enough left for rent, not to mention other bills! Do not judge people until you really know their situation.we must see our world thru eye's wide open and minds not clouded by the ignorance of man.If you truly understand what love is it is greater than yourself and is not of the mind or body I call it the soul the thing that makes all of us who we are.I hope you take this note to heart and start to veiw life in a perspective of and open mind and heart bound with compassion and stength



Joseph F barber

http://www.facebook.com/notes/joseph-f-barber/today-i-got-this-from-a-man-and-he-lives-in-america/302443749983

"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."

Freedom: The History of an Idea

Freedom: The History of an Idea
http://www.myspace.com/555388150/blog/541748135

http://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience

We live in a moment that is as critical for freedom as the American Revolution, the American Civil War, or the days following Pearl Harbor. In each of those moments, America moved the cause of freedom forward.

In the Revolution, we declared our independence from the greatest empire of the day, fought for and won that independence, and then went on to establish a constitution that still gives us liberty under law more than two hundred years later. In the Civil War, we removed the great moral wrong of slavery. After Pearl Harbor, we shouldered the burden of World War II and the subsequent Cold War.

Sept. 11 represents a time just as critical in the history of the freedom. As we judge the generations of the American Revolution, the Civil War, or Pearl Harbor by their heroic response, so we shall be judged. We are engaged in what I believe is a noble crusade to bring freedom to the world. But that crusade is faltering now, in part because we have failed to ask some very fundamental questions.

This essay is intended to ask the most fundamental of those questions: Is freedom a universal human value, which all people in all times and places desire?

History of Freedom

Our foreign policy since the time of Woodrow Wilson has been based in the belief that freedom is a universal value, one that is wanted by all people in all times. But why, if freedom is a universal value, has the history of the world been one of tyranny, misery, and oppression?

Socrates taught that our first task in any discussion is to define our terms. Thus, the starting point here is identifying what we mean by freedom. We never disagree, Socrates tells us, about empirical questions; it is about values that we disagree. No value is more charged with meaning than that of freedom.

If we carefully examine the ideal and reality of freedom throughout the ages, we come to the conclusion that what we call "freedom" is, in fact, an ideal that consists of three component ideals: (1) national freedom; (2) political freedom; and (3) individual freedom.

National freedom is freedom from foreign control. This is the most basic concept of freedom. It is the desire of a nation, ethnic group, or a tribe to rule itself. It is national self-determination.

Political freedom is the freedom to vote, hold office, and pass laws. It is the ideal of "consent of the governed."

Individual freedom is a complex of values. In its most basic form individual freedom is the freedom to live as you choose as long as you harm no one else, Each nation, each epoch in history, perhaps each individual, may define this ideal of individual freedom in different terms. In its noblest of expressions, individual freedom is enshrined in our Bill of Rights. It is freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, economic freedom, and freedom to choose your life style.

In the United States, we tend to assume that these three ideals of freedom always go together. That is wrong. History proves that these three component ideals of freedom in no way must be mutually inclusive.

You can have national freedom without political or individual freedom; Iraq under Saddam Hussein and North Korea are examples. In fact, this national freedom, this desire for independence, is the most basic of all human freedoms. It has frequently been the justification for some of the most terrible tyrannies in history: Nazi Germany had national freedom but denied individual and political freedom in the name of this national freedom.

It is quite possible to have political and national freedom but not individual freedom. Ancient Sparta had national and political freedom, but none of the individual freedoms we expect today.

The Roman Empire represents two centuries that brought peace and prosperity to the world by extinguishing national and political freedom, but in which individual freedom flourished as it never had.

From the Declaration of Independence to the First World War, the history of our own country provides a dramatic example of the separation of these three component ideals of freedom. After 1776, the United States had national freedom. Adult white males also had political and individual freedom. White women had a considerable degree of individual freedom but no political liberty until 1920 and the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment. Until after the Civil War, African-Americans possessed neither political nor individual freedom. In 1857 the Supreme Court formally ruled that African-Americans did not have the right to individual or political freedom. The soldiers of the Confederacy fought valiantly for their political, individual, and national freedom while defending their right to deny individual and political liberty to a considerable proportion of their population.

Thus, clearly, throughout history, these three components ideals of freedom have not been mutually inclusive.

Had we learned this lesson of history, Americans might have avoided crucial mistakes in our recent foreign policy in the Middle East.

History demonstrates that one of the most basic human feelings is the desire for national freedom. You may hate your government, but if someone invades you, you may very well fight in defense of your country. Napoleon learned this in Spain. History should have taught us to be skeptical of the claim that we would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq.

A second lesson of history we should have pondered is that freedom is not a universal value. Great civilizations have risen and fallen without any clear concept of freedom. Egypt—,the civilization that built the pyramids, that created astronomy and medicine, did not even have a word for freedom. Everything was under the power of the pharaoh, who waso have the security of a well regulated economy under a king. Time and again throughout history people have chosen the perceived benefits of security over the awesome responsibilities of freedom.

In fact, it can be argued that the Middle East, from the time of the pyramids down until today, has had no real concept of freedom.

Russia from the time of Rurik, the first Viking chieftain of Russia in the ninth century, down to Vladimir Putin, has never developed clear ideas of political and individual freedom. Thus we should not have been surprised when the Russian Revolution led not to freedom but to Stalin and one of the bloodiest despotisms in history.

China has no tradition of political or individual freedom. The noble teachings of Confucius are all about order, not freedom.

In fact, the very beginning of civilizations in the Middle East around 3000 BCE and in China around 1700 BCE represented the choice of security over freedom. Civilization began with the decision to give up any freedom in order to have the security of a well regulated economy under a king. Time and again throughout history people have chosen the perceived benefits of security over the awesome responsibilities of freedom.

History thus teaches that freedom is not a universal value. Our Founders knew and acted upon the lessons of history. The Founders, unlike us, thought historically. They used the lessons of the past to make decisions in the present and to plan for the future. They understood that tyranny and the lust for power, not freedom, is the great motivating force of human action and of history. But the Founders also believed that the United States could chart a unique course in history

Our country does have a unique legacy of freedom. That is both a cause for hope and a caution as to whether our unique ideals of freedom can be transplanted to the rest of the world. For in the U.S. we have achieved a unique balance of national, political, and individual freedom.

We have never been conquered; we simply cannot imagine what it would be to be under the rule of a foreigner. Our experience is very different from that of France, for example, or Germany.

We take political freedom for granted. We have regular elections no matter what the circumstances. In 1864, in the midst of the greatest war in our history, we held elections. The Europeans wondered after 9/11 what would happen to America; we went ahead with another election. In a way it is a good thing we are so secure in this freedom that we take it for granted. With that comes our deep love of the Constitution. Of course, Americans may not know what is in the Constitution, but they know it is good and resent any effort to tamper with it.

As to individual freedom, where could one have so much of it, including the basic freedom to create a better life for yourself and your children? People clamor to get into America, because individual freedom opens up a whole new world.

So how did we come to this unique legacy of freedom? Again, history is our guide. Our American legacy of freedom is the product of a unique confluence of five historical currents.

First, there is the legacy of the Old Testament, the idea that we are a nation chosen by God to bear the ark of the liberties to the world. Our Founders believed that deeply. Abraham Lincoln believed it deeply. Franklin Roosevelt believed it.

The second current comes from classical Greece and Rome. The legacy of Greece and Rome is the very basic one of self-government, consent of the governed. The kings of Babylon were chosen by God, Saul was chosen by God. The pharaoh was God on earth. But in Greece and Rome, men said "We are free to govern ourselves under laws that we give ourselves."

Thirdly, Christianity took the idea of Natural Law from Greece and Rome and turned it into the belief that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The freedom that for the Greeks and Romans had been limited to the citizens of Athens or Rome now became a universal proclamation under Christianity.

Fourthly, England gave us the notion that government is under the law, no matter how powerful that government is. In the Watergate hearings, Sen. Herman Talmadge (D-Ga.) quoted the old saying that "the wind and rain might enter the cottage of a poor Englishman, but the king in all his majesty may not." The law governs the king himself, and our Cohe law. So the frontier in Russia becomes the home of the gulag. Latin America has the tradition of Christianity and the Old Testament, and of Greece and Rome, and of the frontier. But Spain lacked the powerful English concept that government is under the law. Thus Latin America, despite its industrious and intelligent population and its natural resources, has never developed a stable basis for political and individual freedom.

Fifthly, there is the contribution of the frontier. From the very beginning, America has been about the frontier. It is what led men and women to Jamestown and Plymouth. The frontier was the vast, seemingly endless land stretching before us. The frontier meant equality of opportunity. Even the best ideals of Greece or Rome or England could never flourish, because they were always cramped. But here there was land and the ability to start over again. This mattered more than all the ancient hatreds and class frictions that had existed under the old world. We cannot understand why Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats speak the same language but kill each other. Their hatreds have been festering for centuries, but here they pass away. That has been the unique gift of the frontier.

The existence of these elements in other nations and civilizations only underscores the uniqueness of the American experience of freedom. Russia has the tradition of Greece and Rome, Christianity, the tradition of the Old Testament; and it has a frontier. But it lacks that English sense of government under the law. So the frontier in Russia becomes the home of the gulag. Latin America has the tradition of Christianity and the Old Testament, and of Greece and Rome, and of the frontier. But Spain lacked the powerful English concept that government is under the law. Thus Latin America, despite its industrious and intelligent population and its natural resources, has never developed a stable basis for political and individual freedom.

Our heritage of freedom has been forged in war and hardship as well as in prosperity. Our national independence was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Name another nation in history founded on principles. An Italian or German will say you are an Italian or German because you speak Italian or German. Traditionally, you were born an Englishman; you were geographical accident. But in America we have said from the start that everyone can come here from wherever they wish. They can speak whatever language is their mother tongue and practice whatever religion they want. They become an American by adopting our principles.

The principles proclaimed in 1776 are the noblest of all principles: we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The proclamation of these ideals in the Declaration of Independence is based on the belief in absolute right and absolute wrong. You can deny that today. We seem to have a society that believes there is no such thing as truth. Ethics is all a matter of circumstances. But the Founders believed in eternal truths, valid in all places and all times. And they believed that governments are instituted among men to achieve those goals. That is the purpose of government. And if a government does not fulfill those goals, you have not only the right but the duty to overthrow it.

The absolute truths of the Declaration of Independence are founded on a belief in God. God appears four times in the Declaration of Independence: “Nature’s God,” the “Creator,” “Supreme Judge of the world,” “Divine Providence.”

Thus our national freedom is founded on absolute truth and upon a belief in God.

As the Declaration of Independence is the charter of our national freedom, so the Constitution is our charter of political freedom.

When that constitution was brought forth in Philadelphia, we were thirteen straggling republics along the eastern seaboard. If Benjamin Franklin or George Washington wanted to go somewhere, they went in the same way Cicero or Caesar did: they walked, rode, or sailed. If they wanted to communicate, they did it the same way Caesar or Cicero did. George Washington received inferior medical care to what a Roman gladiator got in the first century CE. And yet that same constitution gives us liberty under law and prosperity in a world of technology that Benjamin Franklin could not even have imagined and when we are superpower of the world. We should never take this extraordinary achievement for granted.

The American people in their wisdom would not ratify this constitution without the promise of a bill of rights. It seems to us extraordinary today that the first Congress kept its promise; and in short order set down and produced the Bill of Rights, which still guarantees these fundamental freedoms of individual liberty.

But there was still slavery, written into the Constitution. God is not mentioned once in the Constitution, but slavery was made the law of the land. To remove that wrong of slavery we fought the bloodiest war in our history, in which 623,026 Americans died. It produced men of great honor and integrity on both sides. It was finally resolved at Gettysburg.

When Abraham Lincoln went to Gettysburg to redefine our mission, he started with the Declaration of Independence. “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” It was unique because it was dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. In one sentence he told Americans why they were fighting the war, to see whether any nation so conceived and dedicated could long endure. In all the rhetoric we had about Vietnam and all that we have heard about Iraq, we have not been told so simply why we were at war.

Lincoln then went on to state that this civil war was a challenge laid upon this nation by God. The more Lincoln grappled with why this terrible war had come, the more convinced he had become that it was sent by God to punish us for the fundamental wrong of slavery. He told Americans that we must resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain and that this nation under God should have a new birth of freedom. And that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.

So this war that had cost so many lives was resolved in a way that no other nation would have. The Confederates simply pledged their word not to take up arms and to go home. The reconciliation began. I think that too is unique in history.

With the Civil War we see the growth of democracy, the move towards extending the franchise to women, 18 year olds. They all become part of this political freedom.

This nation has continued in a unique course of freedom. In World War II we fought and won the war in the name of democratic freedom. We could have withdrawn the way we did after World War I. But we recognized that isolationism had been a mistake. So we shouldered the burden of the Cold War.

Now we have been called again, and the question is, will we find the leadership to tell us why this great challenge is there? Will we find the will to resolve this struggle? Will we find the understanding among ourselves to see the great task that, as Lincoln said, is still before us?

I speak to you not only the legacy of America, but of destiny. I believe that no people in history have ever been more magnanimous, generous, courageous, willing to forgive and forget, and willing to help the world than have the Americans. So after World War II, we raised Germany and Japan up. This remains our greatest foreign policy triumph. We took those two nations that had no long tradition of freedom and made them into viable, prosperous democracies.

Today, because of the United States, more people throughout the world live in freedom than any time in history. If we are willing to accept the challenge, it may yet be our destiny to change the course of history and to establish freedom as a universal value

Taliban

OK here we go here is one for you the Taliban is supported by the united states of America.So we are fighting a war supported by our own Goverment killing our own family members what is wrong with this picture or is it just me.

There was a friend here on Facebook that said to me this

There was a friend here on Facebook that said to me this, because I left America I did not matter or my opinions,In some ways he may be right,but in my eye,s I see all humanbeings as the wounder of our world and my dicision to leave was not a selfish one for me, if we are to try and make change I feel we will have to see the world as a whole and not just our self's or America. but the world.And those in it granted there is evil in it and in us all.And that is the answer we all must come to face and make the change within ourself's to become truly free.This opinion is not based on my religise veiws or political values.It is 47 yrs of living and educating myself in a world of such obsticles and confussion,And watching the value's and freedom's being taken from my country men and women and their children as well as generation's to come.All people have a right to voice their opinions it is the wise at heart to veiw all you can with and open mind.To have that understanding is what I feel our lord no matter what you call him mint when he said there is no greater love than to give yourself to another.And by educating my self on and of the cultuers of our world and having the oppertunity to experince some I find this to be truth.At least through my eye,s So it all boils down to this you are free and you have a right to true freedom. Express your self speak your mind and give all the world a chance.It is our witts that make us men & women and our duty to make change in this world not for ourselve's but the future generations to come.

Joseph F Barber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rguhxKEBlr4