New post#1

The reality of a limited government.

The Essence of Liberty

The convergence of political philosophies in our modern world has blurred the lines between them.  Language has been altered to confuse the terms, and conceal the true nature of authoritarian concepts.  The unique inherent complexion of the different philosophies have been lost, and it is in studying, and understanding, these various political principles that the path to an informed opinion regarding the various political philosophies emerges.



Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the distinction between communism, and our free society, was clear.  The West enjoyed freedom, based on a representative system largely influenced by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.  The English-speaking world enjoyed prosperity, and the nations that were not under tyrannical rule found themselves emulating the American system of governance as best as they could.  However, within the Free World, there were not only many versions of free societies, but dangerous deviations within those systems that mirrored more the authoritarian governments of Europe at the time of the forging of America, than of the system of limiting principles articulated by the Founding Fathers of the United States.

A lack of understanding was the primary culprit.  Freedom is not just a coined term, or something that you achieve if you wish for it real hard.  With freedom comes responsibility, in both the creation of a system that protects it, and the maintenance of such a system once it comes into being.  Liberty requires diligent care applied by an informed populace.



Strong government has been the unfortunate norm in history.  Once government begins to grow, it expands continuously, only halting if forced to do so.  As a government increases in size, and expands its intrusion into the lives of the citizens, individual freedom decreases, and eventually liberty becomes nothing more than a distant desire that seems too far off in the distance to ever be reached.  Tyranny provides a stark reminder that in order for a society to be free, the government must be limited in its scope, and powers.

James Madison, often referred to as the Father of the United States Constitution, recognized the dangers of government.  A central government always eventually becomes a tyranny, but without government, there is no freedom, either.  In an anarchy, as the chaos reaches a crescendo, the people cry out for order, and a powerful few are always happy to grab the reins.  Those powerful few always end up ruling in a totalitarian manner, reminding us that no government provides no freedom, and is nothing more than a transition to tyranny.

A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Regarding the dangers, and the necessity, of having a government, James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

The rule of law, as revealed with the writing of the Magna Carta over five hundred years before, works best when in a written form.  A contract was needed.  If the law is merely passed by word of mouth, it changes, and can be manipulated.  Unwritten law evolves, living and breathing with the whims of society, until the law itself becomes a motto point, and a tyranny takes control, and rules with their own version of the law.  Altering the law by those seeking tyrannical power is less likely if the law is in a written constitution.  This does not mean that tyranny will not try to change the rule of law into the rule of man, but the likelihood of success by these tyrants would remain small.  The law being in writing, however, is not enough.  To protect the system the people also need to be informed, and vigilant.

The essence of freedom is the reality of a limited government.  As long as the citizens understand this, the danger of an ever-expanding government can be kept in check.

When those seeking power are able to convince the people that the electorate can vote gifts to themselves from the treasury, and when the politicians offer gifts from the treasury to gain the vote of the people, the limitations on government are no longer an obstacle, and the constitutional vision of the founders is in jeopardy.

As freedom erodes, the community becomes more important than the individual.  The rulers proclaim that their executive actions are for the common good, to protect the community from the greed and excesses of selfish individuals, and it is their aim to make everything fair and equitable.  Individual rights lose ground to special interests, and civil society is weakened as all aspects of life become politicized.  Groups are identified, and dissenters are targeted.  Polarization is released to run amok, and government uses the crises to foment division, and to become more powerful.

James Madison recognized that government attracts those with a lust for power, and that the essence of government itself is power.  He said, “The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

After forming a weak government under the Articles of Confederation, the fledgling United States needed a powerful lion to protect, preserve, and promote the union of sovereign states.  The new federal government needed to be powerful when handling the external issues, while absent, or nothing more than a mediator, when it came to local issues.  The problem with lions, however, is that they have a tendency to want to eat you.  So how could the founders create a lion that could be unleashed against enemies of the union of states, yet restrained when it came to the internal issues of the new country?  To keep the lion restrained, it would need to be caged, or chained.  These limitations were the essence of the principles that went into the writing of the United States Constitution.  It was a way to reduce as much as possible the potential abuse of governmental power, while protecting individual rights to life, liberty, and property.

Thomas Jefferson, though not present at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, recognized the brilliance of the document. He first viewed it while in France, and sent back to the states his resounding approval. Later, he said of the limiting principles in the Constitution, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

The goal of the Founding Fathers was to create a structure of government that would protect individuality, natural rights, and property
The goal of the Founding Fathers was to create a structure of government that would protect individuality, natural rights, and property, while also standing the test of time.  The demise of civilizations, historically, were the result of tyranny, so to protect the free society in the United States into the future, the government must be limited, and it must be maintained by an informed people.

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” - Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution, however, was only one piece of the puzzle.  Without an informed people to defend it, the Constitution is nothing more than ink and paper.  James Madison wisely observed, “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.”

Without being educated regarding American exceptionalism, and the principles of the Constitution, the American People would surely lead themselves, one day in the future, to bondage.  Without being informed, the people would not even be able to recognize tyranny.  They would mistake it for freedom, and believe the manipulated language presented to them.  We The People would surely, if not properly educated about the principles of limited government, fall for the idea that government can provide utopia. . . if only you are willing to give up your freedom.

George Washington recognized the necessity for the citizenry to be properly educated, and went even further by articulating that we must educate the younger generation regarding the principles of freedom, limited government, and our constitution.  He said, “A primary object. . . should be the education of our youth in the science of government.  In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important?  And what duty more pressing. . . than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”

Thomas Jefferson believed that often the people would be led astray.  He believed it was possible that to alter or abolish a tyrannical system, we may need to fight a bloody revolution every twenty years!  Jefferson also recognized that in the end, with liberty implanted in them as an inheritance, even if led astray, the people would find their way.  He said, “The good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army.  They may be led astray, for a moment, but will soon correct themselves.”

Correcting ourselves is our God-given right.  As a friend once told me, “Nobody deserves tyranny.”

In the Declaration of Independence, in the second paragraph, our duty, and right, to take action in the face of tyranny, is clear.  The first paragraph sets up that right, rightfully stating that it sometimes becomes necessary to take action against a tyrannical government.  The Declaration reads, “. . . to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form.”

Government is necessary.  Madison regarded it as self-evident “that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted.”

Divine Providence was the centerpiece of the view of the founders
Divine Providence was the centerpiece of the view of the founders.  Through Divine Providence, the English Colonies defeated the most powerful military force in the world, and through Divine Providence, the greatest constitution in history was written after about four months of grueling debate.  Benjamin Franklin, likely the least religious of the delegates, recognized God’s Hand in the forging of this nation, and was not afraid to voice his opinion on the matter after the first few weeks of debate during the federal convention of 1787 was yielding little by way of results.

The new nation needed solutions, and the men present were arguing over matters that would not matter if the country collapsed. The elder statesman, Benjamin Franklin, who had been watching the tumultuous beginnings of the convention with patience, and in silence, spoke up. “Gentlemen, we are missing something.”

Franklin knew that in order to move forward the battling delegates needed to find a common bond that was both inspirational, and demanded virtuous action. He reminded the delegates of the Revolutionary War, and how all odds were against the states that had united for war defeating the mightiest war power on Earth. Yet, with the Hand of Divine Providence guiding them, and protecting them, the newly formed union of states defeated the British, and stood at the gateway of an exceptional existence. But as those men were fighting over the dangers, and benefits, of a central government, they had forgotten to place the proceedings in the Hands of God.

Benjamin Franklin recounted all of the miracles of America, and explained how after four or five weeks of bickering, and disagreements, on virtually every issue brought to the floor, no matter how minor, it simply proved that human understanding is imperfect. He commented on how they had studied history for examples of good and bad government, including the different forms of republics. He went on to talk about the laborious research they had engaged in, looking at the current systems of government throughout Europe. No system studied, however, was perfectly suitable for the needs of the fledgling United States.

Even with all of that research, Franklin observed, they were still unable to find the political truth they sought. How is it that they could not find the answer? Could it be that something was missing?

Should they, perhaps, humbly appeal to The Creator? Should they not consult the “Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?”

The American Revolution was a dangerous undertaking.  The founders, Franklin reminded the delegates, were on their knees in daily prayer. The prayers were heard, for only His Favor could account for their victory.

Franklin said that they were “consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?”

Benjamin Franklin was not known to be a religious man, and he admitted that in his younger years he did not give much thought to the credence of the existence of God. But, as he had grown older, his observations were telling him otherwise. To explain this, Franklin said, “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

Without God, he assured his fellow delegates, “We labor in vain.” Without God, the government formed by the convention would fail. Without God they would be divided, bickering over little partial local interests. Without God, the greatness that could be the United States would be lost to future generations.

Benjamin Franklin, the celebrated “deist,” then recommended that they pray before each session of the convention.

After the motion was seconded, an interesting development occurred.

Alexander Hamilton, and a number of others that shared his political views, after Mr. Franklin’s proposal was seconded, expressed their apprehensions about praying before each session of the convention. Hamilton believed the Constitution was limiting the authorities of the federal government too much, and now was bothered that God was going to be inserted into the convention.  Like the Democrat Party during their convention of 2012, the statists in the convention were not sure they desired that God be a part of their platform.

In the end, the delegates decided that no clergy could be hired, partly due to a lack of funds, and therefore a formal prayer before each session of the Constitutional Convention was not possible. Nonetheless, refusing to allow that to stop them from seeking God’s Will before continuing, the delegates walked to the nearest church, and congregated there for a prayer.

Later in America’s journey, based on Franklin’s request, the tradition of prayer before each session of Congress was initiated.

In the opinion of a majority of the founders, Divine Providence was an important key to the success of America, and was an integral part of the essence of freedom.

In the view of the Founding Fathers, limitations on the government, the preservation of individualism, and a reliance on Divine Providence, were inseparable from justice (defined as “rules of just conduct,” not a sanctioned distribution of income) and liberty.  Without that combination, the security of personal property, and natural rights, would be in danger.  “That alone is a just government,” wrote Madison, “which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

The United States of America was founded upon the concept of classical-liberalism, which is consistent with limited government and the rule of law.  The essence of liberty was recognized in the limitations of government, in a system where checks and balances defended individuality, personal rights, and property, while preventing corruption, and providing a sound foundation for the emergence of a spontaneous free market that spawned wealth creation, and individual opportunity.

Until we recognize that the Constitution is the solution, we run the risk of losing our liberty
Until we recognize that the Constitution is the solution, and it provides the most sound system of governance when it comes to a long-run viewpoint, rather than what we see emerging where the majority rules through a purely democratic system, we run the risk of losing our liberty.  An informed electorate, by taking a long-run view, and exercising their original authority through the sovereignty of their States, will protect and preserve individualism, and be more aware of the political tides.  Understanding the essence of liberty makes us more likely to recognize the constitutional limits that insulate economic life from politics and prevent free-loader behavior that embraces the redistribution of wealth, rather than the creation of wealth through a free market system.

For the essence of liberty to prevail, government must be limited, and just.  The security of individualism, natural rights, and property must take precedence over political philosophies, and the misguided desire of the ruling elite to engage in social engineering.

The essence of liberty is found in the limitations of government, and a limited government promotes economic freedom, the rule of law, and the preservation of the rights of the people.

Without limitations on government, the essence of liberty will become nothing more than a memory of freedom.















A Government Shutdown is not the ultimate desire, but a necessity to defund the defundable parts of the Affordable Care Act

Let the Government Shutdown


The budget battle, and the GOP desire to defund Obamacare, has met at a crossroads in Washington. . . and it brings back memories of budget battles of the nineties, between the Republican dominated Congress and President Bill Clinton.



The conventional wisdom is that the republicans lost that battle, but the truth is not quite that.  The fear of the media misconstruing the facts regarding the shutdown, as they did in 1995, has the GOP nervous.  Should they shut down the government?  Will they lose the battle of “image with the public” through the eyes of the biased media?  Or should they grow a pair and do what needs to be done and let the government shutdown?

A Government Shutdown is not the ultimate desire, but a necessity to defund the defundable parts of the Affordable Care Act.  The democrats have already begun their attacks, claiming it is the republicans that want to shutdown the government over a silly little thing like “keeping healthcare away from Americans.”

The GOP needs to turn that argument around.  They need to explain it is the opposite.  Obama and the democrats are willing to defund the entire government rather than sign a bill that does not contain funding for their precious government intrusion into the health insurance industry - despite the opposition of a majority of Americans.



Fascinatingly, Obama has been working to defund his own law
Fascinatingly, Obama has been working to defund his own law, losing revenue by delaying the employer mandate, effectively losing revenue that would have materialized from the penalties.

Reducing the burden on employers, or at least that was their excuse, and the delay of the consumer cost cap until 2015, were not done for the reasons stated, but to delay the catastrophe of rising costs and rising premiums that would result when those provisions go into effect.  The law is designed to destroy the private health insurance industry so that the people will begin begging for “single payer” to save them from the mean ol’ insurance companies.

A loss of revenue, and the rising cost of funding the law, poses a threat that could greatly increase the amount of funding.  That alone should make us realize the danger this law poses to our economy.  For the sake of slowing down our rapidly rising national debt, we must defund the whole failed monstrosity.  The drain on the treasury, the insidious nature of the law that combines the destruction of a private industry while allowing government to gain control of our lives through medical dictates, and the unconstitutional nature of the law from its establishment to the constant delay and modification of provisions by President Obama, is reason enough to do what can be done to defund it.

The republicans, however, in order for that to happen, have to be willing to stand behind their resolve, even if it means allowing a government shutdown. . .  because the democrats refuse to sign a budget without funding for Obamacare being in it.

By refusing to accept a budget with Obamacare defunded, Obama and his minions are willing to defund the entire government, shutting everything down, and if the GOP would just recognize it that way, and articulate that reality to the American people, they will win the battle of words over the impending budget battle.

As for the concern that a government shutdown will ruin the next election for the republicans, we must remember that despite conventional wisdom, the GOP did not lose last time this happened as we are being told.

Representative Mike Lee is one of the republicans that seems to have grown a pair.  He says we have to defund Obamacare.  This is the last gasp.  This is the last chance.  We must do it, even if it means allowing the government to shutdown because the democrats refuse to sign a bill without funding for Obamacare in it.

The delays the democrats keep putting into place is evidence that Obamacare damages the economy
The delays the democrats keep putting into place is evidence that Obamacare damages the economy.  That is why they keep delaying everything until after the 2014 election.  They need the House, and if Obamacare is not revealed for the failure it is before the election, they think they can take the House of Representatives.

The Republicans are gun-shy because they have been convinced that they lost the 1995 budget battle, and the media is already saying the republicans will lose the House in 2014 if they let the government shutdown now.  Allowing the government to shutdown has the republicans scared out of their minds.  The 1995 budget battles, as far as the GOP establishment is concerned, resulted in a series of disasters.  They believe that because that is how the media portrayed it.  But after that battle, the republicans won seats in the Senate, and they held the House.  Not exactly evidence that it was a failure.

On paper, the budget battle in 1995 was not a disaster, but a big success.  The GOP was just too afraid to correct the media when they painted it otherwise.

The economy was not a disaster after the government shutdown in 1995, either.  It resulted in a slowdown of the growth of government.  Children didn’t starve, the elderly did not eat cat food out of cans, and entitlement checks did not cease to be written.  Reductions in spending occurred, and the economy benefited as a result.

And remember, part of the problem was the republicans did not have any allies in the media, but now they have the new media.  Now the conservative blogs will go to bat for them.  The results should be even more favorable, because voters just want the GOP to act like the opposition party they claim to be.  Voters wish for them to stand up to the democrats, and actually have enough intestinal fortitude to follow through with whatever it takes to stop the liberal leftist madness that Obama and his minions have been inflicting on this nation’s economy.

There is an entire conservative media that will battle the propaganda put out by the leftist media.  The fears of the Republican leadership is not totally unfounded, but those fears are not completely realistic, either.  Their fears are based on silly notions put out there by the democrats and their compliant press. The republicans must defund Obamacare, even if it means a government shutdown.  It is time for the republicans to finally stand up to the democrats and say, “Enough is enough.  We are going to fight this fight, and quit being afraid.”

Winning the Government-Shutdown Fight - Daniel J. Mitchell - National Review Online:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/260724/winning-government-shutdown-fight-daniel-j-mitchell

Sen. Mike Lee Threatens Government Shutdown Over Obamacare - Real Clear Politics:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/22/sen_mike_lee_threatens_government_shutdown_over_obamacare_funding.html

How ObamaCare could cost Republicans the House in 2014 - Yahoo! News:http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-could-cost-republicans-house-2014-073500956.html

Is ObamaCare a stepping stone to government-controlled health care? - Fox News:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/15/is-obamacare-stepping-stone-to-government-controlled-health-care/












Agenda 21: Goal of taking the concept of "sustainable development" to a level of ultimate totalitarianism, infiltrating our Cities, Counties, States

Underground Bunkers and Agenda 21


As a constitutionalist, local activist, and group organizer, the local battles are nearly overwhelming.  The average person shies away from causes like mine because to join up with what I am doing is to be exposed to what is really going on - and it is frightening to most newcomers.  Time has taught us that we need to focus our energies on what is best for our movement, especially when one considers that most people who are involved never cared about politics before 2008, and many folks are only now getting involved.



Big issues can sometimes seem insurmountable.  Sometimes hammering on the smaller issues seems like we aren’t making a dent in the big picture like we want to.  For example, the big issue of Agenda 21, with a goal of taking the concept of “sustainable development” to a level of ultimate totalitarianism, is infiltrating our cities, counties, States and federal government without people even realizing it is happening.  Properties are being seized without actual seizure through “conservation” - in other words, you get to keep your property, but you can’t develop it in any way due to strict regulations that are intended to protect the land.  Agenda 21 includes depopulation, and stacking-and-packing the remaining population into the population centers so as to leave the rural areas unspoiled by the parasitic influence of humanity.  Energy use is to be controlled, consumption is to be regulated, and property rights will eventually become a thing of the past.

Sometimes, the way to tackle the big issues, like Agenda 21, is to challenge and resolve smaller local issues.



A small issue in my locality was over the potential construction of an underground bunker in Menifee, California.  The property owner of an acre and a half desired to build this bunker on his property in the hopes that in the event of a catastrophe, he would be able to protect his family by leading them into this professionally engineered underground bunker, which he would also stock with food, water, and other necessary essentials of life.  When he sought permits from the city for the construction of his bunker, the city officials indicated to him that there was no ordinance for underground bunkers, so the city ordinance would have to be amended, which required the approval a a few departments, and the city council.  After all departments, including the Planning Commission, approved the proposed change to the city ordinance, the city council not only rejected the proposal, they refused to vote on it.

The builder, Protective Bunkers and Survival Center of Lake Elsinore, discussed the problem with me, so I decided to take on the issue.  We decided to flood the next city council meeting, confronting the city council, and demanding they take back up the issue, and allow the property owner to begin construction.

On the day of the city council meeting, with the help of many local activists, and the property owner’s own call for help, over 200 people showed up in support of the home owner.  Weeks later, the proposal was approved, the ordinance began the process of amendment, and soon the property owner will be able to have the contractor build his underground bunker.

After the newspapers reported the success, I announced the happy results to the Constitution Association meeting in Murrieta.  After the meeting adjourned, a member of the group came to me in an attempt to scold me for pursuing too small of an issues.  “Agenda 21,” she said, “needs to be our focus.”

The Underground Bunker Issue, first of all, was a battle we could win, and I believe in picking your battles.  Second, though only a small part, it “is” an Agenda 21 issue - after all, was it not over property rights?

I am a firm believer that taking this country back, putting ourselves back on a constitutional course, begins at the local levels.  I believe the small issues are important, and they all ad up to the big issues.  We must devour the tyranny bit by bit, piece by piece, with the battles we can win.  Or as a good friend of mine once said, we must perform the basic math before we can take on calculus.

It may take a while, and it make take many hands, but the war can be won.

How do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time.

It may take some time, and it may take many participants, but it can be done.  Eventually, all of those small bites add up to completely devouring the beast that we face.

Protective Bunkers and Survival Center:http://www.protectivebunkers.com/

Menifee: Underground Bunker on Personal Property Denied by City in Southern California- Political Pistachio:http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/05/menifee-underground-bunker-on-personal.html

Success! Menifee Underground Bunker- Political Pistachio:http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/05/success-menifee-underground-bunker.html

Underground Bunkers Approved in Menifee- Political Pistachio:http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/07/underground-bunkers-approved-in-menifee.html

Agenda 21 Not a Conspiracy Theory- Political Pistachio:http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/12/agenda-21-not-conspiracy-theory.html

Agenda 21 and Thomas Jefferson- Political Pistachio:http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/05/agenda-21-and-thomas-jefferson.html

Constitution Association : http://www.constitutionassociation.com/













United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt
Dismantling Freedom of Association

Author
By Douglas V. Gibbs (Bio and Archives)  Saturday, July 27, 2013
Comments at bottom of page | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

16
During the years before the American Revolution, the British Empire did not allow citizens to assemble in groups in public. The King’s government feared that citizens assembling in groups could lead to the attempt to overthrow the government.



William Penn, in 1670, was convicted for public preaching.  As the call for independence approached, deeper restrictions on public assembly were enforced, to restrict the colonists from assembling to protest the various Acts passed by Parliament that attempted to tax and control the colonial population.

The right to assembly runs hand in hand with the right of association, a key principle in the founding of this nation, because of the key importance to those who wanted to correct wrongs done by their government. If they could not assemble, they could not achieve their goals.

Freedom of Association is defined as the right of people to meet together to further their common goals. Furthering their goals might include such things as organizing their efforts, marching, picketing or gathering in public places.



Like-minded people associating together is seen as dangerous by a statist government when those people oppose the policies, or social-engineering, of the ruling class of government.

The concept of the Freedom of Association came to mind when I heard about the NFL’s plans to begin inspecting tattoos for signs of any gang affiliations, so as to avoid, in the future, any problems like the murder allegedly committed by New England Patriots’ star, Aaron Hernandez.  This seems good on the surface.  It makes sense, in a way.  But we have to remember that evil always first portrays itself as good, and ultimately good for society as a whole - when in truth, when considered regarding the big picture, it is actually very damaging.

The NFL is a private enterprise.  They can do as they please with their business.  I am not challenging their allowances as a private corporation.  As the signs say in many establishments, “We have the right to refuse service to anyone.”  But, checking tattoos, so as to ban players who have associations not approved by the league, is a part of a larger trend that we are also seeing pop up in government.  Though I get what the NFL is trying to do, I have a real problem with them banning players based on their past associations, as revealed by tattoos they may have.

What happens if government begins to do the same thing?  What happens if hanging out with certain patriot groups, or being the member of a particular church, can lead to you being disallowed to participate in some functions of society, or even some functions of government?

Sound preposterous?

Hold that thought.

Senator Ted Cruz says that we are on the doorstep of the government going after preachers for hate-speech if they dare preach in opposition to homosexuality.  What if you have a history of attending churches that preach the same?  Will you be penalized for daring to associate with such defiant churches?

The San Antonio City Council in the State of Texas is working on a proposed change to its nondiscrimination ordinances that will target those who take the Bible at its word and follow it.  Any past association with people, groups, or churches that teaches the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality will be punished with a permanent ban on participation in city government, business or employment - because such an association exhibits a “bias” not acceptable to the local government.  Article VI. of the U.S. Constitution is specific, disallowing religious tests as a requirement to hold any office or public trust.  The planned ordinance change also spits in the face of the concept of Freedom of Association.

Association with groups unapproved by the government are forbidden, is basically what San Antonio is saying.

We already have seen the IRS targeting those that dared to associate with patriot groups.  Now, your religious freedoms, and Freedom of Association, are being targeted, and you will be punished for associating with those that preach in a manner not acceptable to ruling government bureaucrats.

The San Antonio proposal goes after “Anyone in office who demonstrates a bias,” which would then consider those persons to be guilty of “malfeasance” and removed from office.

If you voice any opinion, no matter when in life you uttered it, San Antonio plans to use it against you.

Local church leaders say it allows the city council “to prohibit those that speak their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality from serving on city boards.”

“For example, if a person publicly expresses their religious belief that homosexual behavior is a sin – even if this expression is at a church service – that person could be frozen out of involvement with city government.”

Analysis also contends businesses “run by people of faith will be subject to criminal penalties if they refuse to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs relating to homosexuality.”

Heck, the Left is even trying to keep people from seeing the movie “Ender’s Game,” because the author of the book it is based on, Orson Scott Card, is pro-traditional marriage.  Chaplains are being silenced for daring to preach the word in the military.  Your Freedom of Association is under attack, because the Left is using their social beliefs as weapons by calling their social beliefs “civil rights.”

Liberalism is positioning itself to eliminate all opposition, and to criminalize it, if it must.  Your Freedom of Association is a threat to their tyranny.  Your willingness to gather in groups to defy them causes fear in the halls of government.  Your are harder to control if you associate freely.

The Founding Fathers warned us about this kind of madness, and we must assemble to put a stop to it.

Freedom of Association, of which the liberal left is working to take away, must be our greatest weapon.

United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt :http://joemiller.us/2013/07/ted-cruz-warns-that-charging-pastors-with-hate-speech-is-next-step-video/

Ted Cruz Warns that Charging Pastors with Hate Speech is Next Step - Restoring Liberty:http://joemiller.us/2013/07/ted-cruz-warns-that-charging-pastors-with-hate-speech-is-next-step-video/

NFL teams could use police experts to check prospects’ tattoos - CBS Sports : http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/22856131/nfl-teams-could-use-police-experts-to-check-prospects-tattoos

The Freedom of Assembly Clause - Revolutionary War and Beyond : http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-assembly-clause.html

Military Censors Christian Chaplains, Atheists Call for Punishment - Breitbart : http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/07/24/Military-Censors-Christian-Chaplain-Atheists-Call-for-Punishment

Lionsgate on “Ender’s Game” Controversy: Orson Scott Card’s Gay Marriage Views Are Irrelevant - Yahoo! Movies : http://movies.yahoo.com/news/lionsgate-gay-marriage-flap-irrelevant-enders-game-194917927.html

















Liberalism kills liberty whenever, and wherever, it is tried

Barack and Michelle Obama, and the General Will


Big Government is nothing new.  We know this.  There is nothing new under the sun, as it says in Ecclesiastes 1:9 - The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.



The concept of growing a central government into an out of control leviathan, for the good of the community, is based on the age old premise of collectivism. As the government grows, we increasingly place more and more trust into the ability of bureaucrats, and bureaucracies, to make decisions that they say is best for society as a whole.  We do this with a smile, a trusting smile, as we lose more and more of our ability to make individual decisions for ourselves.  As the government increases in size, we have been taught to let go of our unique individualism, because the leaders in the government tell us that the community is more important than the individual.

The “general will” is an idea made popular during the revolutionary period by a French philosopher named Jean Jacques Rousseau. The general will, according to Rousseau, is a will not necessarily expressed by the general public in any way but is presumed to be known by the ruling elite. “No aspect of human life,” according to Rousseau, “is excluded from the control of the general will. . . whosoever refuses to obey the general will must in that instance be restrained by the body politic, which actually means that he is forced to be free.”



“Forced” to be free.

Big government is less about freedom, and more about imposing upon you what they think is best for you, whether you like it or not.  The desire is to herd our population into a condition of being that includes molding the citizenry into an homogeneous mass, while abolishing decentralization, and removing representative institutions.

The general will was popular with the Jacobins, which was a secular movement in France that adhered to concepts very similar to today’s socialist ideologies. The supporters of the general will offered that if the general will was to become a practical reality regarding the operation of government, than all voluntary associations would be subjected to government regulation and control in the name of “the people” and their “will” - as interpreted by the ruling elite.

The desire of the Jacobins to institute such a system in France was one of the factors that led to the French Revolution, and ultimately a greater tyranny than the tyranny the revolutionaries disposed of.

History has shown time and time again that such big government concepts always leads to serfdom, and the end of individual liberty.

The concept of the general will still exists in today’s growing federal government and expanding State governments in the American system.  Though the term “general will” is not in use, we recognize the philosophy in statist government acts and regulations, where for your own good the busy-bodies of government impose their own brand of what they think is good for the community. . . even if it is not.

The good intentions of the Left has all but destroyed the principles of limited government, devolving our nation into a state where the net beneficiaries of government (those who receives entitlements) nearly outnumbers and dominates the net taxpayers (the producers of society, those who pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits).  They have used government to force upon us limits on our soda intake, they have drugged our children for the good of the school community (and it turns out the drugs have no beneficial properties), Michelle Obama has forced her nutritional standards on our children (and the children have refused to eat it, going home hungry as a result), Barack Obama is trying to use children as snitches for the government, requiring doctors who has a child confess to them that mommy and daddy have guns to report it to the government, intelligence agencies have been using surveillance to know all they can about the private lives of Americans, and now that includes wherever you drive.

Liberalism kills liberty whenever, and wherever, it is tried, and in today’s society the result, combined with President Obama’s mercantilist policies, is the destruction of the last remnants of the American system as forged by the founders. The democrats advocate special interest politics that benefits the politically connected at the expense of the taxpayers, and support the imposition of their pet beliefs on your lives through governmental force.

Is that freedom?  Is that liberty?

Calls for “equity” and “fairness” and the “common good” are merely a smoke screen for the real desires of these statists. The liberal democrats are pulling the wool over the public’s eyes by saying that their policies are for the “good of the people,” and the “moral thing to do.” That is how tyranny works.  They act in a deceptive manner, because if the voters ever truly understood the tyranny the leftists in power are offering, the liberals would be thrown out of office.

The members of our society, thanks to a lifetime of indoctrination by the media, the education system, and the entertainment industry, however, have been trained to accept all of this madness.  We have been trained to embrace Marxism, in the name of progress.  We have indeed become the enemy, and we are raising the flag ourselves.

In history, the only way these tyrannies are ultimately brought down, in the long run, if not stopped early, is through bloody revolution.  I hope it does not come to that.  I hope there is still time to educate the masses about the sickening system being imposed on us in the name of the “common good.”

I hope.

ADHD Drugs Don’t Boost Kid’s Grades, Studies Find - Wall Street Journal : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323368704578593660384362292.html?mod=djemWMP_h

Kids Cheer as their school district opts out of Michelle Obama’s skimpy lunch program - EAG News : http://eagnews.org/kids-cheer-as-their-school-district-opts-out-of-michelle-obamas-lunch-menu/

Driving Somehwere? There’s a gov’t record of that - Yahoo! News/Associated Press : http://news.yahoo.com/driving-somewhere-theres-govt-record-140052644.html

Police Documents on License Plate Scanners Reveal Mass Tracking - ACLU : http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/police-documents-license-plate-scanners-reveal-mass

Study: Government Tracking Movement of Every Vehicle with License Plate - CBS DC : http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/17/government-tracking-movement-of-every-vehicle-with-license-plate/

























Assimilation was a key to becoming an American

I Am An American

Last Night, as the sandwich shop employee assembled my foot-long oven roasted masterpiece, and my wife’s cold cut combo, I got to talking to the gentleman in line behind me.  He made reference, after quipping we are losing our rights and freedoms, that a red star is on California’s flag for a reason. I understood the communist reference, chuckled, and then the man said that it could be worse.  He’s originally from New York, and at least here he’s not limited to the size of soda he can buy.

He said that when he was a kid, he should have seen this coming.  One of his elementary teachers asked that in the class for all Americans to stand up.  He said he was the only one climb to his feet.  The children in that class, even though born in the United States, considered themselves to be more associated with the nation of their ancestors, than the nation of their birth.

A few weeks ago a member of my Constitution Class asked me what the Founding Fathers would think of dual citizenship.  She figured they wouldn’t be hip with the concept of sharing one’s allegiance with another country, in addition to their loyalties to the United States.  She was right.  The plan of the deconstructionists, and the work of over a hundred years of socialist infiltration and indoctrination, has finally brought America to a point that the leaders of the Soviet Union often spoke about.  We would someday cease to be America, and we would do it to ourselves.

During the American Revolution only a third of the young country’s population supported the fight for independence.  Another third of the country was indifferent, willing to live under whatever rule emerged victorious from the hostilities.  The final third were “loyalists.”  These Tories were loyal to The Crown, considering themselves to be British Subjects.  They saw the revolutionary effort to break away from Britain as being treasonous.  These were the people that sabotaged the American war effort, and did what they could to discourage the effort towards independence.

After the American Revolution ended, most of the Tories headed for Great Britain.  Some remained behind.  The British did not recognize the United States as being a sovereign country, and believed that the petulant colonies would come crawling back to the King, asking for forgiveness, in due time.  After all, believed the British, and their loyal subjects in America, self-governance is a losing proposition, and in the long run would fail, and the hungry colonists would come crawling back to the British Empire.

The Tories that remained behind in the young United States tried to infiltrate the system, sabotage local politics, and convince the wayward Americans to return to the Mother Country.

The Founding Fathers, in turn, demanded full allegiance to America.  For example, the definition of Natural Born Citizen required that both parents of the American in question had to be American citizens at the time of the birth of the subject in order for him to be considered natural born.  This would avoid people with divided loyalties from taking the presidency.

Assimilation was a key to becoming an American.  Immigrants were always welcomed, but under the condition that they properly navigated the processes of coming to America, and that they become fully American, and shed their loyalties to the country of their birth.

George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”

In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”

I am an American, through and through - and so is my wife.  She was born in Mexico, and naturalized in 2007.  If you ask her she does not say that she is Mexican, or Mexican-American.  She will tell you straight to your face, “I am an American.”

Assimilation and the Founding Fathers - Patriot Post :http://patriotpost.us/opinion/6308



















These Words from Obama Are Frightening -- and Revealing


It’s less than comforting to hear the President make light of terrorist threats.
In a recent interview with The New Yorker, President Obama referred to today’s al-Qaeda fighters as the “jayvee” team.

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” he said.http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=14

This shows that the Administration’s wishful thinking about al-Qaeda isn’t over. Obama and his fellow officials seem to think if you say something enough times, it will become true.
Before Benghazi, they claimed al-Qaeda was defeated and on the run. Four dead Americans later, this was proven false.

Then the President said we “cannot stay at war forever.” Again, a nice sentiment, but in the real world, war doesn’t end until both sides stop fighting.

Al-Qaeda is different today than it was on 9/11; that is true. But the new, decentralized version is not to be taken as lightly as Obama seems to.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/a-counterterrorism-strategy-for-the-next-wave

 We are still at war—only now with an enemy that is harder to pin down.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/60-terrorist-plots-since-911-continued-lessons-in-domestic-counterterrorism

And the enemy has determination, numbers, resources, and capabilities that we have to worry about. In fact, CNN reported earlier this month that “al Qaeda appears to control more territory in the Arab world than it has done at any time in its history.”http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obama-al-qaeda-jayvee

President Obama needs to drop the cute (and misplaced) metaphors and recognize these serious threats for what they are.

There have been at least 60 Islamist-inspired terrorist plots against the U.S. homeland since 9/11. Fifty-three of these were thwarted long before the public was ever in danger, due in large part to the concerted efforts of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/60-terrorist-plots-since-911-continued-lessons-in-domestic-counterterrorism

We must stay serious about fighting terrorism and equip our dedicated military, intelligence, and law enforcement organizations to do their jobs.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/a-counterterrorism-strategy-for-the-next-wave

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/60-terrorist-plots-since-911-continued-lessons-in-domestic-counterterrorism


The safety of American lives and American interests depends on it.