‎”War is the death of freedom because war is the health of Big Government.”
- Judge Andrew Napolitano

–
And, here is the text to the above (video) monologue.

At the time when The Constitution was being debated, there were two primary groups: One was The Federalists, who, at the time, were more like Nationalists, who believed in a powerful top down sort of Central Government, and The Anti-Federalists, who, had several reservations to the new Constitution, and strongly believed in the sovereignty of the states. In fact, it was the anti-Federalists who we can thank for our treasured Bill of Rights; as the anti-Federalists would not sign onto the new Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was guaranteed.

Sadly, after only a few short years of The U.S. Constitution being ratified, factions were already forming, as The Federalists, despite entering into a (Constitutional) contract with the rest of the states, began putting forth legislation that was an obvious abridgment to the sovereignty of the states, and well exceeded the Limited Powers given to The Federal Government.

Thomas Jefferson (anti-Federalist), who was George Washington’s Secretary of State, was often at odds with Alexander Hamilton (Federalist), Washington’s Treasury Secretary, in regards to many of Hamilton’s proposals. Most notably, The First National Bank of The United States.

Hamilton, eventually, made the first move, and formed the first national party, in post Constitutional America, called The Federalist Party. And, a year later, Jefferson and Madison formed The Democrat-Republican Party.

In fact, in Jefferson’s later years, in the early 1820′s, he wrote these very insightful words, after The Federalist Party had gone extinct during The War of 1812:

“An opinion prevails that there is no longer any distinction, that The Republicans and Federalists are completely amalgamated but it is not so. The amalgamation is of name only, not of principle. All indeed call themselves by the name of Republicans, because that of Federalists was extinguished in the battle of New Orleans. But the truth is that finding that monarchy is a desperate wish in this country, they rally to the point which they think next best, a consolidated government. Their aim is now therefore to break down the rights reserved by the constitution to the states as a bulwark against that consolidation, the fear of which produced the whole of the opposition to the constitution at its birth. Hence new Republicans in Congress, preaching the doctrines of the old Federalists, and the new nick-names of Ultras and Radicals. But I trust they will fail under the new, as the old name, and that the friends of the real constitution and union will prevail against consolidation, as they have done against monarchism. I scarcely know myself which is most to be deprecated, a consolidation, or dissolution of the states. The horrors of both are beyond the reach of human foresight.”

Certainly, over the years, there has been certain Presidents or Parties, who have been more friendly to Federalism and our Tenth Amendment; but, for the most part, and especially over the last few decades, we have seen an enormous growth in our Federal Government, and a shrinking sovereignty of our respective states. This is why I say, it is no longer about Republicans versus Democrats, but, rather, Federalism versus Nationalism; a battle that has been going on since the days of our Founding, and continues today.

In fact, not only was the amalgamation of Republicans, in the early 1820′s, in ‘Name Only,’ as Jefferson pointed out, but, I also believe that is the same for this modern Conservative amalgamation. Sure, we may call ourselves by the name of Conservatives and Republicans, but, in the end, it comes down to BIG GOVERNMENT versus Limited Government; and, Federalism versus Nationalism.

Not only did the 13 original states agree on a Limited Federal Government, to which Congress was given 16 Enumerated Powers, but, in my humble opinion, and with the unbelievable failures of our modern Federal Government, states’ rights, and a return to our original Federalist system, under our original Constitution, is becoming more imperative by the day!

“In modern usage, the phrase has become an adjective to describe a populace that no longer values civic virtues and the public life. To many across the political spectrum, left and right, it connotes the triviality and frivolity that characterized the Roman Empire prior to its decline.”

“This phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman poet Juvenal (circa 100 AD ). In context, the Latin phrase panem et circenses (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which has given up its birthright of political involvement. Here Juvenal displays his contempt for the declining heroism of his contemporary Romans. Roman politicians devised a plan in 140 B.C. to win the votes of the poor: giving out cheap food and entertainment, “bread and circuses”, would be the most effective way to rise to power.”

“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.” – Juvenal (Satire 10.77–81)

–
Wikipedia.org

Thank you Anheuser! Patriots, indeed!
–

–

–

Please join Dr. Charles Stanley, and fellow Americans, in 140 days of prayer for our great country:

–

–
Below is a table, linking to each verse, for all 20 weeks:

–

The history of the United States is mired with many tragic events, wars, popular and unpopular political leaders and outspoken critics of government. Certainly there is no shortage of those types of folks today, however there is a key difference between the political leaders of history and those of today. The missing ingredient – in this writers eyes – is honor. Many, and dare I say most, of our political leaders lack honor. Not ’honor’ in the classical sense, but rather an honor that is so deep that it is espoused as a permanent and integral part of their essence. This honor is of the highest magnitude, it surpasses doing what is right simply because it is right and it holds a stronger bond than any familial blood line; no, this honor is about doing what is right because not doing it would grate infinitely harsh against the inner core of your being, such that you would rather suffer immeasurable and irreparable harm than fail at preserving it.

Too often our political leaders view holding office as a power grab, despite their assertion otherwise. It ends up being their golden parachute or fulfilling an internal desire to be famous. Whatever the reasons may be, it is seldom that we find true statesmen. Who do we have, or have we had in our midst in the last 20 years that would begin to measure up against the bar set so high by those such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams. Certainly they exist, but unfortunately they are very rare. The political climate of today instead reflects the poor quality of self-deserving politicos who would rather do what is expedient for the purposes at hand and forgo doing that which is honorable.

The interesting thing here is that it stems not from politicians, but rather the citizens of this once great country who vote them into office because their personal needs would be better served by a political type buying votes as opposed to one doing what is right and just – honorable. Of course we must not forget those who do not vote, as an abstained vote is tantamount to condoning the status quo or roughly the same as a vote against the trailing candidate. But then this isn’t a lesson on why one should vote, but rather why it is important that we maintain the utmost respect for an institution that transcends individual desires.