We are desperately in need of some wise, and principled, shepherds!

And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Matthew 6:25-6:34 (NIV)

2.He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

3.He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

4.Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5.Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

6.Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Amen

Psalms 23 (KJV)

§ 1873. “It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions…”

–
In the above words, which came from one of our earliest Supreme Court Justices, makes it abundantly clear, that matters of faith were left solely to the states and to the people. And, not even The Supreme Court of The United States had a constitutional role in these matters.

–

And the same goes for people with the opposing point of view:
If a person feels we are not a Christian nation, then they need to come at it from the point of view that our Federal Government can not establish an official religion for The United States.

From my point of view, for the most part, we are a very tolerant and welcoming nation. And we should all respect each others’ freedom and faiths. However, if non-Christians would like Christians to be the most tolerant of other faiths, then non-Christians should also respect our heritage, and the traditional values that we, as Judeo-Christian Americans, hold dear.

–
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
–

Which makes it clear: if a state is ”invaded,” or in “imminent danger,” that state can act without the consent of Congress.

I am glad to see the states standing up to The Federal Government! If The Federal Government refuses to enforce their own Immigration Laws, then the states are left with no other choice but to enforce these laws, on, and within, their borders. It is interesting that Michigan is onboard with Arizona, as they are a northern border state, on The Canadian border. It will still be interesting to see how the courts decide on the shared federal/state jurisdiction of the border states.

In true Capitalism, at least in theory, people are able to keep most of the fruits of their own labors. In America, most of us believe, all charity should be voluntary; and most, if not all charity should come from private donations and faith-based organizations.

With Capitalism, in my opinion, people are more motivated, and more inclined to be productive, when there is a greater opportunity to earn more and “be in control of your own financial destiny.”

The American people, in general, have an intrinsic desire to be free; and to not have an over-bearing, over-taxing, and over-regulating central government, micro-managing our lives, and telling us when and how to be charitable.

And, despite what some may say, The American people, as a whole, are extremely charitable, and have proven this over and over throughout our 234 year history.

I would agree, it is less likely to effect them politically, on our northern border; however, from a national security point of view, terrorist groups could come in through the north, just as they can from the south!

Now we are seeing the ramifications of incompetence, by several administrations, over the past few decades!

That being said, it looks like our southern border is hitting a critical mass point! And what does The Obama Administration do? They take Arizona to court! Unbelievable!

Truth About The Illegal Immigration Controversy:
–

–

New Polls on Illegal Immigration:
–

–

“To fully appreciate how far we have moved away from the original designs of our founding documents, we must first understand where it is that our country came from.”

Indeed, that is spot on! It also gives us the road map to where we need to strive to get back to, if we are to survive as a nation! Often times, I feel, the more I learn about our founding principles, the more I grieve what is going on today, in this country. However, as you stated, if we do not understand our founding principles, then we will not fully appreciate what we are losing; and what needs to be done to preserve our great nation!

Honor, in my opinion, while it comes in several different forms, in our country, would be to work to restore our nation back to The Constitutional foundations that allowed us to achieve such greatness. Of course, such people, while most of us will perceive as honorable, are often met with much hostility; however, after some time, even the detractors come around and see, these are people of principle and not of personal gain.

While Americans absolutely have the right to agree or disagree with any particular war, the men and women that go to battle for our country, are intrinsically, and certainly, “very honorable people.” Such people put their country, and often, their own lives, before their own personal ambitions.

Treason is a word that is often used for disagreements with a particular persons’ actions, policies, or words; however, in The Constitution, our founders made it clear:

Article 3, Section 3:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

Clearly, it is not a word that was intended to be used, transiently, by political detractors, in a way to simply persecute or impeach; however, the far-left in this country, do have a questionable record of words, policies, and actions, that certainly can lead one to question their allegiance to our country.

–
Please take special note of his words, in the very last paragraph, “Confiscating Property,” on page 64 of the interview.

It is equally important for people to know, most of our founders that participated in the creation of our Constitution (1787), were anti-slavery. In fact, right from the start, 10 out our 13 original states wanted to permanently abolish slavery in The United States.

Charity comes willingly, from the hearts of those who can give… And not from coercion, or the force of government.
–
In the second verse, it is clear, we are Biblically instructed to treat all people “individually,” and with equal and fair justice… not depending on a person’s status, wealth, or lack of wealth. Through prayer and supplication, God will instruct us onto whom, and where, to focus our time and energy; and with whom to “voluntarily,” and cheerfully, share our wealth.

Even today, within Congress, we see factions and coalitions, within each party, and across parties, break on certain issues, or on certain bills; which is fine, and to be expected. However, if the country truly wanted to be unified, we could have a Constitutional Amendment, banning multiple parties from serving in Congress.

Having one unified party, following one Constitution, does not mean we will agree on all things; nor should we ever agree on all things; but sadly, party-affiliations seem to create a divide, long before the policy debates even begin.

We need to have short-term, and long-term goals!

Most importantly, we must hold the ones we vote for in the future, the most accountable! We can no longer excuse bad behavior by any elected officials!

1) I don’t care about politics and want nothing to do with politics; no I’m not going to take the time to review the candidates, so they go in a pull a party lever;
2) I’m just too lazy to do the work. I’d rather watch American Idol; and
3) I care about my country and the direction it is heading. I will get involved in the process.

Now since Obama has gotten into office, many more Americans have woken up and are in the 3rd category, but I’m surrounded by a majority of family members and business associates who don’t care.

Real Republicans have made the same mistake the old Democrats made. We have all let the Progressives move in and take over our party. I believe they have infiltrated the Democrat Party to the point of no return. However, if us Republicans (and those who used to be Republicans) step up and vote all the Progressive Republicans out, then we still have a chance.

I would love to see our country with no political parties, just citizens going to Washington to really represent the people and follow the Constitution. I believe if we work at squashing the Progressives and minimizing their influence on politics and society, then we could make headway in that direction. 

First and foremost, it needs to start in our schools. We need to figure out a way to bring up a new crop of Constitutional Conservative teachers in both our public grade schools and in our Universities. The Progressives have embedded themselves so deeply in those sectors, that we are assured of becoming a total socialist society.

I think I have read about The Llano del Rio Cooperative Colony in the past. I think the major difference between then and now is, we apparently have Socialists in the highest levels of our government; who can, and are, doing great financial damage to our nation!

At the very beginning of Ronald Reagan’s (above) 1961 speech, he mentions Norman Thomas by name. I still think it is very telling that Thomas, through his own words, admits that they have infiltrated The Democrat Party. I just wish that most Democrats realized this.

I think it would also be a great idea if states require a one month course in civics and “constitutional law,” for anyone who is elected (Representative or Senator) to Congress. Everyone is required to take an oath to our Constitution, but there seem to be few that truly understand and uphold our Constitution… according to it’s original intentions.

In our New Jersey State Constitution, the voting citizens do have the power of recall:

Article 1, Clause 2b:
The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress. The Legislature shall enact laws to provide for such recall elections. Any such laws shall include a provision that a recall election shall be held upon petition of at least 25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled. If legislation to implement this constitutional amendment is not enacted within one year of the adoption of the amendment, the Secretary of State shall, by regulation, implement the constitutional amendment, except that regulations adopted by the Secretary of State shall be superseded by any subsequent legislation consistent with this constitutional amendment governing recall elections. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.

I pray our Federal government will get the same courage that Governor Christie has shown!

However, I am starting to believe, it is not because they necessarily want Congress as the wholly-decider of all laws, but rather, they are using Congress as a way to get to their true goals… whatever those true goals may be.

And such goals can not be reached with we the people, standing in their way!

The sad news for them is, the great majority of American people love the founding principles upon which this country was built on, and won’t, so easily, relinquish their God-given rights as citizens of this country.

Nonetheless, this minority group of true leftists, in our country, are relentless and determined.

For quite some time, I have seen our country as The Democrat States of America, and The Republican States of America… And to that extent, I sometimes wonder if The Civil War really was a foregone conclusion…  This country may never be united; and perhaps, should be divided into at least two separate federations of states. A confederation of states, with no federal, or centralized government, could “potentially” work as well.

Constitutionally, where does it explicitly say, Congress can take from one group’s earnings, and give to another group, regardless of their economic circumstances?

I truly believe, this open admission by a United States Senator, could be considered
laundering of tax-revenues from The National Treasury! And by achieving this through a Congressional Bill, screams of  legal cover, and a serious breach of trust with The American people! It also raises questions of discrimination of individuals and certain groups of citizens.

I believe we should all be deeply concerned with these policies, and should potentially contact The United States Attorney General’s office… as well as our local state Attorney Generals… as well as bringing more public awareness to this very issue.

Even The President’s (above comment) own words, is a confession that the practice of “redistribution of wealth” is not, and never was, granted by our Constitution; nor by The Supreme Court!

If these people are not stopped, God only knows where they will stop! …

—
“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.” -Thomas Jefferson

–
2001 interview, on Chicago Public Radio Station WBEZ FM
You can listen to the full interview here.

Sadly, many people tend to be self-centered enough that as long as their worldview is being advanced, then parties and majorities are just fine…Then the tables turn, your party is in the minority, and all of a sudden, it is not fine!

The people need to decide, are we going to be a nation of laws, based on our Constitution, or a nation of competing political party platforms?

I would also add, when there are competing political parties, the chances of one Constitution being explicitly followed by Congress, are “much less” likely to happen.

The word Liberal, if not forever ruined, should be restored to its once classical meaning.

Of course, the classical definition of Liberalism, seems to have been replaced by modern day Libertarians. I would argue, not all people who call themselves Liberals, would necessarily (or knowingly) support Socialist policies; however, we know for a fact, most people who are Socialists in our country, rarely, if ever, will openly admit it. Therefore, we must make them reveal who they really are, so we know precisely who it is we are trying to remove from our government!

“But let there be no change by usurpation”

Similar to the above line, we have seen over the years, administrations and Supreme Courts rulings that have moved us frightfully away from many areas of (original understanding) our United States Constitution.

I truly believe, in order to force our Federal Government back on course, we need to do a few things:

1. Make Congress, and The President, constitutionally justify every law created.
2. And, as with each law, demand that Federal Court decisions be aligned with the original (Constitutional Law) understanding, as debated, and enumerated by our founders in The Philadelphia (ratifying debates) Convention. Do not let lawmakers and judges use Supreme (Case Law) Court decisions over the years as a guide to deciding on new laws. Constitutional Law is the foundation, and should always be used as the starting point for our Federal court system, and Federal lawmakers!

“for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed…”

As usual, great wisdom from George Washington! However, these above words, specifically, remind me of certain laws:

For example, while The Patriot Act was put in place by The Bush Administration to fight the war on terror; and may have been put in place with all the right intentions, who is to say an administration with ill-intentions could not use that same law against the people?

The Constitutionality on The Patriot Act (as with many laws) was highly contested, and it scared a lot of people when it was first created. I find some soles in knowing that it was created with Sunshine Provisions that cause Congress to revisit the law every few years; however, this is the law of unintended consequences that George Washington is referring to in his above statement on Constitutional Amendments.

We need to be careful to not allow usurpations to our Constitution, simply because it is your party, or person in power… Any additional power given to The Federal Government, that is not clearly enumerated in The Constitution, should be prevented by ALL people of good conscience… and lovers of freedom and limited government!

Those on the left are so indoctrinated with the idea of achieving short term “equality”, “social justice”, “environmental justice” etc. they are what the communists (now called “progressives”) have long referred to as “useful idiots”.

That is also a very good explanation…

There are certainly those who very well know precisely what they are doing: I see those people as very nefarious people who must be stopped; and yes, there are those who have been trained to believe certain doctrines. There are also those who have been so removed from any civics in this country, that they are still under a belief that the government is working for their best interest. Whether it be nefarious or naive, both groups, in their own rights, can be very dangerous to our freedom.

No doubt, deliberative attempts have been made to subvert our Constitution, and to disenfranchise everyday people from getting involved in the process. Thankfully, to a large extent, that is beginning to change. Let’s pray it isn’t too late!

The video only shows two of the many issues that were actually addressed, but it is certainly valuable to see how Mrs. Thatcher delivered her responses and how unflagged she was throughout the session… 

What a tremendous exposition by Mrs. Thatcher… total command of the subject, knowledgable, unshakeable… and so right… I’ll definitly be forwarding this on for others to be aware of…

Thanks…!

“many, especially on the left, claim to want more Democracy, yet they continue to vest more power into the federal government; which is essentially an Aristocracy”

Nicely explained, but they still won’t get it, unfortunately… 

Those on the left are so indoctrinated with the idea of achieving  short term “equality” “social justice” “environmental justice”, etc. they are what the communists (now called “progressives”) have long referred to as “useful idiots”. 

They only see the short term; only desire the immediate win; and for the most part are purely emotionally driven. 

Facts are of no use to them unless those facts give them a weapon to win with, otherwise facts are not worth discussing or contemplating.

For those on the left, “the ends justify the means” is their immoral stance and mode of operation, and they have no guilt or conscience regarding their actions, as “the ends justify the means”, and they believe what is right is for them to win and for you to lose. 

They do not care to reason, discuss or debate calmly to exchange information for the purpose of empowering both sides to a higher, more informed state. 

They choose to believe your arguments are simply your opinions, as that is how they operate, and so they choose to argue, to ridicule, to mock, to marginalize, to vilify, to turn any type of discussion into a personal attack on their opponents person, intelligence, mannerisms, or anything else other than the issue itself. 

If you manage to engage someone from the left who has a superior vocabulary and is willing to engage in discussion, they most often will chide their opponent, or badger them with interruptible verbiage as we so often see on CNN, MSNBC, far left radio, and so on…

In any case, your article will be useful and understood by those on the right who are looking for education and facts to support their understanding of long term and unintended consequences.  It clarified the position of the government as having set itself up as an Aristocracy, which is kinder than the term I use which is Dictatorship; as it does what it wants and ignores the will of the greater majority.

Those who agree with the dictatorship for whatever reason, don’t recognize that the system is broken, the legal and ethical process has been subverted, because again, to them, “the ends justify the means” even if it means on a far greater governmental level.

The immoral cannot recognize immorality, believing it is just if it gets them what they want.

A Marxist revolution, with great thanks to our Constitution, would not likely succeed in this country; plus, any such groups would likely be met, at gunpoint, by freedom-loving Americans. However, one way for them to get around a straight-out revolution, would be to overwhelm The National Treasury, through encouraging, and voting for, excessive spending and entitlements by the federal government.

If this is the “deliberate intentions” of such groups, these people should be either arrested, or immediately deported from our country, for reasons of subversion, and treason against The United States.

–
Please see:
The Cloward–Piven Strategy

The Utopian schemes of leveling
–
The United States form of government

It is an interesting interview, and I kind of see it both ways; however, government overriding The Constitution, is never a good idea, or proper solution to any problem.

–

“The more significant shortcuts are the public ones people can’t ignore. Churchill ordered the firebombing of Dresden just 12 weeks before the end of World War II. No one knows for sure how many civilians were burned alive, but tens of thousands surely were, in no small part to deliver a psychological blow to the Germans. If Churchill could have waterboarded a prisoner to avoid that — or stop the Holocaust — would one shortcut have been preferable to the other? Why? Or why not? Obama gives no sense he has an answer to such questions. You can ask the same questions about the shortcuts that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

A few years after the ratification of The Constitution, sadly, there were still differing governing philosophies in our country. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton formed The Federalist Party; in response, one year later, Jefferson and Madison formed The Democrat-Republican Party, in an attempt to stay true to the ratifying principles of our Constitution.

After The War of 1812, The Federalist Party fell apart, but The Democrat-Republican Party remained; which, as we can see by Jefferson’s words, was divided between The Federalists, and true Republicans.

While many who believed in the original understanding of The Constitution, called themselves Republicans from the inception of The Democrat-Republican Party, The Republican Party of today, was not officially created until 1854. The modern Democrat Party was created in 1844.

Interestingly, for some years, it was The Democrats, led by Andrew Jackson, who seemed to adopt much of The Jeffersonian principles, while The National Republican Party (1825–1833), led by John Quincy Adams, evolved into The Whig Party.

And this has been one of my long-standing problems with political parties:

As we can see, over the years, they have changed platforms, and principles; therefore, we shouldn’t be so shocked that some in The Republican Party of today, don’t hold true to the original Jeffersonian principles. And to that extent, in my opinion, the name a party uses, can be very misleading, and has been for many years. I would prefer to vote for individuals, who through their record, fall in line with Jeffersonian principles, as opposed to voting for a person merely because they called themselves a Republican.

I maintain a belief that parties will continue to change platforms in order to win votes from different constituents and geographics. Therefore, to call yourself a Republican, in principle, is a noble thing, as it relates to the original understanding our founding principles, and Constitution; however, don’t allow yourself to misled simply because that name is being affixed to a political party.

As with the left today, The Federalists, then, were attempting to strengthen the federal government, and consolidate the country under one sovereign, as opposed to the individual (sovereign) states. Sadly, to a some extent, Hamilton’s dream must have come true, today.

Sure enough, most Americans love their country as a whole; however, reality (let alone The Constitution) dictates, with 50 states, just as with the 13 original states, each state has individual goals and ideals for their respective states, and will likely, never except full (nationalization) consolidation. As Jefferson said, the idea of consolidation, and secession, both were frightening thoughts; and as we all know, secession did come, and likely will come again, unless the state’s sovereignty is fully recognized, and respected by the federal government.

Apparently, Jefferson was saying the exact same thing many conservatives are saying today: “Republican In Name Only”

1. Without irrefutable scientific evidence, Global Warming, and all science, remains theoretical; even though the speculators and alarmists will continue on with their rhetoric.

2. Governments do not exist to profit; they are mere managers of the general tax-revenues, and are hired to prudently use those tax-dollars to serve the general citizenry. Well, since governments do not produce anything, or exist to profit, they have to count on the citizens to support their very existence. Thus, every penny the government (overhead) spends, it takes away money from the (profitable) productive part of society. Therefore, common-sense dictates, the less you tax the producers in society, the more the producers will be able to spend on producing and hiring; and subsequently, sending even more tax-revenues to the government.

The most basic concept behind Keynesian Economics is, during times of recession, you need to prime the economic pump with revenue. Well, when the government, arrogantly, and presumptuously, uses the tax-payer’s money, and starts picking winners or losers, it creates an unbalanced, political, and unpredictable economy. When tax-revenues are evenly given back to the producers in society, the economy is starting from a zero-sum point, and the winners and losers are decided by the free-markets.

Either way, the financial pumps are primed, only the people who generate revenues for the economy, are the ones who have a motive to profit and compete. With lower taxation, more marketing and spending occurs; more hiring occurs; and the general population proposers, as a result.
–
Going back to political parties:
I wouldn’t be surprised if the two philosophies were divided almost evenly across party-lines; however, even if Democrats know tax cuts are the better solution for our economic growth, they are less likely to cross party-lines and agendas, to say that. And again, political parties exist to serve (their platforms) themselves first, and the people second.
–
And going back to repeal:
This is another reason why, it is becoming a moral-imperative to do away with The 16th Amendment, once and for all; and put in place a tax system that encourages economic growth and freedom; while funding a government based on The Constitution, and what the states, and the people, consider proper and just, in funding a federal government.

With economics in government, you have these economists in D.C. claiming that government has to solve the economic crisis by expanding credit and applying Keynesian principles of economics.  Then you have 1000s of economists who know better and say that you need less government intrusion, less taxes, and credit contraction. 

“People in Washington just cannot comprehend the fact that when they over tax the rich and businesses…”

Jackie,
I think they do comprehend… I would find it very hard to believe, top officials, in our government, do not have access to the best economists in our country.

Sadly, what me and you would think of as common-sense, they would disregard in the name of political-realities. Think about it: if they don’t perpetuate the class-warfare, and beat up on the rich, then who else can they blame when trying to push through their ill-fated, and completely, ideological, policies? This is yet, another example of partisan-politics! Instead of one party, or no parties, following one Constitution, they need to create platforms, and scapegoats, in order to push through “their agendas.”

“Mr. Elbridge Gerry expressed the concern that the Constitution as it was written would lead to a civil war because it didn’t adequately protect republicanism.”

Elbridge Gerry was truly one the good ones; an early Republican, who insisted on extra Constitutional assurances, from our new Federal Government.

Sadly, barely 4 years after ratification, the worse form of evils did emerge, and that was the inception of political parties, when Hamilton formed The Federalist Party; in response, Jefferson formed The Democrat-Republican Party, one year later. In my opinion, political parties, do represent a terrible (quasi) form of pure democracy… they are in perpetual civil war; battling over the same government; and often seeking a majority, in order to usurp the rights of their opposition. Hardly what our founders had in mind, at time of ratification. I hold Hamilton solely responsible, as he appeared to be the manipulative one who was seeking to push our new system of governance, closer and closer, to a monarchy.

As long as we have organized, political parties, I see little hope in national unity again. I wish we could all reject party affiliations, and work toward getting back to how our founders intended it to be, according to The Constitution.

–
Please also see:
Jefferson on the state of party politics

You did a fine job of explaining The 17th Amendment; but unlike you, I don’t believe the chances of repealing it, are as remote as they have been in the past… As long as I can remember, state’s rights, and state sovereignty, have not been more of a public discussion then they are today. I don’t think it would be really hard to get a Constitutional Convention to begin the process, but getting Congress to approve, may indeed, be the challenge.

Whenever I hear about repeal, and state sovereignty, most people tend to bring up The 17th Amendment… I happen to believe, The 16th Amendment, is the worse of the two evils… While The 17th is critical to putting a barrier between the people of the states, and the federal government, The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to directly tax the people’s income, from every state; consolidating these tax-revenues into the hands of a central authority, in Washington D.C. … and as we have seen, this money is being used for purposes never before imagined, and against the will of a great majority of the citizens.

I believe a new system of taxation needs to be instituted; administered at state-level; and tax-revenues, remitted to the federal government, by each state, according to the census of each state. (Taxation, directly equal to our Congressional representation)

If we could repeal The Sixteenth Amendment, do away with The IRS, and get some sort of system in place, like I described above, I believe, we could certainly regain much of our state sovereignty… while still working to repeal The 17th Amendment. If we could get both repealed, in one Constitutional Convention, that would be outstanding!

Yes, in 1913, under The Woodrow Wilson administration, The 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified, and The Federal Reserve was established. It was a Progressive dream, and a very bad year for state sovereignty. The states must have been terribly naive, or seriously misled, to ratify those two amendments.

I guess this could also fit into redundancy as well… We need to base our economic growth on several factors, and not just one…

Perhaps that gold rush mentality has been part of nation’s fabric for one too many years… I would like to see renewed ingenuity in manufacturing; as well as looser regulations, so that our nation’s entrepreneurs can get busy again!

However, it is clear to me, Ted is speaking for a person who is, or may be, the victim of a violent crime… and having the right to safeguard their own lives from someone who may be trying to take their lives, or the lives of a loved one.

Beyond that, Ted is 100% spot on! In case after case, these activist, or seriously misguided judges, allow sex-offenders etc. off with a slap on the wrist, or a light sentence; and these very same offenders become repeat offenders. I don’t know how our society has become so soft with hardened criminals, but we seriously need to reverse course; otherwise, we will never feel safe in our country, communities, or even our homes.

Judges need to practice jurisprudence, and not judicial activism!

It is so clear to me: in a roundabout way, Ted is describing the beauty of natural law; to which our founders created our Constitution. We are (for the most part) free people, who were intended to be governed by a limited government, with limited powers. And many of us share his frustrations with these so-called Progressives, who somehow feel, once they were “elected” into office, they can somehow circumvent our Constitution, and dictate to us, how to conduct all aspects of our life. You tell them Ted!… “Don’t Tread On Me”!

And over and over again, through their words, our founders clearly intended to create a government that had limited powers, with only the necessities for responsible governing, while allowing the citizens to maintain maximum freedom…

Sadly, many things they attempted (via The Constitution) to guard the citizens against, incrementally, and overtime, have come to pass…

A few examples:
–
In 1913, with the passage of the federal income tax, which today, has clearly (The 16th Amendment) gone way beyond it’s original intention, could be easily thought of as government-sanctioned “extortion.”
–
Today, and more publicly then ever, people (constituents) are seeing the morally reprehensible practice of lobbying for legislation, and government-sanctioned “bribery” of fellow Senators and Congressman, in order for them to vote a certain way, for a piece of legislation.
–
We also see several in corporate America, Labor Unions etc. who partner up with the government, to get laws passed to favor their industries/agendas, while ensuring those in positions of power, through campaign donations etc., to stay in power. This is often referred to as “Crony“ Capitalism. And sadly, because of such “government-sanctioned” criminals, Capitalism is often demonized by people who somehow can not distinguish between the crooks, and the honest, hardworking people, who only want the same God-given opportunities to prosper, as fellow United States citizens.
–
Once the government began usurping their Constitutional limitations, it opened up an unfettered door to create any legislation “they deemed necessary,” and thus creating, and (controlling) regulating any agency “they said” would protect the people, when in fact, such agencies have facilitated, and enabled even more frivolous and irresponsible behaviors that we were once “constitutionally protected” against.
–

I have a feeling, if Thomas Jefferson were here to see these things, he would be calling to bring back public hanging!

And the question remains, how do we now separate criminals from honest people who want to enter into the government, to prudently, and constitutionally, serve our nation, while weaning out those criminals who are hiding under the cover of, and protection of, currently elected officials?

It is true, however, these people, on the far-left, are so on the fringes, that most people simply can not relate to their worldviews.

Do you know, this progressive movement started in The U.S. in the early 1900′s? Not something I am proud of; I can’t stand these Progressives! Over the years, they have so disrespected our Constitution, and via public school textbooks, have succeeded in semi-revising American history, in regards to our founding fathers, and some other historical events.

Basically, The Progressive moment invited such systems as Communism, Marxism, and Socialism, into our political system! It is like a cancer that has been growing, under the radar, for many years!

If you take away the obvious atrocities, committed by Mao, Stalin and Hitler etc., there are very striking similarities between Progressive (far-left liberal) policies, and those dictators, who “radically” attempted to alter the social landscapes in their countries.

“It is a déjà vu from the 60s, when the hippies were rebelling…”

Interesting you should say that! While I love the music of the sixties, and some good things did come out of the sixties, I have recently learned, that many of these aforementioned systems, were also a very big backdrop, in the sixties movement. In fact, there are now several elected officials in (The Democrat Party) Congress, who have come directly from the sixties movement.

“for I really want everybody to have his or her own opinion and feel how that fits in with their culture.”

I am somewhat of a Libertarian as well, and in The United States Constitution, we have The Tenth Amendment, which basically says, any powers not given to the federal government, are reserved for the states, and the people. However, these people have been successful at pushing their agendas to the national level; and in a nation that was discontent over The Bush Administration, sadly, and overwhelmingly, the people just decided to vote for The Democrat Party; and out of the woodwork came these Progressives, who gained much power in Congress, and in The White House! It is very disconcerting, to say the least!

Thankfully, there is real momentum in the states to re-establish their state sovereignty, which would reject most of these far-left policies! Hopefully, in the near future, we can eradicate these nuts from our federal government! Perhaps that is the silver-lining… Now that these far-left politicians have had a chance to, so irresponsibly, govern our nation, it has galvanized this nation so much, that the change, likely needed, for many years, is now gaining momentum. Hopefully it will not end in a second American Revolution… if it does, then so be it!

–
In The United States, the (our Constitution) system our founders developed: for many years, gave the people of this country, maximum freedom, with limited government. The far-left believes in a strong, centralized, and often, authoritarian government.

Our former President, Ronald Reagan, once said these words…
“as government expands liberty contracts”

Those five simple words could serve as a formula (foundation) for any people who want maximum freedom, while acknowledging that some form of (order) government is, a necessary evil.

Yes I was referring to those Progressives. It strikes me that so many young people feel they belong there. It is a déjà vu from the 60s, when the hippies were rebelling against their parent, just for the power-boost that gave them, only this time they really seem to believe in the carrot dangling in front of their faces. That worries me, for I really want everybody to have his or her own opinion and feel how that fits in with their culture. But this time we are talking about the same culture (hopefully). So there must be a logical mistake in their (or our?) reasoning somewhere. The duality drives me into the core of my thinking (and I am blogging about it).

He says, “you crazy SOBs, you right-wingers, do you not understand, that the people you hold up, as heroes, bombed your f-ing country? …”

Paraphrasing:  He goes on to say, our government was basically responsible for 911, and conservative media is complacent. Already then Mike, have some more of that kool-aid!

“Americans need to quit “laying down on the job” and get busy helping other people”

Jackie,
In the above, Grover Cleveland (quote) post, he mentioned the exact same thing you are saying…

“…while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Except, you stopped short of making the connection that the more government intercedes, the less incentive and motivation people have. As you know, we see this in many areas of government interventionism… At home and abroad.

This is becoming even more apparent, these days, up in NYC, as Mayor Bloomberg is telling restaurants how much salt they can use when preparing their meals. That is really bizarre to me, and it seems way beyond the scope of what any “elected” official should really get involved in.

Clearly, many of our elected officials went from good, responsible, managers, to paternal care-givers; and this needs to stop!

Some of these things, like cigarettes, are a slippery-slope, grey-area… While I respect and appreciate all people’s personal liberties, undoubtedly, second-hand cigarette smoke is a public health problem, and has been shown to effect healthy citizens as well. Now, the slippery-slope of government, was to tell private businesses, you must ban smoking. 

I am definitely more for incentivizing, and informing people, as opposed to mandating and controlling people. For example, food products, and menus, having labels that tell people the types of fats, calories etc. Then, if you decide to indulge, it could be to your own peril. Likewise, if restaurants allow cigarette smoking, place signs up that say, this is a smoking facility, smoking can be hazardous to you health. Therefore, you have been warned, and the business has no liability.

A big portion of the problem may lie in getting our health insurance system straightened out, once and for all…If everyone could have access to affordable health care, perhaps, local governments would feel less responsibility to manipulate people’s way of living.

Certainly, there is something about The Progressive’s mindset that seems to have this unwaivering desire to control society; however, with enough resistance, perhaps there can be some balance restored. If not, the freedom loving people will eventually rebel against government, and start raising their “Don’t Tread On Me” flags again.

“…the marketing of policy by state controlled media. The president is not the person in power; the leftist elite is.”

Indeed, we have our share of left-leaning, elitist, media organizations as well; however, they are, thankfully, folding like lawn chairs. Foxnews, which is more center-right, is doing better then ever. I have watched Foxnews since September of 2001, and have found them to be a reliable source for hard  news. Do you know, a few months ago, President Obama, himself, went to war with Foxnews, but was easily defeated, as even many of the far-left, in this country, thankfully, still appreciate our 1st Amendment right to Free-Speech… Apparently more then The President, whose job it is to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.

In your comment, it sounds like you are referring to these Progressives? They drive me nuts! They seem more concerned with the protection and feelings of terrorists, then they do with the lives of the people they are (elected) hired to protect.

This whole culture of political-correctness does nothing except to jeopardize “innocent” people’s lives. For whatever reason, after WW2, it seems like countries are no longer fighting wars to win, but rather to “win hearts and minds.” I often say, “how about we first win the war,” then concern ourselves with hearts and minds? After a while, this liberal-guilt, and political-correctness, really becomes intolerable!

One thing you did not mention, was the potential vulnerability of cyber-attacks/cyber-terrorism, aimed at our power grids etc. While technology is a splendid thing, it also makes us increasingly more vulnerable.

Haiti is, indeed, a major disaster of cataclysmic proportions; and unlike The U.S., their infrastructure was a disaster waiting to happen. In comparison, on smaller scale, I suppose we could look at the breach of our aging levees when Katrina hit; displacing many people, and causing social chaos for quite some time.

911 was another event that clearly pointed out how The U.S., with all of our technology and capabilities, is always very vulnerable, if our guard is let down in key elements, such as intelligence gathering and national-security.

Lastly, I have also been thinking about collective societies as well, over the last year, with the near financial collapse of ’08. Indeed, there are some very astute survivalists out there, who are prepared for a near, or complete breakdown of our system. And there are scores of people who have invested in tangible assets, such as gold, to at least guard against a hyper-inflation scenario. It makes you wonder how much more vulnerable we are, if our own government continues on this reckless path of spending. Short of foreign invaders, or natural catastrophes, we could very well fall on our own sword, through lose fiscal policies, and/or a complete social breakdown. At which point, foreign invaders very well could come in for the kill.

None of these thoughts are very pleasant, but after 911, if we learned anything, it is that we are not as insulated as we may have once believed.

All electricity, computers, water plants, etc are destroyed due to electro-magnetic pulses from a star that exploded in space. The “what-if” books do a good job showing the chaos that such a catastrophe would cause.

Please listen to Bill’s Talking Points…
–

If our government would have followed it’s Constitutional mandate, and used The Public Treasury ONLY for what they were given the legal rights for which to do so, we would not likely have the current mess we have today… with unfunded mandates etc.

Incidentally, The American people have already donated 10′s of millions of dollars to the people of Haiti… We DO NOT need the government to decide which charities are the best investments with the general tax-revenues. The American people always have, and always will, step up to the plate, to help those in need, here and abroad.

“Not negotiating behind closed doors”

Does that “promise” exclude your meetings with the heads of BIG Labor Unions, Mr. President?

And for the record, I agree 100% with the president: let’s broadcast “all” of the health care debates on C-Span; or any “nationally broadcasted” media of their choice.

I have said this many times, but it is worth repeating: “I have never been offered a job from a poor person.” I am totally sympathetic to the poorest among us; however, commonsense dictates, the more the government tries to extort from the general population, the less charitable the general population will become.

Perhaps, instead of discouraging people from getting wealthy, which clearly is not working out so well, the government should try incentivizing “more people” to become more wealthy, by allowing for more economic freedom, and encouraging more charity, instead of continuing to blame all economic problems on the (most inventive and industrious) ones who have “truly” created the most opportunities in this country.

The obtainment of wealth was never guaranteed by our founders; however, the path for the general citizenry to become wealthy, come not have been much better.

Constitutionally, the court majority was correct… income tax was unconstitutional, as it was a direct tax that was not apportioned equally among (the census) the population.

–
Please also see:
Should income tax in The United States be illegal?

Also, most of us are not overly concerned with the rights of these fanatics; nor do most of us oppose their heads being dunked under water, if it will save the lives of fellow Americans.

When it comes to 300 American lives, we DO NOT get second chances! Perhaps it is time to put these “over-ambitious” social programs aside, and start making national security a fulltime job. If you put less emphasis on the rights of “known” terrorists, and make the safety of “our citizens,” and nation, your first priority, then I can assure you, Mr. President, most (rational) American people will get behind you.

As if The 16th Amendment wasn’t bad enough, you raise a great point: the government gives a person money for property that they have likely paid for over many years, or have paid off; then, they hit you for taxes on the money they have given you, as if it were income. In my mind, taxing income is not only ludicrous, but it is downright immoral, and should be made unconstitutional; as it once was in The United States.

-

–

–
“…But The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”
–

2001 interview on Chicago Public Radio Station WBEZ FM
You can listen to the full interview here.

Consider Eminent Domain:
The Government can appropriate privately held property for its own use or for what it deems to be the public good. It must in return compensate the owner at fair market value. Well and good, but consider that once the deal is done, the former owner must pay taxes on the money that he has received for his property. The implication is that money is not property and that it can be seized without due process.

You will notice that I did not differentiate between federal, state, and local governments. I see no more point in doing so than in differentiating thieves who have stolen my property. The crime is the same regardless of who the perpetrator is.

And there are those who may understand the truth, or have a lack of evidence, but don’t want the status-quo to change; and therefore, will defend their position until the end of time.

In Article 1, Section 8 of The United States Constitution, Congress was given the power, and duty, to create laws of citizenship for The United States:

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”

While the great majority of American citizens, appreciate the tradition of immigrants that have come to our country over the years, and who have made great contributions to our nation; all too often, the people who want the immigration laws enforced the most, are often criticized as not being compassionate people.

Consider this…
When people migrate to our country, legally, they learn (civics) some of our history, our system of governance, and need to read, write and speak basic English; all which certainly would help them to better assimilate into our nation; but even more importantly, after being granted citizenship, they have all of the same rights, under the law, as any other citizen.

Now, consider this…
If people come here illegally, and begin to work for someone, what is to stop the person who is employing them from treating them however they like? I am sure there are many decent people who treat their employees well, legal or not; however, there is certainly the potential, and reality, that many illegal immigrants are treated very badly…
–
(e.g. very poor working conditions; working ungodly hours; being paid as little as the person who employs them, wants to pay them for their work; and potentially, much worse crimes, and injustices, to them and their families)
–
If a person is here illegally, and are afraid that any moment, they could be reported to the federal government, and “potentially” thrown in jail, what recourse do they have, other then to meet the demands of their employers?

I can understand why people would want to come to a wealthier nation to provide better for their families…etc… and while there are certainly a plethora of reasons why these laws should be strictly enforced… on the issue of human rights alone, from my point of view, the compassionate person is the one who insists that these laws be properly enforced.

All people who migrate to The United States need to have the same rights as the rest of us naturally born citizens; therefore, need to go through the proper and lawful procedures to obtain those rights and “privileges” of citizenship. At which point, they too would have “security and freedom.”

“Our dialogue has piqued my interest in the Founders”

That is great to hear… I think! : )

Prior to reading The Constitution, and reading more into our founder’s intents, when drafting The Constitution, I use to believe the federal government could make any laws they felt necessary. Certainly they have a presumption that they can; but that is not in accordance with the initial intents of our founders when creating our federal government. 

The independent states existed prior to the federal government; and by consensus of the states, the federal government was created, and given limited powers – if we didn’t read back, or get educated on that fact, that would be hard to determine by the way our federal government has evolved overtime.

I agree with you 100% , and have said similar things about The Constitution being very open to interpretation; however, there is plenty to find and read from Madison, and some of our other founders, that explained, explicitly, what “their intentions” were when drafting the document. Sadly, over the last 100 years, too many judges have (mis) interpreted The Constitution out of political expediency, rather then truly trying to align their interpretations with the intents of our founders. And legislatures, today, do not even refer to The Constitution when creating laws.

“We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton’s country, a mighty industrial nation with a strong central government.” – George F. Will

That is a great quote, and so totally true! Hamilton started The Federalist party, which was the first political party in our system of government. The Federalists believed in a stronger central government; and sadly, Hamilton, as The first Treasury Secretary, convinced Washington that we needed a Central Bank– which became The Bank of America, and is the ancestor of today’s Federal Reserve.

A year after the formation of The Federalist Party, Jefferson formed The (anti-Federalists) Democrat-Republican Party, and they espoused the limited government, states rights etc., which was the intention when The Constitution was drafted and ratified.

Today, philosophically, it seems The Democrats are today’s Federalists, and The Republicans, The anti-Federalists.

“We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton’s country, a mighty industrial nation with a strong central government.” – George F. Will

More to come…

I believe Jefferson is saying, you must attempt to have a balance between your individual freedom, and the natural desire to seek security…

Indeed, if you become beholden to government for everything in life, they can certainly dictate the terms of your entire life.

Conversely, if you have total freedom from government, then you would have no protection from hostile forces that may surround us, as citizens.

Therefore, our founder’s solution really made sense… to have a limited government that will provide for the most basic of needs for the general population, while maintaining maximum freedom in the choices that you make in life, as citizens of The United States.

I believe, our founders, so wisely, and thankfully, understood the delicate balance between security and freedom.

We are a Constitutional Republic, as we have (representation) a say in our government… a true democracy is when the people, and majority rules.

Those words are very astute for sure… I completely agree with the premise: For too many years, due to these big government programs, and too many promises from the national treasury, our government has an unbelievable amount of unfunded liabilities; and with the unbelievable amount of national debt we have, I really do not see how we will not collapse (financially) under lose fiscal policy.

If you examine the above stages of democracy, we have been in the stage, “complacency to apathy,” for many, many years. If this overambitious spending, by our federal government, is not stopped soon, we are rapidly going from “apathy to dependence.” Once the people completely lose control of their own financial destiny… God help us, we can very well go from dependence, back to an autocracy.

“A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury.”

By the time of his death, which democracies could he have studied to determine this pattern of events?  This would had to have been at least one example of a direct or representative democracy where the principle of majority rule was established that eventually failed due to failed fiscal policy as described.

The pattern of (theortical or historical) events described does seem well-reasoned and consistent with human nature, however.

Our founders were certainly not Gods, but were irrefutably, men of God. I have a great respect for them, and their wisdom. I totally understand and agree with your assertion that much has changed, in our nation, since the ratification of The Constitution… and such amendments, as The Thirteenth Amendment (1865), which freed the slaves, and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), which asserted equal protection to all people in The United States, were both valid and necessary. This takes me back to my earlier point: our founders were well aware that The Constitution could not likely remain a static document; and with that realization, they gave us the procedure to amend The Constitution; thus making it possible for amendments such as The Thirteenth Amendment, through consensus of the states to happen. That procedure alone, demonstrates the pragmatic, and just nature of our founders; as opposed to an authoritarian and static document.

That being said, it was through the incessant, and arguably, abusive amendments to our Constitution, by 20th century Progressives, that turned an extraordinary amount of power over to the federal government; and through these subtle encroachments, we have ended up where we are today… in another struggle for the freedom and liberty that our founders gave to us, but also warned, we will need to fight for, if we are to keep it. Many do not realize, in The Constitution, our founders clearly said, no direct taxes shall be laid, unless apportioned to the states; then, in 1913, The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, allowing the federal government to tax our income directly. I have no doubt, our founders would be outraged over that! To me, it was one of the biggest blows to state sovereignty, in our history.

I have not read extensively on this subject, but from what I have read, the whole tradition of slavery, was a tradition that came to our shores, via the laws and traditions of our motherland, Great Britain. Undoubtedly, and historically, it is well-documented that the issue of slavery was an issue that our founders struggled intensely with. In fact, George Washington, in his will, set all his slaves free.

You are correct… keeping with the direction of The Constitution, Congress did make it against the law to import slaves into The United States, in 1808; however, these laws were not well-enforced, and you are correct, slaves were still traded within The United States.

That rationale was not my own, it was the rationale of our founders…
In order to build a union with the southern states, and have a unified Constitution ratified, many concessions, and compromises were necessary. Clear-minded people can easily conclude that keeping slaves, and asserting that all men were created equal etc., was a direct contradiction. And again, there is much historical info to read on this subject: many of our founders were adamantly against slavery and would have chosen to abolish slavery immediately; however, slavery was so integrated into the commerce of the colonies and states, that sadly, our country “would not have formed” by abolishing slavery from the onset; and it took a bloody war to finally end slavery. And again, slavery was a moral tragedy, but at least from my point of view, it was not a subject that was just swept under the carpet; it was rigorously debated by our founders; some Constitutional steps were made to end it; and with a praise from God, slavery would end, and the union survived. I think that says a lot about our ability to right what is wrong in our nation, and still survive. I pray, we can get through these present day struggles, and somehow find unity again; but once again, our nation is bitterly divided.

Women also had to fight hard for their rights in this country; as well as Jewish people, and many other groups…

I don’t believe my position on The Tenth Amendment would necessarily had stopped civil rights laws… Congress, by a two-thirds vote, and three-fourths approval by the states, could have just as well addressed the same laws, through amendments to The Constitution, or by consensus of the states. After all, that is how we handled The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Again, I am not challenging the validity of the Civil Rights Act; I am very thankful for those laws; I am saying, The Tenth Amendment was given to us, by our founders, to protect us from the federal government being able to usurp all of our state’s rights. And what has happened over the years? The federal government did just that! We have very little to no state sovereignty anymore.

Without making this a long discussion, consider this:
Suppose a state like Maine or California voted, and made it legal for gay people to get married… Now, according to your thinking, the federal government could, conceivably, tell the sovereign state of Maine, you MUST stop allowing gay people to get married! And that is an example of exactly why our founders gave us The Tenth Amendment. And the federal government’s arrogance came over a hundred or more years of constitutional amendments, subversions, and assumptions that they could swallow up all rights that our founders, intrinsically, preserved for the states, and the people of the states. If you do an insightful study of political history, you will see that power corrupts, and has no boundaries, if allowed to continue on, unchecked.

I can not speak for all conservatives, but the ones I have spoken to, really just want the laws to be followed, as directed by our own Congress. Again, without a real long discussion on this subject, consider our immigration laws… Our immigration laws are written by Congress…they clearly made laws that give people a clear way to come to our country, work hard, and over time, become legal citizens. I think it is great that we are a diverse and tolerant nation, but when conservatives get upset with people incessantly entering our country illegally, a lot of liberals get mad at them; and again, all conservatives are saying, is: Congress, “you created the laws,” so please, enforce them!

I can tell you with 85% certainty, that the populace conservative movement you are seeing today, came from many years of frustration with a growing federal government, out of control spending by both parties etc; as a result, many conservatives began diving into our constitution, for the first time, this year… and boy is it eye-opening when you see how far removed we are from our original foundation. Do you know, Congress no longer refers to our Constitution when creating laws? Therefore, what law can they not make? Where does the power of the federal government end? I think all liberals and progressives should be asking these same questions… as a federal government with no limits, will eventually swallow up all of our civil liberties, and freedoms.

And again, I don’t disagree with you… clearly the country has grown, and many things have changed; however, if you really dive into The Constitution, and really read the intentions behind it, you will find, our founders had a lot more foresight then you may realize. All I am asking; and most conservatives are asking, is for our law-makers to use The Constitution for it’s foundation when creating laws. As I said in the post: I am looking for uniformity, and continuity, again, in our nation; and by using The Constitution as our foundation, we will all be playing from the same handbook.

Here is where we have slightly opposing views: I often think, Progressives, and Liberals, don’t want The Constitution to be relevant today, because they want to have an almost anything goes society; and with little restrictions… of course, I may be wrong.

I believe, the best thing we can all do, is to assert our Tenth Amendment rights… As long as the federal government has an absolute rule over us, then no matter what state you move to, you are always at the mercy of the laws that the federal government create; as opposed to having the freedom to migrate to a state that best affords you the life style of your chosen. For most of us, our founders gave us maximum freedom… today’s federal government is minimizing our freedom, more and more, with each passing year.
–
Please also see:
The Founding Fathers and Slavery

The federal government was (is) meant to remain limited, and the states, were to remain sovereign…except for the “limited powers” given to the federal government, by The Constitution.

From George Washington’s Farewell Address

Of course, when I speak for conservatism, I can not speak for all conservatives, but only from my perspective:

All your points are well taken, but let me see if I can challenge, or correct a few things…

George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation, conceded that things would likely evolve and change in time, which is why “our founders made it possible” to amend our Constitution: Article 5 of The United States Constitution

How many representatives each state has in Congress, is decided by (the census) the population of each state…The founders realized, by keeping the citizenry count lower, in the states that had (or advocated for) slaves, would give those states less representation in Congress; thus making it increasingly harder for Congress to vote for legislation that would prolong slavery, indefinitely… And that is why slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. On the surface, the Three-fifths compromise sounds cold, but with better understanding, the less the slaves were counted, in the census, at the time, the less power the states who owned slaves would have.

Our founders also constitutionally banned the importation of slaves as of 1808; thus keeping the amount of slaves, in The United States, from growing.
I stand corrected: Our founders, in compromise, constitutionally prohibited the abolishing of the slave trade until 1808… On New Year’s Day of 1808, Congress officially ended the slave trade in The United States forever.

Certainly, there were enough who wanted to abolish slavery from the onset, including Benjamin Franklin; however, we may have had a Civil War before the union even had a chance to get started. As we all know, that very issue did contribute to a war, between the states, 100 years later. As to The American Indians, they were not taxed; therefore, were not counted at all, in the census.

To your other point: The Constitution is a great framework, and one which all current laws should have their foundations grounded in by Congress. I am yet to meet a conservative that is looking to go back to a life-style of 1776, but we “do not want” Congress to have this untethered power to think they can create any laws as they see fit; which is precisely what they have done for all too many years.

If they continue to legislate that way, then they are essentially making The Constitution null and void; and we are no longer living in a “Constitutional” Republic, but rather, an illusion of one, only to get the powerful, and connected, elected, and re-elected to office.

Also, consider what you are saying…
If you read The Bill of Rights, we are so fortunate that our founders gave explicit powers to the people of this nation; and if you allow Congress to continue their subversions of our Constitution, then those first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights), could very well be next.

To your point on social issues…
I totally believe in The Tenth Amendment…
–
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
–
Therefore, the federal government should “not be involved in any social issues, or issues of faith,” whether it be for conservative or liberal causes. And again, the more the federal government stays out of the business of making laws that they were never given the power to make, the more freely a state, or the people of the respective states, can make their own laws, in regards to those things.

The Founder’s were wise men that created an excellent framework for future generations to build on but the Constitution is NOT a static document.  It is unlikely that the Founders even intended it to be so.  The Constitution established the federal system of government by explicitly enumerating the powers of the federal government and reserving all unenumerated powers to the respective states.  Yet in another revered historical document in U.S. history that preceded the Constitution it is clearly stated that Governments are instituted among men to secure certain “unalienable Rights” (“among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”) for all men and “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”
I think the fact that government and the means of governance were intended by the Founders to evolve with time is something that many conservatives steadfastly ignore in their desire to turn the social clock back to decades and centuries past.

—

Please also see:
Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Constitution and Freedom

In other words, the federal government is (in theory) constitutionally limited to how much they can influence state governments, and the laws of each state; but as far as I can see, there is nothing that says, the people, and the legislators of each state, should not attempt to influence the people elected to the federal government, or the policies of the federal government.

Therefore, I see no reason why fellow Americans should not bond together, and get behind the election of state legislators, even if they are from different states, and do not have a direct vote for those respective individuals. This would make much more sense in the case of Senators and Congressman, as they can directly influence other states through their votes in Congress.

Now, prior to 17th (1913) Amendment, the state legislators actually voted for The Senators of their respective states. Clearly, we have deviated very much from the initial intents of our founders.

After all, who am I to try to make people get involved? I would not have liked it if people forced me to get involved, way back when I had no desire. Also, I think, many people are still too complacent and/or apathetic… They may say things such as, The United States has been through hard times, in the past, and we have come through it. To some extent, they may be right. On the flip side, if people like me, you, and other conservative Americans, had not turned up the heat, big time, on these far-left liberals, God only knows what may have passed, and how taxes, health care etc. may look today.

It is natural for some to get mad; to a large extent, you (we) may be forcing people to think of things that are uncomfortable to think about. You must take solace in knowing that you did speak up and speak out, and leave the rest in God’s hands. Everyone in life will suffer the consequences of their own actions, and inactions.

Keep in mind, after The Declaration of Independence was signed, there were still many loyalists to The King (crown) of England. The founders had to arrive at a point to where they peacefully acquiesced from the loyalists, and did what they thought was best for their future lives and security. I chose to focus more energy on people who are of like-mind with me.

I used to number among their ranks.  I can tell you that those people (if they bother to go to the polls) will just vote the party line.  They do this because they have been watching American Idol instead of Fox News (i.e. not keeping up with what is going on) and they do not know the candidates and therefore feel safer just voting along party lines; hoping the candidate will take care of them.

How do you get these people to care?  I feel it will only get worse as our education system will be working to push out more progressive liberals and “back-seat” conservatives don’t join the ranks of us who are concerned, so that we can make a difference.

That certainly was not a very dignified thing for her to do after Newt endorsed her.

I hope that people like Newt Gingrich will stand firm for “Conservative” candidates going forward, even if they are not running on a Republican ticket; otherwise, this is the kind of thing we can expect.

My feeling is, even if Scozzafava would have made it to Congress on the Republican ticket, she would have amounted to another party-flipping Arlen Specter.

We desperately need less political expediency, and more firm, and honest leadership in this nation. The people are awake, and they will not be as easily fooled anymore.

In fact, I recently heard Mike Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh saying similar things, in reference to third parties… Third parties will split the vote, and we will end up with more liberal Democrats etc. Personally, if I had to make a choice, I would take a moderate Republican over a far-left Democrat any day.

That being said, we are at a time in our country to where it has become imperative to select the people who we feel are best qualified, over the person who has the better chance of winning because they are backed by some powerful party and all it’s money. If we continue to compromise our values for the sake of party alliances, then we will forever be stuck with the status quo, and never see the desperately needed reform in our federal government.

Again, I completely understand their rationale, and I still respect Newt Gingrich, Michale Steele, Mike Huckabee etc. as much as ever. Change is not easy for everyone, but over time, if a few people start getting elected, running on a Conservative Party ticket, then I would not be surprised to see people like Newt Gingrich getting behind them.

At this point, in our history, we really do need to remain united with like-minded people, and all of those who sincerely want positive change for a better America, based on conservative principals.

As conservatives, we should have high standards, but let’s be careful to not make them so high that no one is worthy…

On social issues, we are going to have differing opinions… some people believe the federal government should have a bigger role on social issues, and some, like myself, feel as though each state should make their own laws in regards to more personal issues. After all, aren’t we, as conservatives, already “fed” up with the federal government’s intrusion into our lives? Why would we want to give them even more power to intrude?

In my opinion, in national elections, I think it is important for conservative Americans to rally around the core issues that most Americans can relate to, while working to get the federal government out of the social, and much more personal issues, that should be handled by each state, respectfully. After all, isn’t that what The Tenth Amendment is about?

Conservatives and The Constitution
–
The two party establishment in Washington DC

It really is ashame that so many Americans do not seem to realize, it is not really about being a Republican or Democrat, left or right… freedom is a belief in the vision that I founders set forth for our nation. And, as Ronald Reagan eluded to, the more power that you give to a central government, the less liberty and freedom you can expect to have.

Really? If that is the case, then I want a total opt in/opt out option at any given time. And who are we suppose to call if we are unhappy with the provided services? The Better Business Bureau?

We know, from the past, the federal government doesn’t give us an opt in/opt out option for programs like Social Security and Medicare; and they are working out so well that many of us will likely never see a dime of the money they have “involuntarily” taken from our income.

At all costs, a single-payer system must be rejected by The American people! Otherwise, the outcome will likely be the same as the rest of these programs, and with much worse ramifications.

Precisely, what your parents went through, is what any person in business would go through, in a single-payer system, if they get buyer’s remorse. The average employee would have absolutely no choice whatsoever, in a single-payer, income tax, subsidized plan. Not to mention, the cost, inevitably, will go up overtime.

Some plan, in some fashion, could workout, but I would insist that I have the option to pay for it out of my net income ONLY. All American people, even the most liberal among us, must NOT allow the federal government to start another program that gives them the power to extort more money, involuntarily, from our income.

Please, hold on to and treasure what freedoms we have left. The more power you give the federal government to tax your income, the more freedom the states, and we the people of the states, will loose.

On the tax end of it: if you don’t pay your taxes, you are levied heavy penalties and interest, and then if you continue not to pay, they will empty out your checking, savings and anything else they can find. I would imagine eventually you would go to jail. I know my parents had an IRS problem years ago and it was horrible! They literally made my parent’s life a living hell.

No rational person wants to see violence, or bloodshed; however, after what our government has done, over the last year, and continues to do, I see less and less chances for things to get better, with each passing day.

For me, things over the last year, have been insufferable; and I often wish we could just get to the inevitable.

I do not see this government reforming themselves, even with a change in parties; and “sadly,” the people are so divided, I am seeing less and less chances for unity there either. I wish I was wrong!

I sometimes wish we could literally partition The United States into two separate countries, where us conservatives can go live, according to The Constitution and our founding values, and The Liberals can go live however they so desire.

Having said that, sadly, it is the government and political parties that keep the people divided, and this government does very little to change it.

The only hope for our nation is, if the people could unite under our Constitution, and founding values, and together, remove this reckless, and useless current government of ours.

Here is Bill O’Reilly on that subject…

Perhaps, the more the general citizenry understands our Constitution and founding principals, the more we can start coming together, as a nation, to work toward these common goals.

I would never insist that anyone is dropped abruptly from any program that they have come to depend on, but indeed, we need to work on getting away from these programs and “empowering” individuals again, as opposed to relying on tax-payer subsidies and government for all our needs.

I am so glad you posted those words… I thought those words derived from Thomas Jefferson, but I could not recall where they were from. If Jefferson were alive today, I’m not sure he would like how his words have been interpreted and applied.

I just went and read the entire Danbury Baptists Letter, and now believe, Thomas Jefferson was saying, according to The First Amendment, government can not infringe on the free exercise of one’s religion, nor can they establish a national religion. That wall of separation he was referring to, was to protect these rights from government intrusion. I saw nothing in there that says, we need to eliminate religion, faith, and all religious symbols from society. Clearly, Jefferson’s words were used with nefarious intents, by these secular progressives.

In fact, on the right side of this page, you can read The Senate’s “own interpretation” of those very words, from the 1st Amendment…

This is where those declaring separation of church and state get it from.  It is a quote by Thomas Jefferson.  I don’t believe he meant what they have taken it to mean, but that it where it originated.  

I agree with everything you said.  That was a great comment.

–
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
–

I too am a Christian; well a Messianic-Jew to be exact; but I totally agree: I think, during the past few presidential campaigns, too much emphasis has been put into the discussion of faith, and probably the discussion of abortion as well. I am not minimizing the “importance” of either one, however, the issue of abortion is something that can be lobbied for, or against, in other forums besides a presidential campaign. I don’t believe anyone really minds if a president, or presidential candidate espouses their Christian, or core beliefs; I just think that many don’t want that to be the emphasis of their campaign or presidency.

Quite frankly, I don’t think there should be any problem with religious symbols, anywhere, in the country; including government buildings. We need to be a nation of tolerance, and respect. When one side tries to silence the other side, it only leads to more friction and disenfranchisement, down the road. No matter what faith a president is, it is simply impossible (constitutionally) for our government to make any religion the national religion. To that degree, Barack Obama (lawfully speaking) was right to say we are not a Christian nation; although, it would have been nice to hear him say, we were “very much” founded on the belief in God and many of our laws were derived from biblical principals.

I think it is great when a president can pray on occasion with the nation, if he is a person of faith; but for the most part, faith is probably best to keep “mostly” private. And during a presidential campaign, it is probably best if the candidate sticks to the things that are important to “all” of the people: such as the economy, national security, taxes, the size of government etc.

Someone should never feel disenfranchised because of a particular president’s faith… As I was saying, that was just the general ignorance of a constituency of people. And you are right, now we have a president that seems to go to lengths to minimize our Christian heritage. That is a bit depressing to me, but sadly, it seems to fit in with this president’s whole theme of apologizing for traditional American values.

If people would stick to the national issues that are important to “all” Americans, then the president’s faith should not even be a real issue. No matter what faith the president is, if our economy tanks, we are ALL in big, big trouble!

That got me to see and realize that Christianity did seem to become such a big issue during his administration.  Before Bush, I don’t remember knowing the religion of any previous President or even if they were Christians. 

I want the President to be a Christian, but I’m not sure I feel that it needs to be so public, in that you are supposed to be a President to all the citizens of the United States.  I can see how non-Christians could feel real disenfranchised in that environment.  Because this President seems so anti-Christian, and I do feel disenfranchised.

One thing I would like to see in my lifetime is the outlawing of credit cards, and only have debit cards.  With the exception of car loans and mortgage loans, we need to get away from having things we cannot afford.  I know I have been much more happy that I don’t have debt (except for my mortgage).

The hard part is getting there without ruining our whole financial system.

Sadly, our country, philosophically, seems so divided, I wonder if any president could unite us again?

Beyond having the right president, we REALLY need to have our current political system reformed; otherwise, many things will likely be business as usual, in D.C.

Though I must say, it would be nice to have a president that talks favorably about our country, and our history again; and a president who believes in our free-market system of economics.

If you think of political parties as a true democracy, in which a mob rules… then either The Republicans or Democrats, generally, will pass legislation based on party-line votes.

If I can assume, most people, generally see their vision of the country through their own eyes, and seldom give regards to people with opposing points of view, then as long as your party has the power, then for the most part, you will likely get what you want. However, when the opposing party takes over the power, then you generally feel a great sense of disenfranchisement.

Also, I think political parties are responsible for the whirl-wind of changes that our country goes through with every election cycle. Again, that change may work for you, and other times, it can effect your life profoundly for the worse.

In my opinion, political parties are not helping the people, but rather, have expanded the powers of Congress tremendously. And to have no political parties, would likely restore some of the continuity needed in this country, as opposed to the radical changes we seem to go through, at least every four to eight years.

In fact, as much as I admire Thomas Jefferson, he created the political party: Democrat-Republican Party.

I think the root of the problem still lies with our age old question of federalism verses anti-federalism. The Bill of Rights were included in The Constitution so that the rights of the states, and of the people of the states could be preserved; and thankfully, Thomas Jefferson, was clearly a real advocate of those rights.

So, while I completely understand why Jefferson felt the need to branch off into a separate political party, I don’t believe it has helped our nation over the long run. Political parties and special interests seem to go hand and hand. If there were no political parties, we’d still have the same debates, in Congress; however, they would be forced to hash out their differences, instead of the subsequent additions of the filibuster, reconciliation, and other debate-ending tactics, that have also tainted our system of government.
–
These were Thomas Jefferson’s very words…
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
–
And this is why our founders chose to create a Republic, as opposed to a true democracy. However, while the people (in theory) are under a representative democracy, it seems as though Congress operates under a mob rules, absolute democracy, that developed with the inception of political parties; while lobbying and special interests, since the 1900s, have been influencing both parties.

Political parties are not much different then labor unions… labor unions often seem more interested in their personal gain, as opposed to the overall health of the company that is actually paying their salaries. And what happens to the union when there is no one left to pay their salaries?

Our system is so out of control!

The Executive branch should only include the President and his cabinet, not 30 some advisers.  Even if the czars aren’t making policy, they have to be paid a salary, expenses of an office and staff.

Congress was only suppose to meet at least once a year, not all year. I could be wrong, but I believe they all had regular jobs, like farmers, lawyers etc. They came and met, did their business, then went back to their jobs.

The Judicial Branch is making law, as well, instead of just interpreting the law.

Now-a-days, big money lobbyists, and special interest groups, own Washington; and just to run for President, is a billion $ business.

Certainly, God has instilled certain emotions in us… for instance, fear is a way for our system to warn us of impending danger, and alerts us to react according; however, as I was saying above: when worry starts consuming you, it is a pretty good indication that something is wrong, and it is time to really get closer to God.

I think the biggest struggle many people have, is submitting to God’s will. As humans, we tend to want to do it all our own way; however, when we do it God’s way, things always work out for the best, in the end.

I once heard an acronym:  F.E.A.R
False Evident Appearing Real

Certainly, with the constitution, and the great wisdom of these ex-presidents, we do have a handbook on where we need to get back to; the question that remains is how?

Isn’t it a shame, that many years ago, we the people did not come together, in force, as we are today?

That is not to say things can not be reversed, with the “right” leadership, but it would be a long, and hard road ahead.

It is unbelievable what these dam progressives allowed our country to turn into! And somehow, they managed to keep people fat and happy for many years, while they were transforming our nation, under the radar.

This sounds a little pessimistic, but if the dollar did inflate out of existence, it would be “one” way to reset the clock, so to say. However, I am not sure of what other unintended consequences we could suffer, as a result.

At least we still have a powerful military. I pray that is not next on the progressive chopping block.

God help us all!

Look what Reagan inherited, after Carter… then things may have improved for a while, and look where we are today. It seems like a never-ending cycle!

I believe, from here on, we must have leadership that is constitutionally sound! And we must have an almost 0 tolerance for anyone that seeks to waver from our founding principals and documents.

At this point, it seems only the people can demand this change to happen!

I think Sarah Palin was as close to our founding principals as anyone I have heard since Ronald Reagan.

Sadly, it seems like those types of leaders, while great for conservative citizens, are a real threat to the ones who prefer the status quo, or fear to lose their current power.

Just from an economics point of view, I think a true conservative leader would be much better for the country; I just wish others would see that.

And this is why it doesn’t seem to matter if someone says they are Republican, Democrat, Independent etc.; it is only their policies and philosophy on governing that matters.

If all Republicans were doing what they were hired to do, then every Republican would have governed like Ronald Reagan. The truth is, Reagan was the last real, Jeffersonian-Republican that made it to president. He seemed to really respect the constitution and our founding principles. I think, that is the foundation for conservatives in The United States.

It sounds like he was making a reference to The Tenth Amendment …

As with our founders, President Reagan is also speaking to us from beyond!

Hell, even if the government looked at all the programs and charities that received federal funds, the government could, instead, give the people an ala-carte choice of which of those charities and groups they would like to contribute to.

Again, me and you both know, many of these groups that receive federal money, is in exchange for votes and political favors. And that is all the more reason why federal (and progressive) income tax needs to come to an end; and all taxes need to be collected at state-level only. The federal government should have to justify their needs to the states; as the money is “earned” from the citizens of the (supposedly) sovereign states.

As me and you both know, direct taxes were considered unconstitutional by our founders; so the 16th amendment, and other direct taxes, really should be repealed.

Beyond that, I agree 100%! The question should not be about, do rich people not care about the poor etc.; the question should always be, should our government, in a “supposed” free society, such as ours, have the power to force one group of people to contribute to another? I think not!

Charity will always make things right! Brute force will always be resisted and considered down right evil!

Read these words from our former President, Grover Cleveland… It was when our presidents still believed in, and followed our constitution; and respected the hard work, charity, and economic principals of our (free) nation.

The Bible is filled with so much amazing wisdom; and for years, the above words have been some of the greatest words I have ever read in The Bible. I actually use to read them every night, before bed.

It is natural to be concerned, but when our concern turns into incessant worry; and our health, subsequently, is effected, then it is a time to really re-evaluate our faith in God.

Faith in God does not liberate us from human feelings, such as worry, but strong faith in God should insure a feeling of prevailing peace. In other words, whatever God’s plan is for our lives, our country, and our world, we will except it, because it is his will, not ours. : )

TY! Yes, this health care fiasco is a perfect example of why the above needs to start applying to law-makers…

Consider what I said in the post:
Supreme Court Justices are expected to interpret laws objectively; law enforcement is expected to enforce the laws objectively; so then why aren’t law-makers creating laws objectively?

If you follow this logic, it is not hard to see why our founders were opposed to political parties! Political parties, intrinsically, represent one group of people, or the other. They are completely self-serving, disenfranchising, and should be considered unconstitutional! Also, lobbying groups that offer financial gain or special favors for legislation, should be punishable with jail sentences.

As I said, in the above, we are suppose to be one team (Team USA) with one rule book (The United States Constitution); so when are our law-makers going to treat our country as one? I have said this many times, but it is worth repeating: If our law-makers were all forced to create laws, based strictly on The Constitution, with over site to make sure that is enforced, then the need for political parties would likely go away; as they would all then be following the same handbook. If they followed The Constitution, they would also likely have to get out of the business of trying to create services that the private sector is suppose to be offering, and get back to “managing” our country, as directed by The Constitution; which is what our tax-dollars are supposed to be paying them to do!

Well, let’s see: To name a few…

1. Federal (16th Amendment, 1913) income tax
2. Public Schools (“state ran” and controlled)
3. Social Security (1935)
4. Medicare (1965)

And the list goes on…

I had someone recently try to get me with the same ridiculous argument:
How can you be Christian and saying such things?

The Bible is clear: Matthew 22:21
“…Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

God, clearly has given us heavenly laws, however, God also gave mankind the ability to institute laws that govern their own lands here on Earth. Our founders were very much men of faith and have created our laws with a strong faith in God. God has given us free-will, and with a praise from God, our founders have given us the freedom to make many choices in our own lives. The Bible is also clear about tithing, which is also given through free-will.

The United States has always been a very charitable nation; and through charity, we will always be able to “help” lift up those “truly” in need, while “not sacrificing” the well-being of an entire nation’s economy. Therefore, I would make the counter-argument, and ask those people, which is better: to help those in need, through charity, or allow an entire nation to go bankrupt? At which time, we will all suffer and have nothing to help anyone with, while creating a tremendous national-security threat to our “entire” nation.
–

And this is why we need to arm ourselves with facts: because those who do not have, or care about facts, will often try to play on your emotions, and try to somehow guilt you into seeing it their way. Also, isn’t it ironic how many liberals so often want to remind people to separate church from state?

There are also those who do not take the time to learn the historical facts, and what our founders intended through our founding documents; and just want to call things as they see it. While this group of people may be well-intended, their arguments are often based on hypotheticals, or they just resort to blaming past administrations for all of our problems.

To be honest, I am really not going to expend too much more energy debating with people who refuse to do the necessary research. While laws are created through intellectual debate and political theory, we simply can not ignore history and certain realities.

I think I will write a follow up to Glenn Beck’s book “Arguing with Idiots”, and call it, “Arguing with The Uninformed”. shewwwww

Now-a-days, everybody feels “entitled”. Many believe it is the federal government’s responsibility to take of the people.  It is not their responsibility.

And if I hear another progressive liberal spout off about how un-Christ like us Christians are being by denying people health insurance and entitlements, I think I’m going to scream!  Enabling people is not Christ-like. Christ expected people to work hard.  We need to be working on de-flating the economy so decent 3 bedroom, 1 or 2 bath houses don’t cost $100,000 to buy.

Oh well, enough venting. Gotta go to Bible study.

What better interpretation to our Constitution then from The father of our Constitution himself?
–

Yep, quasi-Socialism, in The United States, likely started on August 14, 1935, when Franklin Roosevelt signed Social Security into law; and The Sixteenth Amendment (1913) certainly gave the the federal government the means to the end.

The irony is, programs like Medicare and Social Security have ultimately done the opposite, and have now caused Social “Insecurity” for our economy and for the next few generations of retirees.

The Stages of Democracy
–
With respect to the two words general welfare
–
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen

It is getting so disconcerting that seven ex CIA Directors collaborated on a letter to President Obama, urging him to stop this madness, and “seeming” political witch-hunts.

I used these words…
“perhaps we should succumb and allow it to be mandatory that all citizens purchase health care ”

Constitutionally, I think it would be a stretch for Congress to force the citizens to buy medical insurance, and I am not even sure I would be happy with it, even if all of the above conditions were met.

The main difference between the concept of car insurance and health insurance is, you only need to have car insurance when and if you own or drive a car; therefore, if you do not have a car, no one can mandate that you carry insurance. However, with our health, there is no telling when we will get sick, and to what degree we will need to be treated.

Another possibility would be through the government issuing vouchers, to which we could go buy a health care plan with…

I have been planning to write more of my thoughts on government vouchers; I think there is a lot to be said for vouchers, but I will need to elaborate when I have some more time…

And this paragraph came from the above web site…
–
“Prior to the enactment of the income tax, most citizens were able to pursue their private economic affairs without the direct knowledge of the government. Individuals earned their wages, businesses earned their profits, and wealth was accumulated and dispensed with little or no interaction with government entities. The income tax fundamentally changed this relationship, giving the government the right and the need to know about all manner of an individual or business’ economic life.”

Sadly, our far-left liberal friends in Congress, and the president, in this case, don’t seem to want to use common-sense. I agree with you, they seem beholden to their vision of what health care reform should be, as opposed to doing what is in the best interest of the “vast” majority of the people of this country.

In all seriousness, I really do resent the political activism, blatantly being displayed by the far-left in Congress, and in The White House, in regards to health care; and with “our” tax-dollars.

This Congressional majority also demonstrates clearly, the systemic failure of having political parties. Each time an opposing party gains power, they sprint to the finish line, attempting to pass every thing humanly possible, while they still have the majority of votes.

I wish we had no political parties, and constitutionally respecting legislators; as opposed to these self-interested law-makers of today.

–

To your point, I totally agree;  if anyone in this government were to go on political witch-hunts, dating back to past administrations, that would be a very dangerous and reckless precedent to set.

I have no problem with a fact-finding commission; learning from any mistakes, and moving forward as a nation. I am adamantly against the government seeking out things to make another administration look bad, or worse, to be punished. It is really bad that they are not considering the national security implications by doing so.

It is mind-boggling that the president is going back and forth; but that only tells me one of two things:

1. He is not taking control of his own party, or
2. Our government are not the ones that are truly pulling the strings of power in our country.

I am not sure which it is.

I think not.

It blows my mind that Obama keeps going back and forth on this issue.

2.He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

3.He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

4.Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5.Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

6.Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Amen
–

Here is a list of all of those who loss their lives on that horrible day…
List of Victims from Sept. 11, 2001

Please pray for them and for all of their families.

Also, please say a prayer for our nation and for the brave men and women who, every day, unselfishly, defend our nation and freedom; at home and abroad.

We are forever grateful!

2.He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

3.He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

4.Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5.Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

6.Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Amen
–

Here is a list of all of those who loss their lives on that horrible day…
List of Victims from Sept. 11, 2001

Please pray for them and for all of their families.

Also, please say a prayer for our nation and for the brave men and women who, every day, unselfishly, defend our nation and freedom; at home and abroad.

We are forever grateful!

We are indeed on a dangerous path, and this started when President Obama released the memos on EIT techniques that were used by our intelligence community. As a citizen, I would like to believe this administration is just incredibly naive; however, it is not hard to draw a conclusion that this administration and some far-left groups, like this John Adams Project, are aiding and abetting the enemy.

Perhaps I am naive to think that we must protect the citizens, and the interests of this country “first”, and worry about international approval and consensus, secondarily. However, I am sure, a lot of United States citizens would also agree with that.

“Those who protect and serve our nation deserve better than another witch hunt which accomplishes nothing except to fuel the frenzied fervor and power seeking of the hunters”.

Indeed, that is the other thing a lot of people fail to see; enemies of our country, seize on this naivety and use it to further fuel anti-American rhetoric and sediment. People like those in this John Adams Project do not “seem” to realize the over-arching consequences of their actions. Or do they?

We are on a dangerous path here, being pushed along by a president’s fervent need to please and pay back political favors to left wing organizations, Unions, GE, “Community” organizations, lawyers and others who paved Obama’s way with their money.  Not to mention the ongoing voter support from liberal zealots and the entitlement segment who continue to gear their votes to politicians who for generations have promised much and delivered nothing except more power and wealth to themselves.

The John Adams Project is yet another example of the dangers in our midst.  Those who protect and serve our nation deserve better than another witch hunt which accomplishes nothing except to fuel the frenzied fervor and power seeking of the hunters.