Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Friday, October 9, 2015
I just want to sound off a little bit. I’ll start by saying very simply that this is still the United States of America. That “WE THE PEOPLE” are still the first and last branch of the “Government.” That the government must “govern by the consent of the governed”, that being “WE THE PEOPLE.” If the people do not consent to what the government is doing, the government is not PERMITTED to continue down that particular path. That the Constitution is NOT a living document it is the final Document and the “Supreme law of the land.” It is a contract, legal and binding and goes along with “citizenship” and it is meant exactly as such. In simpler terms, it is akin to a set of directions that you would get with any product you buy. Right out of the box there is a set of instructions on both how to use what you have just purchased as well as how to assemble the final product for its intended use. There-in will almost always come a legal disclaimer saying something to the effect that any unintended use of this product will void the warranty or subject the user to legal action and/or void of the warranty and sometimes both. The same thing goes with the Constitution. If you violate the Constitution or the bill of rights there is a penalty and/or a fine that will be (but in this day and age never is) imposed. There is a “right” way and a wrong (“left” or progressive) way to use (not interpret) the Constitution. The right way is to treat it as it was meant to be treated, as the “Supreme law of the land.” The wrong way is to treat it as a living document that is subject to change on a whim, or willy-nilly, or that it can be changed whenever someone with enough political clout (Executive orders issued by the President) or money (large corporations who write the laws and lobby Congress to pass them) sees fit so long as it fits their agenda or their lifestyle. This “document” was never intended to be subject to interpretation or to the will of the minority, it is what it is. It was however intended for a religious people, a moral people. If you want to change the configuration of the document there is even a set of instructions for how you MUST do that. It cannot simply be done without forethought but only with the will of the majority. It cannot be done out of political correctness or for one’s own personal belief or lifestyle. There is a specific and prescribed procedure for any change to it. In fact it is the law of the land. This must be followed under the penalty of doing otherwise. So it is written, so must it be done. To do otherwise is unlawful and potentially treasonous.
The Constitution sets forth exactly how the government is to be set up as well as what it can’t do (the “can’t is intended) for the people. It was very carefully crafted by some very intelligent and knowledgeable people. Then there were the people back then, in the beginning that were on the fence and wouldn’t sign onto it without the bill of rights, or the promise there-of. So, in 1789 it was finished complete with the “bill of rights.” So let’s dive into a couple of these enumerated rights shall we? I want to start by pointing out the ninth (9th) amendment. This one is very often overlooked but very important. This one says: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Basically, what is being said here is that just because we wrote these (ten at that time) down doesn’t mean there aren’t any more. They are just too numerous to mention one-by-one. Have you figured out where I am going with this yet? Probably not but let’s continue.
Let’s take the obvious two amendments, the 1st and the 2nd. We’ll save the others for another day as this could wind up being a book.
The 1st amendment says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
This is where I get to ask some specific questions that pertain to our political or intellectual climate of today. Like; 1) “where in there does it say that there is a separation of church and state”?
The frank, upfront and HONEST answer is that it doesn’t say that anywhere in there. Nor does it say that anywhere in the Constitution prior to the bill of rights. The quoted statement above is nothing more than propaganda pushed by the progressive (and dare I say, communist) agenda. That argument is completely fallacious and in the words of Hitler “If you make a lie big enough and continue repeating it long enough, the people will come to believe it.” Every time you here that little piece of malarkey, just remember it is right out of the communist playbook.
2) Where in there does it mention “free speech zones”?
The answer is it doesn’t. Why? The answer is; because the entire country and all of its publicly held land is a free speech zone. It doesn’t say that a permit is required. Or that you can’t have opposing free speech in the same space. Nor does it say that you have the right not to be OFFENDED by said speech.
3) Where in there does it say that you have no right to free speech in a public venue, or a political arena? The answer is NOWHERE. Do you see any exclusion in there as to what you can say, when you can say it, or who can or cannot be there when you choose to speak? The answer again is nope.
4) What about the press? Does it say where they can or cannot go? No. So why are they impeded? Hmm. Maybe there are some things they don’t want the people to know. Could that be it?
5) How do you “petition the government for a redress of grievances”?
The answer is; in this day and age you don’t. You can’t go to the Whitehouse. You can’t protest on the mall without fear of arrest without a permit (there we go again). And you darn sure don’t want to open your face around, near or within earshot of anyone in political office without risking deportation or imprisonment, so I guess that’s out altogether isn’t it?
The 2nd amendment which says; “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
As I see it, this is very straight forward. There are no ands’, no ifs and no but’s. The word “SHALL” is even used to signify finality. Yet our benevolent government has seen fit to slowly and methodically chip away at this amendment since shortly after the assassination of President Garfield on July 2nd 1881 when the very first gun laws were put on the books. The first violation of this amendment came unopposed. Though I don’t see it mentioned here, this is a pretty good time line of additional violations. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html.
With all that being said let me conclude by saying that we are slowly but surely heading down that very same road that we fought so hard to overcome in the 1700’s. Tyranny, it is right here before your eyes, all you need to do to see it is open them and be willing to accept what you see for what it is. It comes in many colors and with many faces, but it is here none-the-less. I have only covered the first two amendments here but there are many, many more I will cover in subsequent articles. The original fight started with brave men having had enough. Drawing their line in the sand at a small bridge in Yorktown, Pa. now known as the shot heard ‘round the world. Where, or better even still, when is your Yorktown moment. Or don’t you have one?
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Monday, September 7, 2015
Liberty's Torch: The Rule Of Law In America: An Autopsy: For our lead-in, here’s WeirdDave at Ace’s Place: What idea was the cornerstone of the ideological wall that the Founding Father...