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?
