Samuel Adams wrote to James Warren in 1779, "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."
I am struck with awe each and every time I read the writings of our Founders. Their gift of foresight is truly amazing and their insight into human tendencies of those in power is without parallel. A nation devoid of principles and manners is doomed to destruction. I believe we're living through that destruction today.
An example of this is President Obama's conscious decision to schedule his speech on the economy and job creation for the same date and time of the Republican candidate debates. Inconsiderate is one word that comes to mind; treasonous is another.
Inconsiderate, because interrupting people is a sign of poor manners. It is worse than ordinary rudeness in that the President's interruption of the debate process is planned and deliberate. It is incredulous to believe that he could not find another time to deliver this speech, as indicated by The White House. (http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/08/breaking-obama-schedules-jobs-speech-on-the-same-night-as-gop-debate/)
Treasonous, because he purposely scheduled a major speech to coincide with and to draw an audience away from an already scheduled political debate by candidates of the opposing party. To what end? I would surmise it is to extinguish - or at least quiet - the voice of conservative politicians. An informed electorate is an essential principle to the success of a thriving democracy, as Thomas Jefferson noted, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." This is a clear move to keep the electorate uninformed. The President is calling us to listen to him, to the exclusion of conservative presidential conteders' voices. He endeavors to keep us ignorant of our choices, and this is an attack on the most fundamental principle of - and right to - self government. That, my fella 'mericans, is treason.
As Samuel Adams foretold, our democracy is under attack. Shockingly, it is not from without but from within. As the newspeak and revisionist history, a la George Orwell, becomes a daily pursuit of the President's administration, it is concerning to consider that we are being led down a road to bondage. Our rights are being eroded. Promised transparency is an illusion, and no matter how many times President Obama states his is the most transparent government in our history, it doesn't make it so. Actions, sir, speak louder than words.
We are, my friends, in a race. The finish line is less than two years in the distance. The contestants are two: President Obama and individual liberty. Let us hope liberty outlasts Obama.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Peek-A-Boo, I See You: In the Nude, and In Public
In an effort to protect us, the government has awarded a grant to the San Francisco bus system to install real-time cameras on busses. O.K., no big deal, right? There were cameras there before, but not cameras that monitor citizens in real time and not cameras that utilize X-ray and infrared technology to conduct full body scans that effectively show images of riders' naked bodies. (http://www.infowars.com/dhs-funds-real-time-spy-cams-on-sf-buses/)
San Fran, as it is commonly known, is a bastion of liberalism and a huge area of support for Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi and the like. They're friends - comrades, if you will. What are friendships based on? Trust. Is the installation of these spy cams the act of a trusting friend? I'd say no.
As a citizen in the heartland, you know, the one's that Mr. Obama described as clinging to guns and religion, I am deeply concerned. If he's taking these Orwellian steps in San Francisco, against people he presumably trusts, what steps is he taking against us, the people he sees as enemies of progress? I'm just asking the question; and it's a question that does not seem unreasonable to me.
These videos are transmitted via the internet to the bus stations in San Francisco. The videos are stored electronically. Remember, once something goes electronic and online, it never goes away. Think about this, too, the security of your images (facial and full body scans) are only as secure as the security measures put in place by the government. See for yourself how good the government is at securing data. (https://www.privacyrights.org/data-breach/new)
The bottom line is that our own government now sees us, the free men and women of America, as threats. They are, just like Orwell envisioned in 1984 (http://www.george-orwell.org/1984), watching us, tracking us. To what end? It's worth asking the question. Is public safety and national security the true reason? The government's track record in honesty with the American people does not inspire confidence. Also, how secure are the data they're collecting. Again, there's not much confidence in their capabilities in that arena. Sure, this could be a tin-foil-hat day for me, but I don't really think so.
San Fran, as it is commonly known, is a bastion of liberalism and a huge area of support for Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi and the like. They're friends - comrades, if you will. What are friendships based on? Trust. Is the installation of these spy cams the act of a trusting friend? I'd say no.
As a citizen in the heartland, you know, the one's that Mr. Obama described as clinging to guns and religion, I am deeply concerned. If he's taking these Orwellian steps in San Francisco, against people he presumably trusts, what steps is he taking against us, the people he sees as enemies of progress? I'm just asking the question; and it's a question that does not seem unreasonable to me.
These videos are transmitted via the internet to the bus stations in San Francisco. The videos are stored electronically. Remember, once something goes electronic and online, it never goes away. Think about this, too, the security of your images (facial and full body scans) are only as secure as the security measures put in place by the government. See for yourself how good the government is at securing data. (https://www.privacyrights.org/data-breach/new)
The bottom line is that our own government now sees us, the free men and women of America, as threats. They are, just like Orwell envisioned in 1984 (http://www.george-orwell.org/1984), watching us, tracking us. To what end? It's worth asking the question. Is public safety and national security the true reason? The government's track record in honesty with the American people does not inspire confidence. Also, how secure are the data they're collecting. Again, there's not much confidence in their capabilities in that arena. Sure, this could be a tin-foil-hat day for me, but I don't really think so.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Soo-ee! Call 'em back!
Fellow Americans, the credit rating of our nation has been downgraded, as have agencies inexorably tied to the government (e.g., Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac). The stock market plunged yesterday, and today has been an up-and-down performance on Wall Street. Congress is on its August recess and the President is preparing to vacation on Martha's Vineyard, following his campaign bus tour, of course.
Americans are asking: where's the urgency? More fundamental than that: where's the interest?
Standard and Poors, the rating agency that downgraded the USA from AAA to AA+, cited as a contributing factor to the downgrade its opinion that the US system of government is not capable of addressing the issue of our debt. I take issue with that assertion. Our system is capable; our legislators (at least many of them) and our chief executive, however, appear to lack the interest to fix the problem.
In fact, the Founders, in their incredible, and I would say unique-in-history, wisdom built into the system a method for addressing urgent issues. The President "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them." (It's in the Constitution. You can read it there, too.) If government intransigence that leads to questionable credit worthiness of the national government and faltering economic markets does not qualify as an extraordinary occasion, I'm at a loss for what does qualify.
It is astonishing that the President's press secretary, Jay Carney, said regarding economic plans and deficit reductions that the President "will be contributing to that process, not driving it or directing it." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-powerful-man-on-earth/2011/08/08/gIQA49w72I_print.html) As chief executive of the nation, it is his job to set the agenda of the national debate. Mr. Obama proves time and again that he is incapable of that. "Leading from behind" is a description of his leadership style (if it can be called a leadership style) that has been used by the right and left, alike.
It is time that the President heed the calls from the conservatives in the House of Representatives to exercise his constitutional responsibility. Call the Congress into session. Deal with this problem now, not wait until the legislative deadline to cut the deficit that was included in the recently passed debt ceiling hike legislation. If Congress and the President wait, as they did before, the nation will have to live with rushed decisions that rarely produce good results.
Americans are asking: where's the urgency? More fundamental than that: where's the interest?
Standard and Poors, the rating agency that downgraded the USA from AAA to AA+, cited as a contributing factor to the downgrade its opinion that the US system of government is not capable of addressing the issue of our debt. I take issue with that assertion. Our system is capable; our legislators (at least many of them) and our chief executive, however, appear to lack the interest to fix the problem.
In fact, the Founders, in their incredible, and I would say unique-in-history, wisdom built into the system a method for addressing urgent issues. The President "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them." (It's in the Constitution. You can read it there, too.) If government intransigence that leads to questionable credit worthiness of the national government and faltering economic markets does not qualify as an extraordinary occasion, I'm at a loss for what does qualify.
It is astonishing that the President's press secretary, Jay Carney, said regarding economic plans and deficit reductions that the President "will be contributing to that process, not driving it or directing it." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-powerful-man-on-earth/2011/08/08/gIQA49w72I_print.html) As chief executive of the nation, it is his job to set the agenda of the national debate. Mr. Obama proves time and again that he is incapable of that. "Leading from behind" is a description of his leadership style (if it can be called a leadership style) that has been used by the right and left, alike.
It is time that the President heed the calls from the conservatives in the House of Representatives to exercise his constitutional responsibility. Call the Congress into session. Deal with this problem now, not wait until the legislative deadline to cut the deficit that was included in the recently passed debt ceiling hike legislation. If Congress and the President wait, as they did before, the nation will have to live with rushed decisions that rarely produce good results.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Rights of 'mericans
In nations worldwide, past and present, rights of the citizenry have been dispensations from the ruling class. It wasn't until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that modern social contract theory began to set the stage for the idea that rights are not handouts from government but are inherent in individuals and individual interactions with one another.
With the founding of the United States of America, a different view on rights was codified in our Declaration of Indepence and our Constitution. Instead of "rights to" things, our American concept of rights is that of "rights from" things, namely government interference in our lives. So, how is it that we've strayed so far from that intial American path in just over 200 years?
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed." Rights flow from the people to the government, not from the government to the people. This is explicit. At the time, this was also revolutionary, unprecedented and treasonous. Uttering such thoughts, let alone writing them down, could result in imprisonment and death. The Founders - both men and women - were extraordinarly brave.
"A new Rasmussen poll shows that just 17 per cent of Americans believe that the U.S. government has the consent of the governed, an all time low." (http://www.infowars.com/pollster-americans-are-pre-revolutionary/) It is dismaying, to say the least, that our most fundament, core belief as a people has so eroded that fewer than 20 percent of us believe our government functions with our consent. What does this mean? It means that the government does not function with our consent; it functions contrary to our consent. We are - or at least we view ourselves as - vassals of the state.
Getting back to our rights...
When the constitution was written, some Framers and states were concerned that the document outlined the functions of the state, but it did not enumerate the rights of the people. Ergo, the Bill of Rights was written, describing the rights of the people. Read them. (http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm) You will notice that none reads, you have the right to this or that. Instead, they read, you have the right to be free of interference from the government in various aspects of your daily life. For Americans, our rights are not rights to things, to dispensations from a benevolent dicatator. No. Our rights are to be free to live our lives, free from government interference, free to succeed or fail within our capabilities and desires, free to help our fellow man without the goverment telling us how, when or in what quantities.
Politicians, both foreign and domestic, speak time and again about the compassion of the American people. Yes, we are compassionate, and we, more than any other people on Earth, know the value of the social contract. We know, because we agreed to ours of our own volition, not because it was forced upon us by a tyrant on a throne. Because of that deeply held value, that knowledge that we are dependent upon and beholden to our fellow man, we give. We give to charities, to family, to individuals, more than any other people on Earth. How long can that last, when we have government more and more involved in our lives, and always taking more and more from us? (http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html)
The social contract we executed among ourselves as citizens is being usurped by a forced, unnatural relationship with our fellow citizens. The central government now decides who gives what, to whom and in what quantities. Consequently, a belief that the government will take care of those in need seems to absolve individuals from helping those in our communities, close to our homes, and each time Washington "helps" someone or some group, it gets its cut, effectively diluting the help originally intended for our fellow citizens. It also comes with a variety of strings.
What kind of charity or welfare is this?
When individuals give time or treasure to hold up their end of the social contract, it is with hope and compassion, rarely is it with qualifiers. Government redistribution always has strings and always affords a far flung bureaucrat his cut of the pie. It makes one wonder, is the most good done in the most efficient way? At best, it is an inefficient system that makes some feeble effort to help. At worst, it is a clever money laundering scheme that makes career politicians and bureaucrats wealthy, engrains dependency on government, and may violate our personal, individual moral beliefs (e.g., public funding of abortion providers using tax dollars from all Americans, including those opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds). No wonder we feel that we no longer control our government, when so many of us live in fear that the government's so-thought beneficence and magnanimity may run out if we do not accept the strings tied to its charity? How are we, as a people, free, living under that constant threat?
Americans need to reclaim our rightful place as sovereigns over our government and as individual sovereigns over our individual lives and reject the notion that today's government would have us accept, that we are dependent upon the largess of the state - that we cannot survive on our own merits and on the freely shared merits of our countrymen. The time is now.
With the founding of the United States of America, a different view on rights was codified in our Declaration of Indepence and our Constitution. Instead of "rights to" things, our American concept of rights is that of "rights from" things, namely government interference in our lives. So, how is it that we've strayed so far from that intial American path in just over 200 years?
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed." Rights flow from the people to the government, not from the government to the people. This is explicit. At the time, this was also revolutionary, unprecedented and treasonous. Uttering such thoughts, let alone writing them down, could result in imprisonment and death. The Founders - both men and women - were extraordinarly brave.
"A new Rasmussen poll shows that just 17 per cent of Americans believe that the U.S. government has the consent of the governed, an all time low." (http://www.infowars.com/pollster-americans-are-pre-revolutionary/) It is dismaying, to say the least, that our most fundament, core belief as a people has so eroded that fewer than 20 percent of us believe our government functions with our consent. What does this mean? It means that the government does not function with our consent; it functions contrary to our consent. We are - or at least we view ourselves as - vassals of the state.
Getting back to our rights...
When the constitution was written, some Framers and states were concerned that the document outlined the functions of the state, but it did not enumerate the rights of the people. Ergo, the Bill of Rights was written, describing the rights of the people. Read them. (http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm) You will notice that none reads, you have the right to this or that. Instead, they read, you have the right to be free of interference from the government in various aspects of your daily life. For Americans, our rights are not rights to things, to dispensations from a benevolent dicatator. No. Our rights are to be free to live our lives, free from government interference, free to succeed or fail within our capabilities and desires, free to help our fellow man without the goverment telling us how, when or in what quantities.
Politicians, both foreign and domestic, speak time and again about the compassion of the American people. Yes, we are compassionate, and we, more than any other people on Earth, know the value of the social contract. We know, because we agreed to ours of our own volition, not because it was forced upon us by a tyrant on a throne. Because of that deeply held value, that knowledge that we are dependent upon and beholden to our fellow man, we give. We give to charities, to family, to individuals, more than any other people on Earth. How long can that last, when we have government more and more involved in our lives, and always taking more and more from us? (http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html)
The social contract we executed among ourselves as citizens is being usurped by a forced, unnatural relationship with our fellow citizens. The central government now decides who gives what, to whom and in what quantities. Consequently, a belief that the government will take care of those in need seems to absolve individuals from helping those in our communities, close to our homes, and each time Washington "helps" someone or some group, it gets its cut, effectively diluting the help originally intended for our fellow citizens. It also comes with a variety of strings.
What kind of charity or welfare is this?
When individuals give time or treasure to hold up their end of the social contract, it is with hope and compassion, rarely is it with qualifiers. Government redistribution always has strings and always affords a far flung bureaucrat his cut of the pie. It makes one wonder, is the most good done in the most efficient way? At best, it is an inefficient system that makes some feeble effort to help. At worst, it is a clever money laundering scheme that makes career politicians and bureaucrats wealthy, engrains dependency on government, and may violate our personal, individual moral beliefs (e.g., public funding of abortion providers using tax dollars from all Americans, including those opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds). No wonder we feel that we no longer control our government, when so many of us live in fear that the government's so-thought beneficence and magnanimity may run out if we do not accept the strings tied to its charity? How are we, as a people, free, living under that constant threat?
Americans need to reclaim our rightful place as sovereigns over our government and as individual sovereigns over our individual lives and reject the notion that today's government would have us accept, that we are dependent upon the largess of the state - that we cannot survive on our own merits and on the freely shared merits of our countrymen. The time is now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)