A DYSFUNCTIONAL SENATE DID WHAT????

Just in case there's a patriot who stops by, and that patriot (you?), who is not convinced to activism on the issue of repealing the 17th Amendment, here's a thought to ponder:  

One of the more reasonable arguments against the importance of repealing the 17th Amendment –made reasonable due to public education on the matter of the need for the 17th Amendment– is that the appointed Senate had become dysfunctional, corrupted, and unresponsive to the needs of not only the state, but also to the needs of the People.  

If this is one of your arguments, please allow me to suggest some food for thought:  

Yes, one of the things we learned in school to justify the 17th Amendment was that the Senate had become too politicized; that constitutional republicanism was “too hard,” “too harsh,” and that an elected Senate would help in “softening republicanism,” thus, bringing the national government more in line with the people’s needs, allowing to become a more efficient institution.  

But please, stop for a moment and consider this: besides our current popularity of the Senate, and the Congress generally in today’s world, just think about the process of passing a constitutional amendment; you think we could possibly do such a thing today?  

The very concept of a popularly elected Senate over the original design of an elected Senate is a substantial and significant change affecting the entire purpose of, and the checks and balances of, every governmental institution, both federal and state, changing the function of all three branches of government. The profoundness of this change cannot be overstated.   

With that said, the then appointed Senate, that was reportedly dysfunctional, somehow was able to muster 2/3 majority of the Senate (along with 2/3 of the House), AND 3/4 of the state legislatures, and bring them all into an agreement to create and approve the 17th amendment to our Constitution. The fact that they could make this happen tells me the system was workable!  

The problem was not congressional dysfunction, or state corruption; the problem was with the very thing this Amendment strengthened— democracy .. Socialized Democracy and the perceived need to address proposed issues that should never have been addressed in the first place at the national level.

And now, today, what we have is an overbearing, over-encroaching band of elitists throughout all of government ONLY able to respond to the fewest among us who believe the world owes them a living.

WHAT IS IT THEY SHOUTED ?

Tenscore 16 years ago
was a convention,
announcing to a confused world
a new, constitution-

Ratification wasn’t enough they said, edification is our goal.

They asked one another,
who came first,
Institutions, or man,
life, liberty,
rights or privileges?
With these questions,
they knew-

Ratification wasn’t enough they said, edification is our goal.

One said,
Didn’t God create man,
wouldn’t He be first?
YES, the Almighty is first,
and for that, they knew-

Ratification wasn’t enough they said, edification is our goal.

They burnt the midnight oil,
as they cried and toiled.
they fought,
squirmed, and broiled,
to form a republic.
And for that they knew-

Ratification wasn’t enough, they said, edification is our goal.

What they formed was,
the most Perfect Union.
But how to protect it?
Make it among Them!
But if that’s true-

Ratification wasn’t enough they said, edification is our goal.

Let’s put it in there too,
tell them what it is.
It ain’t no oligarchy or monarchy,
no open ended democracy.
Not communism or fascism,
tis God fearin’ republicanism.

Thank God that-
Ratification wasn’t enough they said, edification is our goal.

Currently posting on Facebook

Please join me on Facebook; look for Bruce Allen Hedrick !!

The Enemy of my Enemy

If you think just a little bit, it’s my guess you’ve wondered why various leftist/statist groups look to be the most outspoken defenders of Islam. Perhaps the most noticeable contradiction is the lack of criticism from the National Organization of Women (NOW) for the clear violations of women’s rights in Muslim countries. In fact, there are regular examples of abuse of women by Muslims right here in America, but virtually no outcry from NOW—why?

Why do liberal progressives scream bloody murder when an LDS leader is exposed for polygamy, but never utter a moment of concern when they see a youtube video of a Muslim wife being beaten for speaking out of turn? A recent example is the New Jersey case in which the judge saw no sexual assault because Sharia Law forbids a wife to withhold sex. If the perk would have been Christian the courthouse lawn would have been filled with protestors.

You’ve also probably noticed most of the Islamic terror is happening in the democratic world and not in Communist/Dictatorial countries. This is in part due to the freedom within democracies, making terrorist plotting a bit easier. But commonality in ideology has a lot to do with it also.

This double standard is because of a well known adage:
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Progressive statist liberal (Marxism) goals have a lot in common with the edicts of Islam, and both are encumbered by Christianity and conservatism. Marxism wants to replace the Christian God with Man (materialism), and Islam wishes to deride the biblical God with Allah. Both systems command a centralized source of government that penetrates to the individual’s behavior at the destruction of individual natural rights. In fact, both wish to destroy the concept of individual sovereignty and replace it with a collective mentality: Islam with Sharia Law, and Marxism with a Central Committee- both knock ‘nature and nature’s God” off of the top of the chain-of-command and place Man at the helm.

Both of these systems define the outsiders as the enemy and each want to reindoctrinate or dispose of the noncompliant. Both abhor a republican form of government and dismiss Westphalian sovereignty, wishing to establish a one-world government, destroying the nation-state.

Our Constitution and its’ original intent, is in direct contrast to the collective mentality of both, Islam, and Marxism. Marxism and Islam rule with the heavy hand of fear and intimidation, work toward the goal of mind/thought control, and stipulate that all things belong to the collective.

Beware- it is instinctual for like breeds/minds/hearts to unite for the purpose of defeating a common enemy. Then, when that common enemy is gone, what do you think Islam will do with the likes of Nancy Pelosi?

That’s right fellow conservatives- we are fighting to save Nancy from herself; as if you needed another reason.

I fight on for Liberty, federalism, the sovereignty of my country and my state; I fight for the concept of life and for our republic.

(This article, and others, is available at http://www.madashecc.com/apps/blog/

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR LIBERTY (Part 1)

Am I an alarmist? I’ve been crying foul for many years; became involved with some pretty shady (politically speaking) characters back in the mid-1990’s, put a great business I had in jeopardy, all for the “cause” of liberty. That shady involvement led to a couple self-published books, the loss of my business –California Mufflers & Performance Exhaust Systems— and even landing me in jail for a couple weeks over a dispute with a police officer due to an alleged traffic violation (a story of jurisdiction for another time).

During that time the local Sheriff labeled me as a “constitutionalist,” a label I still wear proudly, as I fought for liberty, and exoneration (which I won, in part). I wasn’t new to the legal field at that time as I had several constitutional law college courses under my belt from the 1980’s, but this exposure to the liberal California courts reignited my desire for political activism. I decided the macro controversy, in my mind, was over the slowly but surely weakening of our republic. That conclusion is still relevant today and even more critical. I could care less, then and now, about Party-line politics. My concern, then and now, is about lost liberty and the destruction of our Republic.

WE HAVE MORE FREEDOMS TODAY THEN EVER BEFORE, BUT WITH A LOT LESS LIBERTY-

I acquired my political wings during the 1980’s while I served proudly in the Marine Corps. Besides studying to be the best Marine, I was also reading and studying and attending classes regarding American History and constitutional law; along came President Reagan, seven years of military service, a wife and family, and a whole new set of reasons to love living in America. I didn’t learn how things should be by listening to political talking heads and media types; I learned by reading history. In my travels, during and after the military, I always made it a point to visit old damp used book stores whenever I had the chance, even overseas. I went to library and school book sales, and since its inception, I’ve been perusing through Google Books reading all that applies to Americana. And today, at this hour, I sit among a pile of books, believing we are in the end times of what America was meant to be. It may not be tomorrow or next year, but the writing is clearly on the wall; American Exceptionalism is coming to a halt and our republic has lost its power to protect the several states as well as the individual.

Alarmist? Perhaps. America wasn’t listening in the 1980’s or the 1990’s, but I am hoping some are beginning to see today the pattern of deceit and treachery coming to us from the mounting enemies of freedom in this White House and the Congress. In fact, the list of socialist leaning supporters, and their respective places among those who have influential pulpits, is growing exponentially all around us. At the very top, President Obama has talked of change, and that change includes his desire to completely alter a document which holds certain truths and concepts that we the people have a reverence for but still do not understand.
President Obama has said, among other things, that he wants to change our Constitution from a negative law document to a positive law document. Do you know what this means? It means Uncle Sam is getting out of the business of ESTABLISHING justice, INSURING domestic tranquility, PROVIDING for the common defense, PROMOTING the GENERAL welfare, and SECURING THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity (see: Preamble, U.S. Constitution). Instead, Uncle Sam has been relegated to the museum to make room for Big Brother who is now on his way to creating in mass a people who need all things of subsistence provided through a nationalized singular source- a socialist system of redistributed wealth, intent on being the caretaker to and of a dependent world.

WHAT HAPPENED TO SECURING THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY?

While many of you still scoff at this evaluation, I see it as plain as a clear day in May. While there are many phases to the President’s plan, his soon to come next move will be to take a stab at our republic, and I want to put it on record that I for one take great umbrage to its destruction. We have all heard as late the word “republic” being thrown around by the pundits, but “republic” is far more than just a word; it is the lifeblood of the several states, as well as securing the sovereignty of the individual. Our republican form of government is founded upon the concept of Sovereignty, a concept by which all natural rights flow. Without it our Rule of Law (America’s culture) becomes the Rule of Man (Imperium Vilani).

What do we mean by “republic? In short: the right of the people to lead a private life; without it, we don't- (Please watch video before you read on)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8I9pLmuyyA

As this video shows, liberty cannot be exercised by the majority if there is total (potential) government control, but nor can liberty be exercised with no government. Our republic symbolizes that “place” where we the people live and breathe; where we work and possess property- it is where we pursue life, pursue liberty, and pursue happiness. Our republic is the domain of liberty, of 300 million monarchies limited only by the desire of interaction; and this is where, and only where, government becomes relevant- to “insure domestic tranquility” (Preamble, U.S. Constitution).

Governments (that promote true equality) do not bequeath rights. Governments can only set the stage for such rights to be best exercised by its inhabitants: ESTABLISHING justice, INSURING domestic tranquility, PROVIDING for the common defense, PROMOTING the general welfare, and SECURING the blessings of liberty. These tools are not the tools of democracy, but the tools to metered freedom. And metered freedom cannot be secured into perpetuity if 51% can rule the other 49%; with any favoritism, the smart, the dastardly, the evil, will find their way to the top and fascism becomes the finally. Our founders knew of this, and they established a federal system of independent states, guaranteed republican in form, to be assisted by a limited federal system, held in check by specifically enumerated powers, and the Electoral College.

A REPUBLIC MEANS YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY-
It is from our republic that your Sheriff draws his authority to stop the (democratic) lynch mob.

If there is just one thing in our Constitution that ensures our continued republic, it isn’t Article 4: sec 4; that ONE thing IS the Electoral College clause, Article 2; sec 1. The statist needs the republic dead, and to do so requires removing the Electoral College from our institutional framework. You and I need to save it before we all become dependent institutional clients in a socialized democracy.

The Constitution is not a compilation of separate do’s and don’ts, but a finely tuned machine with a series of necessary interactive components creating a singular working system – like a fine watch. These parts must be read and applied in context, in view of the intent of the entire document, and read in light of the context of our Declaration of Independence. Only in this context can we the people live free. An integral part of that system is our Electoral College.

Why is it that now, after more than two centuries of quality service, the left wing of the Democrat Party is making noise about removing the Electoral College (EC)? Strategic voting? We have states with laws aimed at allowing/encouraging cross-over voting. We have states proudly wearing the “direct democracy” label –in direct violation of our Constitution, and we (just the Democrats, for now) have the confusion, and perversive distortion, of Super Delegates –currently blackmailing the frontrunners for special favors. And now we have “plants” going across party lines in the hopes of sabotage. Doesn’t anyone see the eventual connection with all of these shenanigans and the eventual ouster of our current electoral system? Super Delegates is a temporary band-aid the left is using to pervert our system in hopes of “proving” the Electoral College is flawed and outdated.

The very Party that insists it is for the little guy; the one that cries the loudest about voter fraud; that every vote must count; that we must stop voter disenfranchisement; that will again demand reforming –and blaming-- the Electoral College, is the same Party with Super Disenfranchisement, and is the same party that invented open convention/primary/caucus voting; it is the same Party filled with elites who are certain “they” know what is best for you, nobler and wiser than the rest of us. They give lip service to being democratic, but deny California voters their ballot-box wishes. They push through health care when polls clearly show the majority don’t want government-ran health care. You can pick any number of items that prove modern Democrat-led statism is the enemy of individual rights, and our republic is in their way to effect “change.” The liberal speak of equality, but in practice, it is the tyranny of “them” at the peril of you and our republic.

Their Egalitarian idealistic leadership hopes for ignorance and complacency among its people, rallied by words that stir those fuzzy warm feelings deep within our bellies (“Every vote must count!”), and frustrate any chance at intellectual intervention. They operate using emotion as a cloak of darkness to cover up their long range dreams of a Utopian society; Republicans continue to fall into the trap, and conservatism continues its decline.

Isn’t anyone concerned for our republic? Is there anyone left who understands our Electoral College system; a necessary tool, under our republican form of government, to ensure equality among the several states, a vital tool for our republican form of government?

RIGHTS COME AND GO EITHER BY HOOK OR BY CROOK, BUT MOSTLY BY THE CROOKED HOOK

Tocqueville forecasted, “ever-increasing democracy,” leading to “.. the track which starts from equality ... leads to anarchy … lead(s) inevitably to servitude.” “A republic, madam, if you can keep it-” What this means is that it is the people’s government. Our rights do not depend on the Constitution- they depend on us, our attitude, our knowledge, our fortitude, and our Electoral College.

More Than Lost Shame

(originally written and posted in 2003, even more relevent today)

Recently Martin Kelly wrote an article entitled “The Death of Shame” in which he claims our moral decline comes from the death of shame. And, interestingly, Bill O’Reilly soon followed with his own spew that the loss of shame is negatively shaping America. It’s not that simple.

Yes, virtuous shame is dwindling-- I will guarantee you there were no braggart bumper stickers in 1960 that -shamelessly- announced, “My child made the honor roll at ... .” But the loss of virtuous shame is a by-product; one of many by-products of the loss of humility brought on by progressive statists..

The seven deadly sins are growing in popularity: PRIDE, magnified by LUST and ENVY for everything that satisfies our growing GREED, fueled by GLUTTONY, made more desirous by our ANGER for not “keeping up with the Joneses” has shamed us into losing our humility. We are much more than (perceivably) a country without Christian roots; we are a country specifically in the midst of turning our backs on our founding principles—a very different psychological/socio condition. And in our need to ignore the related shame, we are evolving into materialistic and bombastic relative individualists with the knack (desire?) for ignoring the obvious. As our faith declines, due to the constant bombardment from progressives, we are becoming ashamed of our shame. Faith, hope, and charity abate.

We exhibit loads of shame: We must not be seen without our makeup, or WITH our hair combed. We must not be seen holding a Bible or suggestively praying in public. We are regularly shamed into not speaking out against homosexuality for fear of being labeled intolerant and homophobic. We suffer from all kinds of image problems due to shame over excessive body fat, being too short, too tall, too thin – our society is full of shame, but shame’s roots have changed its orientation from a spiritual to a physical foundation.

Neither is it the loss of shame that misdirects our compassion. A Cardinal recently was heard stating that he has a “sense of compassion” for Saddam Hussein; based on the humiliating photos of Hussein with matted hair while having to submit to a physical. Compassion, for a dictator who use to slide human beings down the shoot of a giant plastic shredder? Compassion, for one who murders his political detractors? Compassion for an exterminator and a philanderer? Tis my guess this Cardinal has a head full of book learning and a heart totally lacking in real-world experience; an all too often recipe for progressive, secular, intellectual leadership. The recent images of Saddam provoked loads of shamefulness from the Islamic world; shame is in our face everywhere. But instead of fixing it at its core, we are redirecting it and finding ways to justify immoral desires and actions.

What is waning is THAT which gave us DIRECTION for our compassion and our shame; we are losing touch with our Western Instruction Manual: biblical principles. What we are losing is that line in the sand, the one we use to know what line should not be crossed. Once the majority chooses to no longer serve God, they shall serve Man; serfdom renewed, and shame redefined.

The Real “Smallest Political Quiz”

Which must take precedent: my personal safety or your natural right to liberty? When they come into conflict, which is more important?
How you answer this determines if you are fundamentally for or against classic constitutionalism. Your answer identifies if you are a liberal or a patriot; you cannot be both.

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben Franklin

Alfonso Verifies My Concern of Cynicism

This is a critical subject we all need to hear and absorb. Please take special note of the idea that cynicism is one of the core killers of republicanism.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OLW9mKTk-M&feature=related


If you want to know, my INTRODUCTION (below on the right) also mentions cynicism and its harm to today's America.

Sharpton disrespects Rev King's Message

Al Sharpton again proves his lack of basic common sense. His interpretation of Rev. King’s words are in the very least, disrespectful to his memory:

http://www.thefoxnation.com/al-sharpton/2010/05/06/sharpton-dream-make-everything-equal-everybody-s-house?page=4

Here’s a piece of Rev King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. Does this sound like he supports government plundering of the private wealth of individuals?

“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Review:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml

King knew of the division of our republic –where you and I live and exist—and the inner workings of our democratic process –authorized, sanctified and enumerated under the Constitution.

I call for Sharpton and other race-baters to stop distorting history and to rejoin people of all colors in our fight for Liberty.


The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.... Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Colossians 2:8-
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Al Sharpton tidbit: Who was Al's mentor? The King of Soul himself,James Brown. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton

A MONTAGE OF COLLECTIVE EVIL

All of this, and the press degrades Beck and Romney for their (radical?) association to the Mormons, BUT this is okay?

Watch the videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=928_TLwSl1I
http://www.therightscoop.com/a-black-liberation-theology-montage-of-evil

It is sickening that so many people buy into this mess. Like Islam, Liberation Theology is not spiritually based (see my previous posts on this subject). Both seem to not get that they are mixing physicality with spirituality. In essence, Black Liberation Theology teaches that if God gets in the way of their(?) liberation, then He must get out of the way. Huh? Where's the logic? If the God of the Bible was to get out of the way then there would be nothing: John 1:1-3

The audacity and ego of Man!

“My salvation is not going to come about without the collective salvation for the country,” says BH Obama. Part of the problem is that he speaks in riddles (though he has to because he knows he's talking to his intellectual base as well as to the minions and he wants his words to deliver two different messages to these groups).

Is he speaking of physical, political salvation or eternal, spiritual salvation? For a Christian the two are distinct and separate, but for a Muslim --as well as to those who follow Liberation Theology-- the two are intertwined. And where is the separation of Church and State our liberal cousins wish us to believe in?

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we set out to deceive. But it’s okay if I’m talking to idiots! Right Obama?

Disgusting.

LISTEN UP TEA PARTIERS!

I'd like to try to make a point here: Assuming we are all part of the tea party explosion- We have to remember the leftist/statists are going to use everything they can to discredit us. The media is assisting in bumping us up a notch and giving us PARTY status. And because we aren't a real Party, the media has the luxury of lumping us together when it meets their desired need, but also scrutinizing us individually THEN reflecting that individual action on the entire "party."

Some of you are not getting this- we are being played and some of you are giving "them" exactly what they need to ruin the movement. We do not have the convenience of actual Party Leaders who are given the responsibility of speaking for the entire group; everything we say at the individual level is being forced upon us as a group. The two primary parties don't have to worry about that one issue- we do.

“THE LITTLE PEOPLE OF THE DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN PATY ARE SAFE FROM THE SPOTLIGHT, YOU’RE NOT.”

This is politics we are playing, each and every one of us. We are playing in a highly sensitive, politically charged environment filled with coyotes and wolves waiting at every opportunity to pounce. And, when we go down, the Republican Party goes down. Why? The alphabet media will make sure of it.

There are a lot of people on the proverbial fence who are paying so-so attention, and they are leaning to the right, kind of, for the time being. But those same so-so people are not scrutinizing Fox News. They aren't reading at Townhall.com, they aren't studying at constituton.org. They mostly peek at CNN from time to time, though with some trepidation. But they can be easily led to the left if the media acquires pictures of us with Hitler signs, film us with guns on our sides, or catches us with just one racist picket sign in our midst. We have to be careful and know each of us IS the Party, and we are playing politics whether we like it or not.

Police your actions. Police your ranks. Act like the world is watching you, because they are. Liberty depends on it.

A Creed

To keep in mind from day to day
that I am a soldier in the fray;
That I must serve, from sun to sun,
As well as he who bears the gun
The flag that flies above us all,
And answers well my country’ call.

I must not for one hour forget
Unto the Stars and Stripes my debt.
‘Twas spotless on my day of birth,
And when at least I quit this earth
Old Glory still must spotless be
For all who follow after me.

At some post where my work will fit
I must with courage do my bit;
Some portion of myself I’d give
That freedom and the flag may live.
And in some way I want to feel
That I am doing Service real.

I must in all I say and do
Respect the red, the white, and blue;
Nor dim with petty deeds of shame
The splendor of Old Glory’s fame;
I must not let my standards drag,
For my disgrace would stain the flag.

Poem was extracted from a compilation of "Poems of Patriotism" (1942) by Edgar A. Guest

Attacking America at its Foundation

From its very opening statement, the suit against President Obama (representing the United States of America) is filled with partial truths, innuendo, and deceit.

Take a look: http://www.wiwd.uscourts.gov/assets/pdf/FFRF_v_Obama_Order.pdf

The opening statement gives rise to a letter from John Adams written to his wife Abigail in 1774. I want you to pay close attention to how this opening presents its argument:

It begins with associating the argument as one related to prayer “in the public life,” and that this public life problem has “been a matter of intense debate in this country since its founding.” And as verification of this elongated “public” squabble, the suit cites the above noted letter from President Adams. The suit makes an opening gesture, attempting to set the “public” stage for this suit as one that is concerned about the use of prayer generally in the public venue. And with this self-indulging context, set by using a partial sentence gutted of its context, the suit attempts to deceive the Court by misusing the words of Adams to collaborate with the idea that prayer generally has been controversial. Here is the entire sentence(s) in context:

“When the Congress first met, Mr. Cushing made a Motion, that it should be opened with Prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay of N. York and Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, because we were so divided in religious Sentiments, some Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Aanabaptists, some Presbyterians and some Congregationalists, so that We could not join in the same Act of Worship.”

Here you can read the letter in its entirety: www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/74/Letter_from_John_Adams_to_Abigail_Adams_1.html

Clearly the problem in 1774 had nothing to do with prayer, but with who was praying and what their specific Christian affiliation was. No one – not one of the representatives—objected to prayer. Their concern was only in relation to each member staying true to his specific form of Christianity. And, interestingly, Sam Adams came to the rescue. Sam was a staunch Congregationalist, one of the least tolerant sects of Christianity. But Sam Adams was a believer in the public unity “come together” teachings of Pastor George Whitefield. He was a fervent protector of his chosen belief and wanted to keep his religious beliefs pure within his private/religious life, but he had no problem with joining hands with other folks from other religions in the public arena. John Adams, Jefferson, and others often talked of “the religion of America,” which was an understanding that for public (political) purposes, there was a singular set of rules that do and should bring all of Christian America (98% of everyone) together (this was the one issue that prompted Jefferson to create the Jefferson Bible, for “public” use). The fight then was not about prayer in public, but about who should do the praying, SUPPORTING public prayer in official, representative meetings!

And the suit goes on, pointing out that there was no prayer at the first Convention; another self-serving bit of misinformation. Pointing this tidbit out in context with the formal use of the Chambers suggests the Convention was under the same pretenses of formality. The first Convention was a secret informal meeting with much trepidation and even fear in the air. To heck with formalities- they had to get down to business knowing of the urgency and the need for secrecy and timeliness of their meeting. Some of the representors were there on their own accord, not in any official capacity, and even in fear of being discovered.

I could go on and on through this suit pointing out many places in which Gaylor and Company try to make their case based on partial truths, innuendo, and deceit. If we had neutral, informed, patriotic judges, this suit would be tossed out simply because it is riddled with attempts to deceive the Court.
Will it work? Who knows. But just how hard do you think Obama’s government lawyers will work to defend him? How ironic this is.

I’m just an old out of work truck driver— no one special in the vein of intellectualism and politics. But I see this plain as day. How about you?

PS- I highly recommend you read the book, “The 5000 Year Leap.”

THE CONSTITUTION IS LIKE A FINE CLOCK

When will the madness stop?

Bradford’s travels began a new process. Shortly after arriving in the New America he instituted socialized sharing of goods and services; took only one full set of four seasons for the pilgrims to see the error of their ways. Socialism caused laziness and jealousy, and quickly leading to a more open and responsible, less obstructed way of life.

Then we had the Confederation, but the lack of state unity soon showed its weakness against the backstop of a warring world.

Next came our current Constitution; a finely tuned “machine” with many intricate parts and a mapped-out process for maintenance, all needed for metered liberty to survive. A beautiful process! So what happened?

The entire process has been spoiled and poisoned and degraded. The ingenious process our founders set on paper WAS like a singular machine, but when you remove one little cog the whole process gets compromised.

With the Constitution we have many compromised cogs, and its maintenance department is wholly lacking in training. Early on grease was applied in all the wrong places and certain functions then required removal so the entire machine didn't shut down.
Then, with an incomplete machine, other cogs had to be removed and secondary systems had to be installed.

Soon, these inferior backup systems needed band-aids and bailing wire to keep them from spinning apart. And with the invention of duct tape, temporary support systems soon became the norm.

Eventually, the original machine became so inaccessible the add-ons had to be given independent life. Power had to rerouted, new maintenance manuals created and new bureaucrats and specialized police became justifiable to oversee and protect and enforce its function.

Naturally, what flowed from this was a whole new life unto itself, a life whose widget could not be discerned, yet it was so intertwined with otherwise legitimate business that it had to be fed, more and more and more.

New functions, with ensuing manuals and their enforcers, became the new norm. Growing, evolving, and developing its own ability to redefining its intent because it became too big to fail.

Can the machine be fixed? Sure it can, but we need politically compatible nanotechnology to reach through all the clutter of permanentized temporary fixes.
When will the madness stop?

Abortion Disrupts Lofty Goals

I try my best to look at issues through the lens of a political scientist, and often I find myself wrestling back and forth between a pure intellectual approach and my obvious bias for moralism. Don't get me wrong -- I am far from perfect. In fact, it is that "fire" in which I came that makes me --forces me-- to filter my thoughts and actions. I've been to the other side, down and desperate and self-indulged with what seemed like the weight of the world rolling against me, I did not like what it brought out of me and I did not like the prospects. I needed a goal, a lofty goal to inspire my own footprints through life.
Intellectualism at its best also brings it to us at its worst; personified through the actions of a psychopath. However, one of the things that brought me out of the gutter was something I "discovered" inside me- I wanted life to mean something. Then, in my search for the meaning of life (a lofty goal), I began working on the best intellectual course to bring me to that goal. Can I obtain meaning by applying varying requirements on different characteristics?
No- I have to be consistent. I must find the "rules" and apply them equally, to myself and to others- even to those whom I find disgusting, or simply unlikeable. Secondly, those rules have to be compatible with societal order, meaning it is disingenuous to apply certain rules to my actions, but change those rules for others. Thirdly, for life to mean something it (across the board) has to be worth something. Can I put a price on it? Can I affect its value? Can any of us affect its value? Who am I to ascribe such a worth? And lastly, I realistically have to conclude that coming to finality in life with such a lofty goal met, is not likely- the ultimate meaning of life is at its best, fleeting.
All of this means the preponderance of life will not be spent at or within the goal, but on the road to that goal. Thus, am I to be judged by my lofty, well intended goal, or am I to be judged on how I act on the road to that goal? People come and go in and out of our lives throughout living life; by what gage might these chance encountered people judge me? They will judge me by what they see --what they perceive-- relative to my daily actions. So I ask again, what is more important: the goal, or how I act in my attempt at getting to that goal?
Does not age and experience give us some duty to be a model for those younger? Ah, for me, no matter what my destination is, the mores I apply daily are by far the most important. And this is why I cannot be a liberal- I allow rules to sometimes be an obstacle. But in the end, I shall have no regrets, for most of whom I meet throughout my life knows I tried to do the right thing for all of those whose path I crossed. Love me or hate me, at least there will be a little bit of admiration in there somewhere. What more can anyone ask for. And, interestingly enough, that sounds like a pretty lofty goal, too.
In conclusion, can I fit abortion somewhere within that model; for me to live yet for another to die? Intellectually, that seems a bit hypocritical, don’t you think? If life is to have meaning, it must have worth, and no one is important enough to decide who lives and who dies. Not even I, for erring on the side of death cannot be corrected; an error we can all live with.
In the words of our founders, “Nature and Nature’s God” can be the only Arbiter.

Patriotism

How do I define American PATRIOTISM? Sorry, can't put it in a few sentences. I believe patriotism comes from a culmination of events/experiences, knowledge, and insightful spiritual Truth. That's right --of this I have no doubt; there has to be a profoundness of spiritual respect and acknowledgment within oneself of a Higher Power, a Designer.

Can an atheist appreciate the chance-life of being an American? Of course. But this alone, without the depth of spirituality, cannot constitute the patriotism I feel, nor the patriotism of those of renown; a patriotism Ms. Kagan can never feel.

Empathy- this is another element that's required for patriotism. One of my quirks is to look around when I see someone yawn. As I hold my hand over my mouth and yawn --because of seeing someone else yawn-- I have to look around to see if anyone else saw the yawn, and if they too are overcome with the urge to yawn. If they do see it, and don't yawn, I have to wonder what life would be like without, empathy, and without the ability to feel patriotism.

Notwithstanding, let's get back to what patriotism is to me; it is the ability to desire and pursue life's not-for-sale gifts; the luxury of knowing my country is empowered by delegated (not surrendered) rights, a profound respect for the good fight of our Founders, and the active acknowledgment that freedom has its evolving price. That price is the willingness, collectively and individually, to sacrifice life and property. If you are willing to give up a fraction of liberty for an equal fraction of safety then you will eventually have neither.

All of this from seeing a bird in the sky .. It doesn't take much for me, as everyday is my independence day. Many years, perhaps pre-1980, I "discovered" an interesting man named Charles Eliot Norton, and I leave you this independence weekend with a few patriotic thoughts from his pen:

[Extracted from Letters of Charles Eliot Norton (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1913), Sara Norton and M.A. DeWolfe] (--can be read online at < http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=1196402 >--]

"There are moments in every man's life, in the life of every nation, when, under the excitement of passion, the simple truths which in common times are the foundation upon which the right order and conduct of life depend are apt to be forgotten and disregarded. I shall venture tonight to recall to you some of these commonplace truths, which in these days of war need more than ever to be kept in mind.
There never was a land that better deserved the love of her people than America, for there never was a mother-country kinder to her children. She has given to them all that she could give. Her boundless resources have lain open to them, to use at their will. And the consequence has been that never in the history of man has there been so splendid a spectacle of widely diffused and steadily increasing material welfare as America has displayed during the last hundred years.
Millions upon millions of men have lived here with more comfort, with less fear, than any such numbers elsewhere in any age have lived. Countless multitudes, whose forefathers from the beginning of human life on earth have spent weary lives in unrewarded toil, in anxiety, in helplessness, in ignorance, have risen here, in the course of even a single generation, to the full and secure enjoyment of the fruits of their labor, to confident hope, to intelligent possession of their own faculties. Is not the land to be dearly loved in which this has been possible, in which this has been achieved?
But there is a deeper source of love of country than the material advantages and benefits it may afford. It is in the character of its people, in their moral life, in the type of civilization which they exhibit. The elements of human nature are indeed so fixed that favorable or unfavorable circumstances have little effect upon its essential constitution, but prosperity or the reverse brings different traits into prominence. The conditions which have prevailed in America have, if broadly considered, tended steadily and strongly to certain good results in the national character; not, indeed, to unmixed good, but to a preponderance of good.
The institutions established for self-government have been founded with intent to secure justice and independence for all. The social relations among the whole body of the people, are humane and simple. The general spirit of the people is liberal, is kindly, is considerate. The ideals for the realization of which in private and public conduct there is more or less steady and consistent effort, are as high and as worthy as any which men have pursued. Every genuine American holds to the ideal of justice for all men, of independence, including free speech and free action within the limits of law, of obedience to law, of universal education, of material well-being for all the well-behaving and industrious, of peace and good-will among men. These, however far short the nation may fall in expressing them in its actual life, are, no one will deny it, the ideals of our American democracy.
And it is because America represents these ideals that the deepest love for his country glows in the heart of the American, and inspires him with that patriotism which counts no cost, which esteems no sacrifice too great to maintain and to increase the influence of these principles which embody themselves in the fair shape of his native land, and have their expressive symbol in her flag. The spirit of his patriotism is not an intermittent impulse; it is an abiding principle; it is the strongest motive of his life; it is his religion.
And because it is so, and just in proportion to his love of the ideals for which his country stands, is his hatred of whatever is opposed to them in private conduct or public policy. Against injustice, against dishonesty, against lawlessness, against whatever may make for war instead of peace, the good citizen is always in arms.
No thoughtful American can have watched the course of affairs among us during the last thirty years without grave anxiety from the apparent decline in power to control the direction of public and private conduct, of the principles upon regard for which the permanent and progressive welfare of America depends; and especially the course of events during the last few months and the actual condition of the country today, should bring home to every man the question whether or not the nation is true to one of the chief of the ideals to which it has professed allegiance.
A generation has grown up that has known nothing of war. The blessings of peace have been poured out upon us. We have congratulated ourselves that we were free from the misery and the burdens that war and standing armies have brought upon the nations of the Old World. "Their fires" -- I cite a fine phrase of Sir Philip Sidney in a letter to Queen Elizabeth -- "Their fires have given us light to see our own quietness."
And now of a sudden, without cool deliberation, without prudent preparation, the nation is hurried into war, and America, she who more than any other land was pledged to peace and good-will on earth, unsheathes her sword, compels a weak and unwilling nation to a fight, rejecting without due consideration her earnest and repeated offers to meet every legitimate demand of the United States. It is a bitter disappointment to the lover of his country; it is a turning-back from the path of civilization to that of barbarism.
"There never was a good war," said Franklin. There have indeed been many wars in which a good man must take part, and take part with grave gladness to defend the cause of justice, to die for it if need be, a willing sacrifice, thankful to give life for what is dearer than life, and happy that even by death in war he is serving the cause of peace. But if a war be undertaken for the most righteous end, before the resources of peace have been tried and proved vain to secure it, that war has no defense; it is a national crime. And however right, however unavoidable a war may be, and those of us who are old enough to remember the war for the Union know that war may be right and unavoidable, yet, I repeat the words of Franklin, "There never was a good war."
It is evil in itself, it is evil in its never-ending train of consequences. No man has known the nature of war better than General Sherman, and in his immortal phrase he has condensed its description -- "War is hell." "From the earliest dawnings of policy to this day," said Edmund Burke, more than a hundred years ago, "the invention of men has been sharpening and improving the mystery of murder, from the first rude essays of clubs and stones to the present perfection of gunnery, cannoneering, bombarding, mining, and all these species of artificial, learned and refined cruelty in which we are now so expert, and which make a principal part of what politicians have taught us to believe is our principal glory."
And it is now, at the end of this century, the century in which beyond any other in history knowledge has increased and the arts of peace have advanced, that America has been brought by politicians and writers for the press, faithless to her noble ideals, against the will of every right-minded citizen, to resort to these cruel arts, these arts of violence, these arts which rouse the passions of the beast in man, before the resources of peace had been fairly tested and proved insufficient to secure the professed ends, which, however humane and desirable, afford no sufficient justification for resorting to the dread arbitrament of arms.
There are, indeed, many among us who find justification of the present war in the plea that its motive is to give independence to the people of Cuba, long burdened by the oppressive and corrupt rule of Spain, and especially to relieve the suffering of multitudes deprived of their homes and of means of subsistence by the cruel policy of the general who exercised for a time a practical dictatorship over the island. The plea so far as it is genuine deserves the respect due to every humane sentiment. But independence secured for Cuba by forcible overthrow of the Spanish rule means either practicalanarchy or the substitution of the authority of the United States for that of Spain. Either alternative might well give us pause. And as for the relief of suffering, surely it is a strange procedure to begin by inflicting worse suffering still. It is fighting the devil with his own arms. That the end justifies the means is a dangerous doctrine, and no wise man will advise doing evil for the sake of an uncertain good. But the plea that the better government of Cuba and the relief of the reconcentrados could only be secured by war is the plea either of ignorance or of hypocrisy.
But the war is declared; and on all hands we hear the cry that he is no patriot who fails to shout for it, and to urge the youth of the country to enlist, and to rejoice that they are called to the service of their native land. The sober counsels that were appropriate before the war was entered upon must give way to blind enthusiasm, and the voice of condemnation must be silenced by the thunders of the guns and the hurrahs of the crowd.
Stop! A declaration of war does not change the moral law. "The ten commandments will not budge" at a joint resolve of Congress. Was James Russell Lowell aught but a good patriot when during the Mexican war he sent the stinging shafts of his matchless satire at the heart of the monstrous iniquity, or when, years afterward, he declared, that he thought at the time and that he still thought the Mexican war was a national crime? Did John Bright ever render greater service to his country than when, during the Crimean war, he denounced the Administration which had plunged England into it, and employed his magnificent power of earnest and incisive speech in the endeavor to repress the evil spirit which it evoked in the heart of the nation?
No! the voice of protest, of warning, of appeal is never more needed than when the clamor of fife and drum, echoed by the press and too often by the pulpit, is bidding all men fall in and keep step and obey in silence the tyrannous word of command. Then, more than ever, it is the duty of the good citizen not to be silent, and spite of obloquy, misrepresentation and abuse, to insist on being heard, and with sober counsel to maintain the everlasting validity of the principles of the moral law.
So confused are men by false teaching in regard to national honor and the duty of the citizen that it is easy to fall into the error of holding a declaration of war, however brought about, as a sacred decision of the national will, and to fancy that a call to arms from the Administration has the force of a call from the lips of the country, of the America to whom all her sons are ready to pay the full measure of devotion. This is indeed a natural and for many a youth not a discreditable error. But if the nominal, though authorized, representatives of the country have brought us into a war that might and should have been avoided, and which consequently is an unrighteous war, then, so long as the safety of the State is not at risk, the duty of the good citizen is plain. He is to help to provide the Administration responsible for the conduct of the war with every means that may serve to bring it to the speediest end. He is to do this alike that the immediate evils of the war may be as brief and as few as possible, and also that its miserable train of after evils may be diminished and the vicious passions excited by it be the sooner allayed. Men, money, must be abundantly supplied. But must he himself enlist or quicken the ardent youth to enter service in such a cause? The need is not yet. The country is in no peril.
There is always in a vast population like ours an immense, a sufficient supply of material of a fighting order, often of a heroic courage, ready and eager for the excitement of battle, filled with the old notion that patriotism is best expressed in readiness to fight for our country, be she right or wrong. Better the paying of bounties to such men to fill the ranks than that they should be filled by those whose higher duty is to fit themselves for the service of their country in the patriotic labors of peace. We mourn the deaths of our noble youth fallen in the cause of their country when she stands for the right; but we may mourn with a deeper sadness for those who have fallen in a cause which their generous hearts mistook for one worthy of the last sacrifice.
My friends, America’s been compelled against the will of all her wisest and best to enter into a path of darkness and peril. Against their will she has been forced to turn back from the way of civilization to the way of barbarism, to renounce for the time her own ideals. With grief, with anxiety must the lover of his country regard the present aspect and the future prospect of the nation's life? With serious purpose, with utter self-devotion he should prepare himself for the untried and difficult service to which it is plain he is to be called in the quick-coming years.
Two months ago America stood at the parting of the ways. Her first step is irretrievable. It depends on the virtue, on the enlightened patriotism of her children whether her future steps shall be upward to the light or downward to the darkness.

July 4th; My Two Cents Worth

Friday, July 3, 2009- I’m currently sitting on the edge of Canada, where I've been since yesterday in north east New York, waiting for my next load assignment; it ain't likely to come though, not till Monday.

I've cleaned my truck out -literally-- as I cut a new rug for the floor last night. Fortunately, I didn't wait till today to start that project, as it rained through the night and most of this morning. But right now the grass is glistening; the sky is clearing, bolstering a clean, clear blue that seems like it goes on forever.

My fuel mileage percentage has been terrible over the last few days due to hauling heavy loads across some rough (but beautiful) terrain, so I'm trying to not idle my truck much which means I am down to bare-bones self-entertainment: short walks, meditation and reading --lots of reading-- and yes, bird watching; Sedge Wrens, something that looks like a Warbler, and lots of Seagulls, chirping Sparrows and other field birds. Then, though I was quite surprised, I swear I saw an Eagle; it was too large to be a Falcon, I thought. I jumped out of my truck and took a more advantageous position, and sure enough, this huge bird came soaring back, even losing some altitude as if she knew I wanted a better look. Wow, she is a Bald Eagle, and on July 4th weekend too!

In so many ways I am blessed. I was born in America with the genes of durability and independence: born in a land destined to "house" the freest people this world is likely to ever produce. I thank “Nature and Nature's God” everyday, but especially as July 4th approaches.

Now, I’m a tough guy- not moved by much to laugh heartily, nor to cry- only my wife and my God really stir the depths of my soul. I give my wife the credit for saving my life, for I truly began an entirely new and fulfilling adventure the day I met her. And for God .. well, He is all things that are. But on this day, July 3rd, it brings me to my spiritual knees, to wonderment, and to liberty-minded reflection as I look forward to tomorrow and all that it stands for.

Freedom means so much to me, as I have experienced confinement; I learned to read, beginning at about 20 years of age, when I was in prison- and it was inside those walls in 1976 that I first learned of, not freedom, but Liberty. I found inside those walls that I had a mind when I got my first “A” in a college class. And I found inside those walls I had a heart when I “discovered” a tear on my cheek as a sat and watched a moving July 4th television special about the history of Carpenter’s Hall in Philadelphia. On July 3, 1976, I discovered the real America, and my thoughts turned from drugs and a struggle for basic existence, to a desire for Liberty. That new struggle began at that moment, for I knew –somehow intuitively- that liberty is found in the soul, physical confinement notwithstanding.

I began searching the prison library for all books of political and social science. I looked diligently for subjects ranging from Early American History to Self-Improvement. As I was first learning to read, I was tutored by the use of Zane Grey and Louis L’amour: The Sackets served as a vicarious life for me behind those walls. But now I was on my own!, and the freedom I felt while reading of the Old West served as a great spring board, conditioning me for the wonderment of our nation’s Great Beginnings. And this, my time in prison, was my Great Beginnings too.

For some, the 4th of July invokes patriotism; but for me it’s a three day event. This day –July 3rd- has a special meaning, as it is the fulcrum of a special three day event. July 3rd stands in between the day that John Adams wrote would be celebrated as the “most memorable epoch” in American History; and on the other side, the day that our Declaration of Independence was officially adopted. Thus, from this perspective, today is naturally my day of deep celebration; to meditate, to reminisce, moved to wonderment and liberty-minded reflections, all culminating on the venerable day of July 4th.

America. Where else could a runaway, incorrigible, child from a broken home and a criminal/drug infested life, grow up to find the realities of service in the U.S. Marine Corps? Where else could the life of Scoop Jackson been possible? Martha Raye! From Governor Bradford to Stagecoach Mary; from Nathanael Greene to David Petraeus; from Jesse Owens to Dick Button- Home of the Grand Canyon and the London Bridge; Home of the Brave. All of this, and more, IS July 4th.

Yes, I fear progressivism shall continue digging at Liberty, adding shallow freedoms that I now know are cancerous to what our founders meant to establish. But for the moment, this Independence Day weekend, I command my mind and heart to look to what was and what can still be, and not at what is now and likely to come in the short term. For I know from experience and intuition, Liberty and Dependence are both contagiously habit forming, but with Liberty being the stronger of the two.

Though John Adams was mistaken about which day would be celebrated, his intimacy towards the importance of our Declaration of Independents was right on. My birth could have happened anywhere. But the story of my life, from Prison to Praise, could have only happened in the Land of the Free, the United States of America; I give praise and thanks for all those who sacrificed it all, for me, and you.

I wonder if I will be able to see the fireworks from Rouses Point. I hope so.


"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."


UPDATE: I saw a great display of fireworks just above the eastern horizon. And yes, I got my next load early Monday morning.

High Court Supports Nationalism & Discrimination

Here’s a twist you won’t read anywhere else: In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the High Court has ruled against the people’s right to religious association. It has effectively laid the framework for a singular state-controlled religion (possibly leading to a religious-free society?). Though this may be an unintended consequence, it surely was not unforeseen. But is anyone talking about it? ACLU? ACLJ? Not yet they aren’t.

This ruling could not have gone any differently either. Since the perversion of the Constitution, removing it from its intended place of controlling the federal government by way of state government interactivity and placing it directly in the path of the individual, the High Court has no choice but to work its magic based on specialized association, and to apply that specialization to everyone equally- an impossible task.

While the publicly heralded reason for the 14th Amendment was a noble cause, there were far more deviant hopes for this Amendment then to just clarify the failings of the 13th Amendment. The 14th Amendment did more than damage control after the Civil War; it distinguished the Constitution as the one and only source of defining state citizenry- again, the stated purpose is noble, but its reach into the future laid the groundwork for toppling all state’s rights, perverting and minimizing the most important check and balance to the protection of each individual’s inalienable rights. It alone created an institutional Dynasty. And in that vein, the 14th Amendment was logically followed by the 17th Amendment, completing the process of subjugating the several states to a singular authority (ie., nullifying the 10th Amendment).

And now we have this distorted Court power chipping away (since 1953) at America’s Christian roots, in part, by attacking our natural-law right to assembly and free association. “Free Association? BRUCE, you’re nuts- the High Court just assured free association by confirming non-Christians must be allowed to join a Christian-based group!”

Really?

And now what will be the eventual outcome of applying government-led force in deciding who can lead a specific religious-led group? What will be the outcome of putting non-Christians in leadership positions within a Christian group? We are effectively replacing freedom to associate with an institutionalized privilege of free association. This is an attack on independent thought. It is an attack on like-minded people getting together and advancing their own mind and heart. It is an attack on each individual’s right to pursue their own liberty. It is an attack on personal and private thought. Yea, the thought police are already in your neighborhood.

Now you decide if I am the nut. To stop a religion from having and protecting its belief is discrimination. The nationalized government is reaching where it does not belong, and you could be next.


NOTE: Shameful and dangerous how stupidly we stumble through life hoping that someone else will protect our liberty. What about the nullification process, toppled by the High Court’s recent gun ruling? If you don't know how the two are related, then you still have a lot of homwork to do. I'm looking forward to the "cash for clunker's" program as it will take 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road.

Will the Real Idiot Please Stand Up!

Ignorance is rampant in America; A very simple, basic opening general statement. And, like all generalities, it’s always wrong, but only in degrees and context. I thought of using modifiers like “politically” or “socially” ignorant, but I didn’t want to limit its context; each time I thought of a modifier, I then immediately imagined a conversation I’ve found myself in that was predominantly of some other context, occupied by ignorance.

Who am I to call anyone ignorant? Nobody. I most certainly have my failings – my ignorances: I’m not scholastically trained in the art of semantics; It took me over 20 years of classes here and there to acquire a BS degree in Political Science ( a degree that qualifies me to serve coffee); and, as I am told, I am quite lacking in social skills/mannerisms. My early life was filled with ignorance and physical/mental abuse. My adult life has been some ridiculous attempt at repaying society for all the “expense” I caused by my truant and incorrigible behavior (perhaps an attempt in futility).

But, let’s get some perspective here: It’s not about me; this is about liberty. It’s about the general public’s natural and common and republican right to pursue life, to pursue liberty, and to pursue (your own form of) happiness. There are truths that cannot be denied; but they are. In that pursuit there are human characteristics that must be acknowledged and considered; there are issues of fact that must be understood, but they are consistently ignored or specifically brushed aside because of their inconvenience.

No matter how much we try, 2 + 2 will always equal 4. But there are those who will try their best to prove otherwise. Ignorance abounds, and I am sure we don’t all need examples, but let me give you a couple simple ones: Google “Peggy West Arizona Mexico border,” and remember the possible tipping of Guam? And I’m not talking about gaffs like 57 +1 states. I’m talking about the real morons who run around on college campuses sporting Che Guevara t-shirts; I really think they have no idea what they think they are supporting. Such ignorance is what brought us to our current political/social conundrum.

Here’s one- this one is what prompted me to scratch out this rant- Christopher Lee. Chris and some of his really smart friends blog at: http://hooahwife.com/ and during the early stages of a boolean search I came across one of his posts in which he decided “on a slow day” to post the words of President Obama:

“But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. 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 in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

Below this quote is quite the intellectual line of comments. One loyal reader writes out his concerns; not knowing the context of the quote, and why Chris put it on his blog. A few postings later, Chris answers with this:

“It came from a 2001 radio interview Obama did in Chicago talking about the civil rights movement not doing enough. I posted it for a few reason.
1. I was board and hadn’t posted anything since Wednesday.
2. He talks about redistribution of wealth. Which I believe to be a bad thing.
3. He calls the Constitution of the United States a “charter of negative liberties”. I have not idea what the even means, but it doesn’t sound nice.
4. He wants the Constitution to say what the government should do for you. The government isn’t here to take care of us.”

Now, as a conservative, should I see Chris as an idiot or as simply ignorant? I think ignorant is the proper term. While Chris admittedly isn’t so very well armed to defend what he believes, he instinctively knows that something stinks with redistribution of wealth. He has no idea of the details, but still comes to the correct conclusion.

Nope; Chris isn’t an idiot, he just suffers from a public education. And with a little information, he could be dangerous. The jury is still out on Joe the Plumber, but my guess is that since he was given his chance at making a dent in American ignorance and blew it, he’s probably an idiot- not everyone can be saved.

In conclusion, I strongly support http://wallbuilders.com and http://americanchristianhistory.com and http://mrie.org as well as what the Texas school board < http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052104365.html > is up to.

Is it really controversial to call America a “constitutional republic” rather than a democracy? Does such a label connote conservatism and a conservative bias, as stated in the above Washington Post article? Well, let’s see- Our institutional founding is based on a constitution; and in that Constitution it clearly states in Article IV, section IV: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government, …” So where is the biased, conservative slant? (If you’re one of “them” who believes this refers to the Republican Party then you are not only one of the ignorant, you’re likely to be one of the idiots, too.)

Yea, I warned you about my poor social skills, and they are likely to get worse as we continue ushering out Liberty. I just call ‘em like I see ‘em.

STOP, Look, and Listen, to ourselves

Eckhart Tolle’s success is because of our personal failure to ourselves. We, individually and collectively, are starving ourselves of spiritual needs. Societal pressures are getting to some of us and we are ignoring our own personal internal needs; denying there is any need to feed our soul. Pressure all around us is screaming, screaming from our left shoulder and from our right shoulder: from our left shoulder comes PC, man-made (institutionalized) behavioral demands; and from our right shoulder comes a more classic message of renown.
Right now, the left shoulder message is screaming and it’s hard to bring ourselves to a STOP, and just listen- listen to the quiet message of peace and understanding and Truth.
Just for a moment, stop, and ponder the wisdom of Solomon. Please, right now, dust off that old Bible and read the Book of Solomon < http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvSolo.html > written 700-900 years before Jesus’ time – 900 years, nearly 3000 years ago.
Then, after your reading, think of this: is the wisdom of our founders, just 220 years ago, so old and antiquated that it must be irrelevant? We must STOP and rethink the wisdom of those who came before. Our lives have been far too soft for us to even begin to think we have a better answer.
Please, let’s relearn the respect of experience, for the road to Liberty begins with conservative (careful) contemplation.