It is crucial that you read this. It is sobering. Wherever you stand on this issue, please take the time to read this; it should wake you from your careless slumber on this important truth.
We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context this thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington,DC , filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia, " explaining how immigration - both legal and
illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America.
The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, to self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great
civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide."
"Here is how they do it," Lamm said:
"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset , put it this way: 'The histories
of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims."
Lamm went on:
"Second, to destroy America , invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds."
"Third, we could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrcity and what it meant to be an
American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.' Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their
differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."
"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."
"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority placation."
"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precept. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks
believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- From
many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will " Balkanize " America as surely as Kosovo."
"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bi-cultural country, having established multi-cultum, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."
In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book 'Mexifornia.' His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even
barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America. Take note of California and other states. To date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and " Ignorance is
strength."
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" - Ronald Reagan
Read more!
Friday, May 14, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
A Torch With No Flame
Although Charleston Heston was president of the NRA. This is not just about the 2nd Amendment. This clearly points out that we are losing the next generation of patriots. We must change our educational system by electing conservatives such as candidate for State Superintendent of Schools Janet Barresi. She is a true conservative. Everywhere we turn we are under attack by Liberals and Progressives. They have been at it for a long time, while we have been going about our daily lives not realizing how much progress they have made and how far they have come. It is going to be a long, slow, hard row to GET AMERICA BACK, but we start in November 2010. Let's continue to work. We can defeat them. Read more!
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The Power to Tax ... and Revolt
By Mark Alexander-- Patriot Post· Thursday, April 15, 2010
"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." --John Marshall On December 16th, 1773, "radicals" from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, boarded three East India Company ships and threw into Boston Harbor 342 chests of tea.
This iconic event, in protest of oppressive British taxation and tyrannical rule, became known as the Boston Tea Party.
Resistance to the Crown had been mounting over enforcement of the 1764 Sugar Act, 1765 Stamp Act and 1767 Townsend Act, which led to the Boston Massacre and gave rise to the slogan, "No taxation without representation."
The 1773 Tea Act and resulting Tea Party protest galvanized the Colonial movement opposing British parliamentary acts, which violated the natural, charter and constitutional rights of the colonists.
In response to the rebellion, the British enacted additional punitive measures, labeled the "Intolerable Acts," in hopes of suppressing the burgeoning insurrection. Far from accomplishing their desired outcome, however, the Crown's countermeasures led colonists to convene the First Continental Congress on September 5th, 1774, in Philadelphia.
Near midnight on April 18th, 1775, Paul Revere departed Charlestown (near Boston)for Lexington and Concord in order to warn John Hancock, Samuel Adams and other Sons of Liberty that the British army was marching to arrest them and seize their weapons caches. While Revere was captured after reaching Lexington, his friend, Samuel Prescott, was able to evade the Red Coats and took word to the militiamen at Concord.
In the early dawn of that first Patriots' Day, April 19th, Captain John Parker, commander of the Lexington militia, ordered, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they want a war let it begin here." That it did -- American Minutemen fired the "shot heard round the world," as immortalized by poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, confronting British Regulars on Lexington Green and at Concord's Old North Bridge.
Thus, by the time the Second Continental Congress convened on May 10th, 1775, the young nation was in open war for liberty and independence, which would not be won until a full decade later.
Today, the tax burden borne by most Americans, even those who pay no direct federal taxes but at the least pay a great hidden cost in federal regulation, is far greater than that which incited our Founders to revolution.
Thus, some 221 years after the ratification of our Constitution, Americans are once again at a crossroads with oppressive centralized government -- a point at which we must choose to turn up toward liberty or down toward tyranny and anarchy.
Those at the helm of the federal government, by way of generations of overreaching executive orders, legislative malfeasance and judicial diktat, have abandoned their sacred oaths2 to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."
Although our Constitution provides the People with an authentic means for amendment as prescribed in Article V, successive generations of leftists have, by way of legislation, regulation and activist courts, altered that august founding convention well beyond any semblance of its original intent.
Consequently, they have undermined constitutional Rule of Law, supplanting it with the rule of men.
They have done so in order to win the allegiance of special interest constituencies, which then ensure perpetual re-election of their sponsors in return for political and economic agendas structured on Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.
How have leftist politicians succeeded in this assault?
They accomplished this through direct taxation on an ever-smaller number of Americans for the benefit of an ever-larger number of Americans -- "progressive taxation" and "social justice" as the Left so self-righteously calls it.
So, shouldn't those who have more give to those who have less?
Well, yes, in my humble opinion, but individuals should rightly be left to decide how best to use their resources for the benefit of others. And in this respect, Americans are the most generous people on earth and from any time of human history.
However, Barack Hussein Obama, an ideological Marxist, believes that government should be the ultimate arbiter for the redistribution of wealth. Indeed, he said as much on the campaign trail in 2008.
Obama claims our economy is "out of balance," and our tax policies "badly skewed."
To resolve this, he says we need a "tax policy making sure that everybody benefits, fair distribution, a restoration of balance in our tax code, money allocated fairly..."
"Fair distribution"?
By this, of course, he means "redistribution."
It's not enough that 20 percent of Americans are already forced to fund 80 percent of the cost of bloated government largess; if Obama can saddle them with 100 percent of this cost, then he could anoint himself king.
Never mind that progressive taxation constitutes, in effect, a "Bill of Attainder" as outlawed by Article I, Section 9, of our Constitution. Who in Washington these days pays that venerable old parchment any mind?
As devoted socialist George Bernard Shaw acknowledged, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul," which is the template for a bloodless socialist revolution.
Further, Obama asserts that free enterprise is nothing more than "Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself ... [a] tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity."
Free enterprise "doesn't require much thought or ingenuity"?
Only in the distorted worldview of a "community organizer" and lifelong adherent of Marxist doctrine could such an absurd assertion originate.
The current debacle of progressive taxation is the result of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's class-warfare decree: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."
We beg to differ. Roosevelt's "principle" was no more American than Obama's. Roosevelt was merely paraphrasing Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
At the time Marx was formulating his collectivist manifesto, classical liberal Claude Frederic Bastiat, a prominent 19th-century political economist, wrote, "Government is the great fiction through which everybodyendeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. ... Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve. But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another... Then abolish that law without delay; No legal plunder; this is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic."
Now, according to Heritage Foundation's Index of Dependence on Government3, "Despite the famed 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the more recent welfare adjustments in 2006, 60.8 million Americans remain dependent on the government for their daily housing, food, and health care. Starting in 2016, Social Security will not collect enough in taxes to pay all of the promised benefits -- which is a problem for all workers, but especially for the roughly half of the American workforce that has no other retirement program. Add in spiraling academic grants, flat-out farm socialism, and the swelling ranks of Americans who believe themselves entitled to public-sector benefits for which they pay few or no taxes -- and Americans must ask themselves whether they are near a tipping point in the nature of their government." (Also see How the Tax Code is Expanding Government4.)
Perversely, almost half of all American workers pay no income tax per the current tax code scheme, though under the Obama plot many now qualify for a tax refund.
Once a majority of Americans can be "protected" from a tax burden, they will ignore the constitutional, moral and civic implications of "progressive taxation."
The fact is that the only way to ensure fiscal accountability at the federal level is to directly spread the cost of government to a much broader number of taxpayers so all Americans "feel the pain." Of course, the Left understands that in order to escape any fiscal accountability, they need only ensure that the cost of government is borne by a targeted minority of income earners.
Obama is now poised to propose the implementation of a supplemental value-added tax, a national sales tax. Though this would seemingly spread the cost of government to all Americans (precisely what liberals want to avoid), Obama's VAT coupled with the myriad proposed exempt products and "rebates" to the "poor," would most assuredly be yet another avenue for the central government to use the tax code to bludgeon a minority of consumers in order to expand its authority and constituencies.
Vladimir Lenin asserted, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."
And that is precisely Obama's political model.
But the problem with the socialist model is, as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, "they always run out of other people's money."
If I could emphasize but one point, it would be this: The Left has bankrupted the nation and the bill for freeloading on others is coming due. It will most certainly be paid back in the currency of liberty.
The time is at hand when we must inquire with a unified voice: "If there is no constitutional authority for most laws and regulations enacted by Congress and enforced by the central government, then by what authority do those entities lay and collect taxes to fund such laws and regulations?" (See the Patriot Declaration5.)
It is time for tenacious resistance and rebellion against the current throne of government. This is not a call for revolution but for restoration -- a call to undertake whatever measures are dictated by prudence and necessity to restore constitutional Rule of Law.
Thomas Jefferson declared, "Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamelyto surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us."
Two centuries later, Ronald Reagan similarly affirmed, "There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. ... You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."
Which will it be?
The cause of, and necessity for, the American Revolution was the violation of fundamental rights, those to which Americans and all peoples are entitled by the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
Unjust taxation was the catalyst for the first American Revolution. Today, once again, our fundamental rights are being violated by unjust taxation for purposes not authorized by our Constitution.
There is a groundswell of protest across the nation, which is far more powerful than what Obama dismissed as "malcontents" who are "waving their little teabags."
Millions of American Patriots are, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, mutually pledging to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor," in our endeavor to restore our Constitution's integrity and the Rule of Law.
Read more!
"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." --John Marshall On December 16th, 1773, "radicals" from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, boarded three East India Company ships and threw into Boston Harbor 342 chests of tea.
This iconic event, in protest of oppressive British taxation and tyrannical rule, became known as the Boston Tea Party.
Resistance to the Crown had been mounting over enforcement of the 1764 Sugar Act, 1765 Stamp Act and 1767 Townsend Act, which led to the Boston Massacre and gave rise to the slogan, "No taxation without representation."
The 1773 Tea Act and resulting Tea Party protest galvanized the Colonial movement opposing British parliamentary acts, which violated the natural, charter and constitutional rights of the colonists.
In response to the rebellion, the British enacted additional punitive measures, labeled the "Intolerable Acts," in hopes of suppressing the burgeoning insurrection. Far from accomplishing their desired outcome, however, the Crown's countermeasures led colonists to convene the First Continental Congress on September 5th, 1774, in Philadelphia.
Near midnight on April 18th, 1775, Paul Revere departed Charlestown (near Boston)for Lexington and Concord in order to warn John Hancock, Samuel Adams and other Sons of Liberty that the British army was marching to arrest them and seize their weapons caches. While Revere was captured after reaching Lexington, his friend, Samuel Prescott, was able to evade the Red Coats and took word to the militiamen at Concord.
In the early dawn of that first Patriots' Day, April 19th, Captain John Parker, commander of the Lexington militia, ordered, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they want a war let it begin here." That it did -- American Minutemen fired the "shot heard round the world," as immortalized by poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, confronting British Regulars on Lexington Green and at Concord's Old North Bridge.
Thus, by the time the Second Continental Congress convened on May 10th, 1775, the young nation was in open war for liberty and independence, which would not be won until a full decade later.
Today, the tax burden borne by most Americans, even those who pay no direct federal taxes but at the least pay a great hidden cost in federal regulation, is far greater than that which incited our Founders to revolution.
Thus, some 221 years after the ratification of our Constitution, Americans are once again at a crossroads with oppressive centralized government -- a point at which we must choose to turn up toward liberty or down toward tyranny and anarchy.
Those at the helm of the federal government, by way of generations of overreaching executive orders, legislative malfeasance and judicial diktat, have abandoned their sacred oaths2 to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."
Although our Constitution provides the People with an authentic means for amendment as prescribed in Article V, successive generations of leftists have, by way of legislation, regulation and activist courts, altered that august founding convention well beyond any semblance of its original intent.
Consequently, they have undermined constitutional Rule of Law, supplanting it with the rule of men.
They have done so in order to win the allegiance of special interest constituencies, which then ensure perpetual re-election of their sponsors in return for political and economic agendas structured on Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.
How have leftist politicians succeeded in this assault?
They accomplished this through direct taxation on an ever-smaller number of Americans for the benefit of an ever-larger number of Americans -- "progressive taxation" and "social justice" as the Left so self-righteously calls it.
So, shouldn't those who have more give to those who have less?
Well, yes, in my humble opinion, but individuals should rightly be left to decide how best to use their resources for the benefit of others. And in this respect, Americans are the most generous people on earth and from any time of human history.
However, Barack Hussein Obama, an ideological Marxist, believes that government should be the ultimate arbiter for the redistribution of wealth. Indeed, he said as much on the campaign trail in 2008.
Obama claims our economy is "out of balance," and our tax policies "badly skewed."
To resolve this, he says we need a "tax policy making sure that everybody benefits, fair distribution, a restoration of balance in our tax code, money allocated fairly..."
"Fair distribution"?
By this, of course, he means "redistribution."
It's not enough that 20 percent of Americans are already forced to fund 80 percent of the cost of bloated government largess; if Obama can saddle them with 100 percent of this cost, then he could anoint himself king.
Never mind that progressive taxation constitutes, in effect, a "Bill of Attainder" as outlawed by Article I, Section 9, of our Constitution. Who in Washington these days pays that venerable old parchment any mind?
As devoted socialist George Bernard Shaw acknowledged, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul," which is the template for a bloodless socialist revolution.
Further, Obama asserts that free enterprise is nothing more than "Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself ... [a] tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity."
Free enterprise "doesn't require much thought or ingenuity"?
Only in the distorted worldview of a "community organizer" and lifelong adherent of Marxist doctrine could such an absurd assertion originate.
The current debacle of progressive taxation is the result of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's class-warfare decree: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."
We beg to differ. Roosevelt's "principle" was no more American than Obama's. Roosevelt was merely paraphrasing Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
At the time Marx was formulating his collectivist manifesto, classical liberal Claude Frederic Bastiat, a prominent 19th-century political economist, wrote, "Government is the great fiction through which everybodyendeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. ... Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve. But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another... Then abolish that law without delay; No legal plunder; this is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic."
Now, according to Heritage Foundation's Index of Dependence on Government3, "Despite the famed 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the more recent welfare adjustments in 2006, 60.8 million Americans remain dependent on the government for their daily housing, food, and health care. Starting in 2016, Social Security will not collect enough in taxes to pay all of the promised benefits -- which is a problem for all workers, but especially for the roughly half of the American workforce that has no other retirement program. Add in spiraling academic grants, flat-out farm socialism, and the swelling ranks of Americans who believe themselves entitled to public-sector benefits for which they pay few or no taxes -- and Americans must ask themselves whether they are near a tipping point in the nature of their government." (Also see How the Tax Code is Expanding Government4.)
Perversely, almost half of all American workers pay no income tax per the current tax code scheme, though under the Obama plot many now qualify for a tax refund.
Once a majority of Americans can be "protected" from a tax burden, they will ignore the constitutional, moral and civic implications of "progressive taxation."
The fact is that the only way to ensure fiscal accountability at the federal level is to directly spread the cost of government to a much broader number of taxpayers so all Americans "feel the pain." Of course, the Left understands that in order to escape any fiscal accountability, they need only ensure that the cost of government is borne by a targeted minority of income earners.
Obama is now poised to propose the implementation of a supplemental value-added tax, a national sales tax. Though this would seemingly spread the cost of government to all Americans (precisely what liberals want to avoid), Obama's VAT coupled with the myriad proposed exempt products and "rebates" to the "poor," would most assuredly be yet another avenue for the central government to use the tax code to bludgeon a minority of consumers in order to expand its authority and constituencies.
Vladimir Lenin asserted, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."
And that is precisely Obama's political model.
But the problem with the socialist model is, as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, "they always run out of other people's money."
If I could emphasize but one point, it would be this: The Left has bankrupted the nation and the bill for freeloading on others is coming due. It will most certainly be paid back in the currency of liberty.
The time is at hand when we must inquire with a unified voice: "If there is no constitutional authority for most laws and regulations enacted by Congress and enforced by the central government, then by what authority do those entities lay and collect taxes to fund such laws and regulations?" (See the Patriot Declaration5.)
It is time for tenacious resistance and rebellion against the current throne of government. This is not a call for revolution but for restoration -- a call to undertake whatever measures are dictated by prudence and necessity to restore constitutional Rule of Law.
Thomas Jefferson declared, "Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamelyto surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us."
Two centuries later, Ronald Reagan similarly affirmed, "There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. ... You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."
Which will it be?
The cause of, and necessity for, the American Revolution was the violation of fundamental rights, those to which Americans and all peoples are entitled by the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
Unjust taxation was the catalyst for the first American Revolution. Today, once again, our fundamental rights are being violated by unjust taxation for purposes not authorized by our Constitution.
There is a groundswell of protest across the nation, which is far more powerful than what Obama dismissed as "malcontents" who are "waving their little teabags."
Millions of American Patriots are, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, mutually pledging to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor," in our endeavor to restore our Constitution's integrity and the Rule of Law.
Read more!
Sunday, April 18, 2010
So Help Us God
April 16,2010 Family Research Center. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, [we] must fall with them (Jedediah Morse, 1799). Yesterday, 223 years to the day after patriots ratified an end the Revolutionary War, a judge in Wisconsin ruled to reintroduce tyranny in America--this time, from the bench. In a decision that is rocking our nation to its very core, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb determined that a national day of prayer--a tradition as old as the country itself--is unconstitutional. "...[R]ecognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it..." With all due respect, the government may do exactly that under the very documents that established it. "[The] sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records," Alexander Hamilton insisted. "They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased by mortal power."Had Judge Crabb consulted the Constitution she was sworn to uphold, she might notice that Americans enjoy religious freedom--not by virtue of the courts, but in spite of them. Furthermore, setting aside a day of corporate prayer is more than compatible with our nation's heritage; it is a responsibility assigned to every American by George Washington himself. "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God... and humbly implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer" (Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789).
Contrary to Judge Crabb's opinion, this ruling does not promote freedom, it crushes it. Americans pray voluntarily. And exercising that right together, as a willing nation, is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended. To imply otherwise is to suggest that the Constitution is unconstitutional! Religion cannot be banned in America because it was never imposed--not by the Founding Fathers, and certainly not by the National Day of Prayer. While this is one of many instances in which the courts have tried to banish God from the public square, this case reveals a level of supreme arrogance. Ultimately, Judge Crabb is inferring that she found something in the Constitution that every President and Congress since 1775 has not: a hostile treatment of religion in public life.Make no mistake. This judicial mutiny lies directly at the feet of the Left, including President Obama, who has created an atmosphere in which the Constitution is silly putty in the hands of liberal activists. Slowly but surely, he is making American soil more fertile for the radical redefinition of society. This cannot be tolerated. We must ensure that the President's bench nominees have a reverence for the Constitution that this judge lacks. In the meantime, we call on Congress to start the impeachment proceedings for Barbara Crabb, as she violated of her sacred oath of "administering justice... under the Constitution and laws of the United States." What she has done to repress, we will use to revive. What she meant to undermine prayer, we will use as the reason why it's necessary. When the great men and women of our past bent their knees to God on behalf of the "sacred fire of liberty," it was often during the nation's darkest days. My friends, it is time we join them. Read more!
Contrary to Judge Crabb's opinion, this ruling does not promote freedom, it crushes it. Americans pray voluntarily. And exercising that right together, as a willing nation, is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended. To imply otherwise is to suggest that the Constitution is unconstitutional! Religion cannot be banned in America because it was never imposed--not by the Founding Fathers, and certainly not by the National Day of Prayer. While this is one of many instances in which the courts have tried to banish God from the public square, this case reveals a level of supreme arrogance. Ultimately, Judge Crabb is inferring that she found something in the Constitution that every President and Congress since 1775 has not: a hostile treatment of religion in public life.Make no mistake. This judicial mutiny lies directly at the feet of the Left, including President Obama, who has created an atmosphere in which the Constitution is silly putty in the hands of liberal activists. Slowly but surely, he is making American soil more fertile for the radical redefinition of society. This cannot be tolerated. We must ensure that the President's bench nominees have a reverence for the Constitution that this judge lacks. In the meantime, we call on Congress to start the impeachment proceedings for Barbara Crabb, as she violated of her sacred oath of "administering justice... under the Constitution and laws of the United States." What she has done to repress, we will use to revive. What she meant to undermine prayer, we will use as the reason why it's necessary. When the great men and women of our past bent their knees to God on behalf of the "sacred fire of liberty," it was often during the nation's darkest days. My friends, it is time we join them. Read more!
Friday, March 26, 2010
Patriots A Must Read
I hope we are all willing to support, defend, and work to see that this declaration from the The Patriot Post is implemented. This is what we need to Get America Back (GAB). I am committed to support and work toward the implementation of this declaration for as long as it takes.
Patriot Declaration
We the People, blessed with the inheritance of Liberty paid for with the lives and fortunes of Patriots before us, hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, that to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.
WHEREAS, our nation is at a critical historic juncture, where we must choose between Rule of Law and rule of men; and
WHEREAS, our nation is confronting significant political threats to Liberty from within our borders and from enemies abroad; and
WHEREAS, our national Constitution is the singular guidance for Rule of Law and the defense of liberty; and
WHEREAS, our elected leaders have forsaken their oath to support and defend our Constitution, placing the future of American Liberty at
great peril;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, We the People of these United States, in order to restore a more perfect Union, re-establish Justice, re-insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, as established at great cost in lives
and treasure by our Founders and defended by generations since, and commit to undertake the following actions to restore constitutional integrity and Rule of Law, or be subject to expulsion:
FIRST, that constitutional authority be established for any national legislation entered before Congress, citing the specific authority enumerated in our Constitution empowering Congress to enact such legislation, thus ensuring that such legislation does not amend the plain language of our Constitution, which prescribes its own method for amendment in Article V, or be subject to a point of order;
SECOND, that all legislation explicitly cite its compliance with the Tenth Amendment to our Bill of Rights, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," thus ensuring that the central government does not usurp the powers reserved to the States or the People, or be subject to a point of order;
THIRD, that all legislation and regulation imposed upon the nation apply equally to all members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government;
FOURTH, that fiscal responsibility be enumerated in our Constitution by way of a Balanced Budget Amendment, including zero base-line accounting principles, to be put before the states and the people;
FIFTH, that said Balanced Budget Amendment contain a provision requiring a three-fifths majority of votes by members of Congress to raise direct or indirect taxes, and acknowledgment that the legislature has no authority to raise taxes for purposes that are not expressly authorized by the Constitution;
SIXTH, that said Balanced Budget Amendment contain a provision that direct taxes be levied at an equal ratio to all Americans, ensuring that the cost-burden of government is shared equally by all, and consistent with Article I, Section 9, which provides "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" which would unduly single out individuals or minority groups for undue punishment;
SEVENTH, that said Balanced Budget Amendment contain a provision that the withholding of taxes by an employer is the option of the taxpayer;
EIGHTH, that said Balanced Budget Amendment acknowledge the interdependence of economic freedom and political freedom by provision that any bill before Congress must enumerate its implications against the exercise of free enterprise, or be subject to a point of order;
NINTH, that a Legislature Accountability Amendment to establish term limits for all members of Congress, similar to that of the 22nd Amendment, Section 1, limiting terms for the Executive, be put before the states and the people; and,
TENTH, that Rule of Law as established through the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, entitles the People to unalienable Rights such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and severely limits the government from any infringement upon those rights.
THUS, be it known that for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Fellow Patriots, throughout history the burden of ensuring that the flame of liberty burns bright has fallen upon the shoulders of a few patriotic men and women. But as Founding Patriot Samuel Adams noted, "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men."
Through this Declaration, we, the tireless minority, publicly deliver hope and inspiration to our countrymen and, indeed, the world, and we send a message to those who have forsaken their oaths to support and defend our Constitution, who have abandoned Rule of Law for selfish pursuits: Don't Tread on Us, or you will surely suffer the political consequences.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US Read more!
Patriot Declaration
We the People, blessed with the inheritance of Liberty paid for with the lives and fortunes of Patriots before us, hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, that to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.
WHEREAS, our nation is at a critical historic juncture, where we must choose between Rule of Law and rule of men; and
WHEREAS, our nation is confronting significant political threats to Liberty from within our borders and from enemies abroad; and
WHEREAS, our national Constitution is the singular guidance for Rule of Law and the defense of liberty; and
WHEREAS, our elected leaders have forsaken their oath to support and defend our Constitution, placing the future of American Liberty at
great peril;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, We the People of these United States, in order to restore a more perfect Union, re-establish Justice, re-insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, as established at great cost in lives
and treasure by our Founders and defended by generations since, and commit to undertake the following actions to restore constitutional integrity and Rule of Law, or be subject to expulsion:
FIRST, that constitutional authority be established for any national legislation entered before Congress, citing the specific authority enumerated in our Constitution empowering Congress to enact such legislation, thus ensuring that such legislation does not amend the plain language of our Constitution, which prescribes its own method for amendment in Article V, or be subject to a point of order;
SECOND, that all legislation explicitly cite its compliance with the Tenth Amendment to our Bill of Rights, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," thus ensuring that the central government does not usurp the powers reserved to the States or the People, or be subject to a point of order;
THIRD, that all legislation and regulation imposed upon the nation apply equally to all members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government;
FOURTH, that fiscal responsibility be enumerated in our Constitution by way of a Balanced Budget Amendment, including zero base-line accounting principles, to be put before the states and the people;
FIFTH, that said Balanced Budget Amendment contain a provision requiring a three-fifths majority of votes by members of Congress to raise direct or indirect taxes, and acknowledgment that the legislature has no authority to raise taxes for purposes that are not expressly authorized by the Constitution;
SIXTH, that said Balanced Budget Amendment contain a provision that direct taxes be levied at an equal ratio to all Americans, ensuring that the cost-burden of government is shared equally by all, and consistent with Article I, Section 9, which provides "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" which would unduly single out individuals or minority groups for undue punishment;
SEVENTH, that said Balanced Budget Amendment contain a provision that the withholding of taxes by an employer is the option of the taxpayer;
EIGHTH, that said Balanced Budget Amendment acknowledge the interdependence of economic freedom and political freedom by provision that any bill before Congress must enumerate its implications against the exercise of free enterprise, or be subject to a point of order;
NINTH, that a Legislature Accountability Amendment to establish term limits for all members of Congress, similar to that of the 22nd Amendment, Section 1, limiting terms for the Executive, be put before the states and the people; and,
TENTH, that Rule of Law as established through the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, entitles the People to unalienable Rights such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and severely limits the government from any infringement upon those rights.
THUS, be it known that for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Fellow Patriots, throughout history the burden of ensuring that the flame of liberty burns bright has fallen upon the shoulders of a few patriotic men and women. But as Founding Patriot Samuel Adams noted, "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men."
Through this Declaration, we, the tireless minority, publicly deliver hope and inspiration to our countrymen and, indeed, the world, and we send a message to those who have forsaken their oaths to support and defend our Constitution, who have abandoned Rule of Law for selfish pursuits: Don't Tread on Us, or you will surely suffer the political consequences.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US Read more!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Proprosed Constitutional Amendment
Senator Jim DeMint has proposed an amendment to the Constitution to limit the terms of Congress.
111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. J. RES.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. COBURN, and Mrs. HUTCHISON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on ___________
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled(two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
2
‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has served three terms as a Representative shall be eligible for election to the House of Representatives. For purposes of this section,
the election of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of Representatives shall be included as one term in determining the number of terms that such person has served as a Representative if the person fills the vacancy for more than one year.
‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has served two terms as a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. For purposes of this section, the election
or appointment of a person to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be included as one term in determining the number of terms that such person has served as a Senator if the person fills the vacancy for more than three years.
‘‘SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of the ratification of this article shall be taken into account in determining eligibility for election or appointment under this article.’’. Read more!
111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. J. RES.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. COBURN, and Mrs. HUTCHISON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on ___________
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled(two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
2
‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has served three terms as a Representative shall be eligible for election to the House of Representatives. For purposes of this section,
the election of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of Representatives shall be included as one term in determining the number of terms that such person has served as a Representative if the person fills the vacancy for more than one year.
‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has served two terms as a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. For purposes of this section, the election
or appointment of a person to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be included as one term in determining the number of terms that such person has served as a Senator if the person fills the vacancy for more than three years.
‘‘SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of the ratification of this article shall be taken into account in determining eligibility for election or appointment under this article.’’. Read more!
Monday, November 16, 2009
State Rights
The U. S. Congress is totally out of control. They have gone way beyond the Constitution. What good is a Constitution if the Congress chooses to create a new one in their own image of corruption and power. The Constitution is almost shattered beyond saving UNLESS Patriots stand up now and defend her.One way we can curb the Congress is by reasserting State Rights. Nullification is the best way to begin to restore the Constitution to its rightfully place as the Supreme law of the land. The principal behind nullification is when a state 'nullifies' or defies a federal law, stating that the law in question is null and void and non-effective within the state.
Several states are beginning to take action against the abuse of the Commerce Clause and the 2nd amendment. Some of those are Montana, Kentucky, and Texas. We need to pressure our politicians in Oklahoma to stand up and be counted. Hopefully the legislature will reintroduce HJR1003 which states that the state of Oklahoma claims sovereignty. This was voted by the Governor. Let us make sure that our next Governor will sign it.
The Congress has no right to mandate Health Care and Oklahoma should 'nullify' it. There is a long history in America for states to affirm their right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. The States have slowly but surely allowed the Congress to take away their (our)power and freedoms. The Congress uses our tax dollars to bribe and intimidate the states by threatening to withhold funds for projects such as highways unless the states accept federal mandates (seatbelt laws are an example).
Once freedom is lost it is hard to get it back. Too many people love the nanny state. The States should Call a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 16th amendment (income tax). This will starve the Congress and help get them back under control. Another amendment should impose term limits on Congress.
A little history of nullification:
In 1798, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky approved resolutions that affirmed the states’ right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. The Virginia Resolutions spoke of the states’ right to “interpose” between the federal government and the people of the state; the Kentucky Resolutions (in a 1799 follow-up to the original resolutions) used the term “nullification” – the states, they said, could nullify unconstitutional federal laws. More by Thomas E Woods Read more!
Several states are beginning to take action against the abuse of the Commerce Clause and the 2nd amendment. Some of those are Montana, Kentucky, and Texas. We need to pressure our politicians in Oklahoma to stand up and be counted. Hopefully the legislature will reintroduce HJR1003 which states that the state of Oklahoma claims sovereignty. This was voted by the Governor. Let us make sure that our next Governor will sign it.
The Congress has no right to mandate Health Care and Oklahoma should 'nullify' it. There is a long history in America for states to affirm their right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. The States have slowly but surely allowed the Congress to take away their (our)power and freedoms. The Congress uses our tax dollars to bribe and intimidate the states by threatening to withhold funds for projects such as highways unless the states accept federal mandates (seatbelt laws are an example).
Once freedom is lost it is hard to get it back. Too many people love the nanny state. The States should Call a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 16th amendment (income tax). This will starve the Congress and help get them back under control. Another amendment should impose term limits on Congress.
A little history of nullification:
In 1798, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky approved resolutions that affirmed the states’ right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. The Virginia Resolutions spoke of the states’ right to “interpose” between the federal government and the people of the state; the Kentucky Resolutions (in a 1799 follow-up to the original resolutions) used the term “nullification” – the states, they said, could nullify unconstitutional federal laws. More by Thomas E Woods Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
