The battle within the Republican Party these days seems to be breaking down between those who believe they can work with the Democrats and those who are working to stop the party in power from destroying our country. Years ago, this was the way Washington once worked. Democrats – old style Democrats – were patriots who loved their country. They just wanted the government to do more for the people than the GOP.
It could be argued that such is not the case today. The Obama regime is taking our country in a completely different direction that we have taken in the past. The people who make the nation work have a greatly different idea of the way the world functions. Then we have the Republican leadership and many of their followers who believe the party is the salvation of the nation. This may be almost as foolish those who look to Obama and the Democrat Party to take care of their wants and needs.
American patriots, tea partiers and the like, understand the damage this socialization is doing to our economy and our people. It is difficult to comprehend how anyone could consider cooperating with their disastrous schemes is a workable plan for restoring prosperity and freedom. It is a plan for increasing unemployment, destroying what is left of the health insurance industry and putting our health care system under the iron fist of uncaring bureaucrats.
The founders’ many warnings about standing armies may seem rather quaint in an age of supersonic jets and ICBMs — or not, when we consider the legions of new bureaucrats about to enlist indefinitely in Obamacare’s army.
Despite the increasing unpopularity of Obamacare and the headlines announcing exploding health insurance premiums in one state after another, the GOP’s smooth operators are counseling conservatives to simply get out of the way. They’re promising to translate the Obamacare “train wreck” into a big 2014 mid-term election victory if the Senate’s “wacko birds” don’t alienate moderate voters by attempting to defund Obamacare. Having been around many a DC block, Republican political professionals suggest, once again, that the prudent fight is just after the next election.
But the Tea Party’s rise and political success suggests that many Americans have had enough of fiddling while Rome burns — and enough of a Republican establishment that talks about our founding principles but seems more interested in leading the next congressional majority that mocks them. Just in time, too. For while success by reformers in states like Wisconsin, Indiana, and Texas suggests that it is not too late for action, Detroit’s bankruptcy (and Chicago’s looming fiscal catastrophe) shows that the clock is ticking.
On September 17, 1787 the US Constitution was signed by 39 American patriots. We hear a lot from people who want to tell us what they think the document says. They would take the combined work of the men whose endurance of the hardships of the first American Revolution gave them a unique perspective on the country they were forming.
Politicians and commentators have not given to the nation what the founders did, yet they think they have a better idea of how a country should work. They the believe their wisdom is superior to both the rest of us and the courageous founders. Unfortunately, I have seen neither the wisdom nor the courage of those who would take us in another direction. They believe that the nation that was born out of a struggle with an oppressive government should now have an oppressive, controlling leader of its own.
Lets look at what some of these men had to say:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
It’s difficult to know what to make of our political world. We have the Democrats doing what Democrats do to take from the productive Americans and give to their loyal followers… sort of like Robin Hood in reverse. Traditionally the Republicans have been the loyal opposition. Loyal to the country and opposed to the Dems destructive policies. However, lately things have not been so clear, and it is disturbing to consider why.
We have a majority of Americans making known they want no part of ObamaKare. We have the people clamoring for answers as to why nothing was done to save the four who died in Benghazi. We have an out of control Internal Revenue Service that targets the political enemies of the president. These stories are just the tip of the scandalous goings on in the District of Columbia. Yet, the Republican leadership, other than making a few verbal swipes, does little to stem the tide of dishonesty and destruction sweeping our nation.
Can political liberty survive the aggressive growth of collectivist government?
Tom Emerson emailed me a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by James Taranto regarding the IRS’s actions aimed at blocking conservative groups’ applications for tax-exempt status. Mr. Taranto concludes :
Abolishing direct taxation [as a way to curb IRS aggression] sounds good to us. But how does one pay for a vast (or even only half-vast) welfare state without it? Abolishing the welfare state sounds good to us too, but even paring it back has proved tough to sell politically. If the welfare state inexorably erodes freedom, that poses a hell of a political problem for those who cherish the latter.
Mr. Emerson asked for my reaction, which is that expansion of the Federal bureaucracy inescapably means diminution of individuals’ political, economic, and social liberties. People don’t get welfare-state entitlements without paying higher taxes and surrendering some of their freedoms.
For those who have been living under a rock, Edward Snowden is the young man who leaked the word that the NSA was tracking billions of phone calls every day. His actions have generated controversy on both sides of the political aisle. It is rare these days for a dispute to break along anything but party lines… yet here we are.
To find Glenn Beck and Michael Moore on the same side of any issue is truly amazing. To have Democrats and Republicans siding with each other against other Democrats and Republicans just doesn’t happen every day. It may be that we are seeing true colors in some cases as public figures come down on the side of the individual freedom or government.
Before we get into the arguments for and against his actions, let’s consider for a moment what we learned by them. We learned was that the national government was keeping records of all our phone calls – not just through Verizon, but pretty much everyone. On top of that, we are told that our internet activity is being followed as well. Many will believe that this sort of snooping is just too massive a project to be undertaken. They have not seen descriptions of the new facility in Utah.
It’s hard to believe we have a two party system in our country any more. Sixteen Republican Senators went over to the dark side and joined the Democrats in shooting down the filibuster of Harry Reid’s unconstitutional gun control legislation. Some of them are ones who call themselves conservatives. Others have shown us many times over that did not have the capacity to stand firm when the going got tough. We had high hopes for some of these people who were more than happy to have the support of the real grass roots conservatives as they defeated honest Democrat opponents.
As Democrats, they are honest in that they admit to their progressive tendencies… definitely not regarding their plans to enslave their fellow Americans. It is bad enough that we have a President whose speaking of the truth is purely accidental, but then we have people we elected to oppose his destructive agenda, roll over into the position of accomplices to his deceptive schemes, what are we to do?
The Dems must be laughing themselves silly that a little pressure and a little propaganda would turn the opposition into spineless jelly fish unworthy of the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan. We elect the Republicans to take us in a different direction than the progressive Democrats. Then we find they facilitate the very assaults on our rights we put them in office to stop.
[Editors note: With recent attacks on the Second Amendment and the First Amendment ignored in many quarters, it is a good time to review the Bill of Rights... every one of them... so we know what is being taken from us. These rights we have as Americans are not granted by these hallowed words... they are merely being recognized.]
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
[Editors note: This is an excerpt from a new book, Defining America’s Exceptionalism by Pastor Roger Anghis that deals with the factors that made our country great – something Ronald Reagan understood, but Barack Obama denies.]
All through man’s history up until the forming of the government of the United States there had been only kings and dictators who held complete control over its people. When the United States won its independence from Britain our Founding Fathers established a government that the world had never seen before. There were shades of it in Greece and Rome, but never had there been a government where the people controlled who governed them.
For the first time in man’s history if a people did not like those who governed them, they could peacefully and non-violently replace them. When, at the end of George Washington’s second term and he stepped down and the office of the president went to the newly elected John Adams, the world witnessed for the first time a change of a ruler without bloodshed. America is the only nation explicitly founded upon the principles of human equality and natural rights or as our Founders referred to it, God given rights.
The American experiment, in my opinion, is the ultimate lesson in exceptionalism. Never before had a people created a government that allowed the people to attain the wealth and freedoms that the American people have. There are other nations with wealthy people but only in America can a person be born into abject poverty and through the sweat of his brow and perseverance become unimaginably wealthy. Many have done it. Many more will. Why is this possible only in America? There are many factors that can be accounted for this but I believe that the foundation for the unparalleled success of the American experience is the principles of the Founders that were grounded in their Christian faith. Those principles created a nation of people that are the most affluent, generous, hard working and educated, and dedicated to their Christian God than any other nation on earth. America has only 6% of the world’s population but we produce 25% of the world’s wealth.
Some people had to search for Rand Paul’s response to the presidential prevarications. The formerly main stream media hyperventilated over the words of their Chosen One. They covered Marco Rubio’s response, only find points to ridicule or criticize. Rand Paul didn’t warrant their attention. Either they thought he had nothing to add… or, more likely, they were afraid of the sense that he might add to the conversation.
Here are the thoughts that made a whole lot more sense than anything coming from the White House. Give a listen.
The local FOX affiliate in Salt Lake City, Utah, has reported that the Utah Sheriff’s Association has written a strongly worded letter to President Barack Obama regarding any potential federal laws that would restrict the citizens of the State of Utah from practicing their Second Amendment rights. The letter was signed by every sheriff in the State of Utah except one. The letter reads in part:
“With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.”
The letter also states: “We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights–in particular Amendment II–has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”
As I was growing up, hearing about the speeches and marches of Martin Luther King, much of what I heard was that he was stirring up trouble where he had no business. In the rural northeast there was little knowledge or understanding of the situations he was fighting against. There was only one black student in my high school graduating class and she was kind of cute and fit in with everyone, so I could not comprehend what the fuss was all about.
It was only later, after Dr. King was gone, and I saw grown men with dark skin addressed as “Boy” and saw pictures of segregated facilities that I began to grasp the struggles of freedom fighters like Martin Luther King Jr and others like Medgar Evers.
Our Declaration of Independence enshrined the words “all men are created equal”. Correctly it does not specify all men of a certain color, a particular economic class or those connected to the “ruling class”. It says all men are created equal. It does not say that some are only three fifths equal as some in congress specified so as to obtain congressional representation, yet not recognize the humanity of some citizens.
If Barack Obama and his gaggle of gun grabbers have their way, the American citizenry will have all of their firearms taken away. If their current attempt to outlaw semi-automatic rifles is successful, does anyone think it will stop there? Don’t be naïve! The goal of people like Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, et al., has always been total gun confiscation. In fact, Senator Feinstein is actually on record as saying so.
According to Infowars.com, “Senator Dianne Feinstein’s ultimate plan has always been to have Mr. and Mrs. America turn in their guns to the government, period. Feinstein’s bill would criminalize millions of Americans and completely eviscerate second amendment rights.
“She tells us a gun ban is about saving the children and reducing crime, but her comments on 60 Minutes in 1995 reveal her true plan is to target law-abiding American gun owners.
When political leaders care more about gaining power than about promoting the general welfare, the Constitution is under attack.
The Constitution’s preamble cites among its purposes to “establish justice” and “promote the general welfare.” Which contributes more toward those aims? so-called social justice, i.e., forcibly redistributing wealth? or reviving the economy so that more people can find jobs and resume supporting themselves, while raising the overall standard of living for everyone?
Apparently, for the president, restructuring our economy and our political society in accordance with socialistic egalitarianism trumps all other considerations. He believes either that the negative incentives introduced by higher taxes are nugatory and that socialism can harmlessly proceed apace, or that working to complete Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal socialism should be his major goal, regardless of the negative effects on economic recovery.
Some Keynesian economists have argued that, though economic conditions are not at all the same as during President Clinton’s terms in office, reverting to tax rates prevailing at that time will cause no economic harm. More economists fear that raising tax rates now, when economic recovery is so slow and unemployment so high, will push us toward a renewed recession. No economist, so far as I’m aware, has asserted that raising taxes now will aid economic recovery or do more than slightly reduce the extent of deficit spending.
In recent years we have seen attacks on the public celebration of Christmas have been increasing in volume and intensity. Is it just a sign of the times that the manipulators of our culture are succeeding in displacing the Christian world view with the godlessness of secular humanism? While there is an element of truth to this, a simple rejection of the gospel would not necessarily result in the virulent nature of the war on Christmas we join every year.
Perhaps it would be good to look at what Christmas is, and what it represents to believers and to those who feel left out by the joy of the season. We all know that the Christmas season commemorates the birth of Jesus. And who was this Jesus? He was the God-man who came into our world to redeem man from the consequences of his sinful life.
The Christian world view sees man as never living up to the holy perfection of a holy God. The only way we could come close to the pleasing the God who created us for fellowship is through the way He’s given us through the work of Jesus on the cross. There He redeemed us from the consequences of our failures to live according to His Word.
The ethos of a society, its unwritten constitution, is what holds it together and protects its citizens.
Pat Buchanan explains why he endorses Mitt Romney for the presidency.
“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
So wrote John Jay in Federalist No. 2, wherein he describes Americans as a “band of brethren united to each other by the strongest ties.”
Former Presidential candidate and Reform Party founder Ross Perot broke his self-imposed public retirement to make a bold warning: America could be taken over.
Perot was the last man to make a serious independent run for President. That was back in 1992. He withdrew from the race after he and his family had received serious threats against their lives. By the time he had gathered himself enough to reenter the race, all of his momentum was lost and Republican hacks like Rush Limbaugh had a heyday making sport of him. But the things Perot tried to warn us about back then have all come to pass. The economic malaise that currently envelopes this country could have been averted had Presidents and Congresses from both major parties over the past two decades had the sagacity and courage to heed Ross Perot and Ron Paul’s warnings. In fact, looking back, Bill Clinton looks like a fiscal saint compared to fiscal sinners G.W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Yahoo! News covers the story: “Former presidential contender and billionaire Ross Perot is worried that America is a sitting duck for an unnamed foreign invader. In an interview for his new autobiography, Perot said the nation’s weak economy has left us open for a hostile takeover–and neither presidential candidate is the man to save the country.
One of the last (and very best) true investigative journalists is William Norman Grigg. I have admired his work for years. A report he recently wrote was covered by one of the very best (if not THE BEST) newspapers in the country, The Eau Claire (Wisconsin) Journal. Grigg writes, “When New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146 into law on June 18, the Granite State became the first in the nation to enact a measure explicitly recognizing and protecting the indispensable right of jury nullification.
“New Hampshire’s jury nullification law reads, in relevant part: ‘In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.’
“There is nothing novel about the principle and practice of jury nullification, which dictates that citizen juries have the right and authority to rule both on the facts of a case, and the validity of a given law. This is widely recognized in judicial precedents in both American history and in Anglo-Saxon common law dating back to the Magna Carta (or earlier). At the time of the American founding it was well and widely understood that the power of citizen juries–both grand and petit–was plenary, and that their chief function was to force the government to prove its case against a defendant–and the validity of the law in question.”
It was a saddening shock that came over me when I heard about the shootings in the Colorado movie theater. Young people, just out to see a much anticipated movie, being gunned down by some obviously deranged psychopath, just should not happen in our supposedly civilized society. Yet it did. It did in a liberal enclave where they even ban law abiding citizens from carrying legal weapons.
The fantasy that passing a law will prevent criminal activity has, one more time, been debunked by a cruel collision with reality. If this were true, there would be no more robberies, rapes or murders. Even those who get their news from the formerly main stream media know this is not the case. All the law can do is provide penalties for certain behaviors… it is powerless to stop them, just as, so often, the police cannot prevent crime, only investigate what happened and pursue the perpetrators after the fact.
Yet, to the progressive left, these are the only valid protections the citizens should be permitted to enjoy. It is only those who are blind to reality or committed to the statist ideology that believe this is a good idea. Guns were illegal in and around the Aurora, CO theater where James Holmes deadly spray of lead ended the lives of twelve innocent people and injured many more. Perhaps he did not know about the laws against guns in that area. On the other hand, those intent on criminal activity generally do not care about the laws written by men and women in expensive suits hiding in their legislative chambers with armed security.
One of Chief Justice Roberts’s points is dead on target.
Justice Roberts’s opinion upholding Obamacare on the limited basis of Congress’s taxing power also contained these words: “… we posses neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
After the Civil War, the liberal-progressive movement began to gather steam. Progressives pushed to transform our Constitutional republic into a French-style democracy in which the momentary whims of voters were to be legislated into being, even if doing so meant overriding individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Rousseau’s “general will” (shorthand for tyranny) subordinated individual rights to majority rule and facilitated state-planning at the Federal level.
Efforts to enact social-engineering laws at the Federal level were frustrated by opposition in the Senate, where the rights and interests of the states were specifically represented under the Constitution.
Within hours of the Supreme Court verifying the propriety of Arizona police officers checking on the immigration status of people they stop for other causes, the Obama administration issued orders cutting off cooperation and information from the state. When we consider the implications of this move that put a halt to joint efforts of the state and federal governments to solve a common problem – that being the flow in people coming into the country illegally, one can only conclude that this is a problem that the current administration does not have a strong desire to solve. It may even be that they do not consider it to be a problem.
In actuality, for many of the inside the beltway elites (of both parties, sadly) illegal immigration is not much of a problem, other than figuring out how to convert those sneaking in to the country into voters who will help maintain their power. They live in gated communities or high security apartment or condominium complexes and the national government spends millions keeping them secure while they are at “work”. Considering that many have dispensed with town hall meetings with the riff raff we call voters, they have the kind of isolation that would make Louis XIV proud.
This is what happens when we no longer have the concept of citizen legislators who identify more with their constituents than party leadership and corporate contributors. While the order came from the executive branch, there is precious little coming from the legislators who should be making these decisions, just as few in congress actually wanted to take on the President when he took it upon himself to, essentially, declare amnesty just the week before, to students who will eventually join an already over crowded workforce.
[I received this from Congressman Randy Forbes (VA-4) and found it to be right on target. The article was originally published in The Daily Caller.]
President Ronald Reagan said, “I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.” Unfortunately, we now know what would have happened if Moses had run them by a federal judge in Virginia — they would have been whittled down to the “Six Commandments.”
At issue is a Giles County high school display of important historical documents, including the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in the display. Judge Michael Urbanski, a Virginia federal district court judge, suggested they may be permissibly displayed if edited to omit commandments that reference God.
They are called the “Ten Commandments” for precisely the reason that there are ten directives, and they must be taken as a whole to remain in accordance with their original purpose and intent. Eliminating four would be like removing the preamble from the Declaration of Independence or the final paragraph from the Constitution because of references to God. The deletion of one word from any of these texts would distort the true nature of the documents and alter their intent.
[While the editor may not endorsed all the conclusions, this article has some important information for the American people.]
In a recent column posted on LewRockwell.com, Judge Andrew Napolitano highlighted a recent New York Times investigative report that reveals how President Barack Obama is engaging in secret assassinations worldwide. Judge Napolitano begins, “The leader of the government regularly sits down with his senior generals and spies and advisers and reviews a list of the people they want him to authorize their agents to kill. They do this every Tuesday morning when the leader is in town. The leader once condemned any practice even close to this, but now relishes the killing because he has convinced himself that it is a sane and sterile way to keep his country safe and himself in power. The leader, who is running for re-election, even invited his campaign manager to join the group that decides whom to kill.
“This is not from a work of fiction, and it is not describing a series of events in the Kremlin or Beijing or Pyongyang. It is a fair summary of a 6,000-word investigative report in The New York Times earlier this week about the White House of Barack Obama. Two Times journalists, Jo Becker and Scott Shane, painstakingly and chillingly reported that the former lecturer in constitutional law and liberal senator who railed against torture and Gitmo now weekly reviews a secret kill list, personally decides who should be killed and then dispatches killers all over the world–and some of his killers have killed Americans.
“We have known for some time that President Obama is waging a private war. By that I mean he is using the CIA on his own–and not the military after congressional authorization–to fire drones at thousands of persons in foreign lands, usually while they are riding in a car or a truck. He has done this both with the consent and over the objection of the governments of the countries in which he has killed. He doesn’t want to talk about this, but he doesn’t deny it. How chilling is it that David Axelrod–the president’s campaign manager–has periodically seen the secret kill list? Might this be to keep the killings politically correct?”
Scott Walker’s victory in the Wisconsin recall election should give us hope that the people have woken up to the dangers of excessive union power and outrageous government spending. He took steps others only talk about. He stood up to the powerful labor unions and survived – both politically and physically.
It would be great if this victory, which some in the formerly mainstream media call narrow because they believe the American people are basically unaware of what is going on in their own country, would give others to take the steps necessary to keep our nation free and strong. As a matter of reference, only when a Democrat loses an election by 17% does the press consider it to be close. To most honest observers, Walker beat Barrett up one side of the head and down the other.
Even though the people of Wisconsin voted for Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, it may not go so well this time around. The labor unions have been losing members and influence ever since the governor began taking the steps necessary to return fiscal sanity to the state. He took steps to see that the majority of taxpayers were not struggling to give money to the state, only to see it go to the government worker unions with members living much better than those paying the bills.
Boston, MA—Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA defines marriage as one man and one woman for purposes of federal law and federal benefits, specifically joint federal tax returns, Social Security survivor benefits, and federal employee health insurance and medical benefits. Not at issue in this ruling are the other parts of DOMA, including the section that says states may define their own marriage policy and are not required to accept a sister state’s same-sex marriage.
“This ruling makes no sense. A state cannot dictate the kind of benefits the federal government must provide,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “If a state recognizes polygamy, does that mean that the federal government must also recognize multiple spouses? Absolutely not! This decision is the proverbial tail wagging the dog.”
Looking back to 1985 and the Memorial Day message of a President who loved our country and had the backbone to stand against our enemies… both foreign and domestic.
He calls out the opposition party where their efforts were detrimental to the well being of his fellow citizens and honestly respects the sacrifices of the military members who never returned home. There was no doubt of whether President Reagan stood with us… or our enemies.
Many will tell us that we don’t have another Reagan, and need some other qualities – that times have changed… using Reagans words… “They are wrong!”
Almost every day we see more infringements on the rights given us by our creator and recognized in our constitution. That is they are outlined more specifically the first ten amendments that many insisted upon as a condition of ratifying the document.
We see the national government institutionalizing the end run around the Tenth Amendment with their overly broad and self-serving interpretation of the “commerce clause”. Of course everyone is familiar with the attempts to thwart the intent of the Second Amendment with all sorts of regulations, perhaps even treaties. These people, being smarter than we often give them credit for, understand that this amendment is not about protecting deer hunting.
Then there is the Fourth Amendment which is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures. In reality it would, if we had and administration and local authorities that respected the restrictions.
The destruction of the First Amendment is in a category all by itself. Laws restricting the free exercise of religion are prohibited and this is generally respected, unless the religion is Christianity. In certain progressive quarters there is a deep seated hostility toward followers of Christ because they know we cannot serve two masters. We can follow our Creator or the state, which puts the real church, the “confessing church” as it was known in Bonhoeffer’s time, on a collision course with those who would be our secular masters.
A week or two back, I stopped by a local gun shop. I could not believe how busy the place was for a Thursday morning. Every clerk was busy hopping between multiple customer looking at all sorts of pistol, revolvers and pistol grip shotguns. Some were trying to sell the store Glocks or chrome plated Saturday night specials… with little luck. There was even a sheriffs deputy picking up about a dozen rifles.
The customers were intense… these were not casual purchases. Yet, they were purchases protected by our Constitution, if not all levels of our government. They were purchases based concern for family and personal safety, as well as appreciation for fine machinery. The customers were of various races, ages and apparent income come levels.
I am not critical of their presence or their motives… I was there too! On one hand, if this pattern is repeated throughout the country, I am comforted that so many people are paying attention to the world around them and taking steps they believe is necessary to preserve their welfare. On the other hand, the fact that events around us are so frequent and intrusive on our lives that the people are waking up to the realities of what our government is doing to the average American.
The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
For the Independent Journal.
Author: James Madison
[As we read the words of James Madison, it is difficult not to consider how far we have strayed from the concepts our founder hand down to us.]
To the People of the State of New York:
HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States. The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be,
If you like the copyrighted content of Political Christian and would like to repost, republish or email the material, permission is granted for any article attributed to Larry Miller provided 1) there is a link back to this site and 2) there is no subscription fee and no paid advertising.
For other circumstances and other contributors, please contact email@example.com or follow links that may be provided.