Posted by Larry Miller on July 26, 2011 under How | 
We survived the folding of Senate Minority Leader McConnell and his attempt to wash his hands of the debt ceiling battle by giving Barack Hussein Obama a blank check. Under his plan, the Republicans could register ineffective objections as he ran up even more debt to bury our grandchildren with. His idea was just to let him destroy our economy, and let him take the blame for our evening meals consisting of hot dogs and beans.
Well, for myself, I don’t feel the need to have someone to blame for me eating beanie weanies every night. I DON’T WANT TO EAT BEANIE WEANIES EVERY NIGHT! I would rather not have it happen and if it does, I will not feel better because I can curse Obama for my plight. I would rather have it not happen in the first place. If leaders are to have our support they need to be working for our good, not just shift the blame to someone so they look good.
Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on July 25, 2011 under Why |
In a letter to President Thomas Jefferson in 1805, John Adams wrote, “All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.” Thomas Jefferson would later write, “I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Jefferson would also warn, “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.”
Today, our nation is sinking into bankruptcy, insolvency, and a serious financial reckoning day because our political class in Washington DC continues to load our posterity with perpetual debt and servitude. Most Americans are distressed, perplexed, and confused because of their “downright ignorance” of sound money principles enshrined in our US Constitution and the evils of central banking. In 1910, a secretive cabal of Wall Street and international bankers conspired to create the Federal Reserve System, which became our nation’s central bank in 1913. Our Founding Fathers were well acquainted with the evils of central banking (beginning with the Bank of England in 1694), and they diligently sought to enshrine hard money principles into our Constitution. In 1913, our national debt was $2.9 billion dollars and today it is $14.5 trillion dollars—an incomprehensible 400,000% increase! According to our US debt clock below, our unfunded liabilities now exceed $115 trillion and each taxpayer is on the hook for over $1 million dollars!
View the US Debt Clock.
Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on July 4, 2011 under Why |
As we enter another Independence Day weekend, I think it would be good to remind ourselves of who those men were that counted the cost and paid the price to bring this land of liberty into existence. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans today seem to have very little–if any–knowledge and appreciation for the sacrifices that our Founding Fathers made in order to birth this great country. We can thank the vast majority of our schools (including the institutions of higher learning), major media, political institutions, and even churches for this egregious embarrassment. Accordingly, I think it fitting that today’s column will attempt to renew in our hearts the respect and reverence that these great men whom we call Founding Fathers so richly deserve.
George Washington
Called “The Father of His Country,” George Washington was, perhaps, the most important man of the founding era. Supernaturally spared during the Indian wars, Washington became the military leader who held the Continental Army together when it was virtually impossible for any man to do so. Without his leadership at Valley Forge and elsewhere, there is absolutely no doubt that the Continental Army would have fallen apart and the fight for independence would have been lost. Read more of this article »
Posted by Guest Writer on June 23, 2011 under Why |
by Thomas Brewton
Robert Curry, continuing his examination of our heritage from the Scottish Enlightenment, makes the case that John Locke’s role was less significant than that of the Scottish moral philosophers.
It’s only fair, however, to note that Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government articulated the underlying justification for the Declaration of Independence and, in that respect, was a powerful influence. Written in 1689, the Second Treatise established a legitimate basis for ousting tyrannical king James II, namely that a sovereign is answerable to a higher law, from which flow God-given natural rights; that when a sovereign contravenes those natural rights, he forfeits his right to rule.
John Adams’s cousin Samuel Adams employed Locke’s argument in creating the Committees of Correspondence among the thirteen colonies, the agency that brought together the first Continental Congress. Read more of this article »
Posted by Guest Writer on June 16, 2011 under How |
[Editors Note: The most effective series of articles denying the need for a stronger central government came from an unidentified Massachusetts anti-federalist in a series of five articles that appeared in the Boston American Herald, under the pseudonym "John DeWitt", in honor of the the seventeenth century Dutch patriot who had defended the liberties of the people against an oppressive central government. This is the first of five.]
Massachusetts, October 22, 1787
To the Free Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Whoever attentively examines the history of America, and compares it with that of other will find its commencement, its growth, and its present situation, without a precedent.
It must ever prove a source of pleasure to the Philosopher, who ranges the explored parts of this inhabitable globe, and takes a comparative view, as well of the rise and fall of those nations, which have been and are gone, as of the growth and present existence of those which are now in being, to close his prospect with this Western world. In proportion as he loves his fellow creatures, he must here admire and approve; for while they have severally laid their foundations in the blood and slaughter of three, four, and sometimes, ten successive generations, from their passions have experience, every misery to which human nature is subject, and at this day present striking features of usurped power, unequal justice, and despotic tyranny. America stands completely systemised without any of these misfortunes. — On the contrary, from the first settlement of the country the necessity of civil associations, founded upon equality, consent, and proportionate justice have ever been universally acknowledged. — The means of education always attended to, and the fountains of science brought within the reach of poverty. — Hitherto we have commenced society, and advanced in all respects resembling a family, without partial affections, or even a domestic bickering: And if we consider her as an individual instead of an undue proportion of violent passions and bad habits, we must set her down possessed of reason, genius and virtue. — I premise these few observations because there are too many among us of narrow minds, who live in the practice of blasting the reputation of their own country. — They hold it as a maxim, that virtues cannot grow in their own soil. — They will appreciate those of a man, they know nothing about, because he is an exotic; while they are sure to depreciate those much more brilliant in their neighbours, because they are really acquainted with and know them. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on June 13, 2011 under How |
There has been copious speculation about who will arise to oppose Barack Hussein Obama at the end of his first and only term in office. There are almost as many ideas as there are people disgusted with the path of our country. I am looking for something more than an ideal candidate that can win an election. Instead of a politician running for an office, I would suggest we should be looking for a statesman… a leader with a vision and passion.
We often think of men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams… presidents all, but they were not alone in building the fledgling nation. There were others who drove the cause of freedom, helping pave the way to our independence. Patrick Henry was one of these who guided the our country into the light of independence. This future governor of Virginia is credited with helping his contemporaries see the need for independence and helping them to commit to fighting for it.
Through the years, his words have inspired many to a greater belief in both liberty and themselves. He demonstrated a single minded dedication to his country and its people. In view of the hazardous days ahead for our nation, it would be well to study these ideas coming from this man who loved his land and loved liberty. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on June 6, 2011 under How |
Over the recent years there has been a trend in academia to produce accounts of the lives of the heroes of our history that show them in less than favorable light. While we may have been guilty of embellishment on occasion, the pendulum has swung back the other way – with a vengeance. On the surface it appears that this is simply the result of academic arrogance as members of the ivory tower community endeavor to show themselves smarter that the average schlub who works for a living. It has the added benefit of giving the writer something unique to publish in a world where books and articles in print are a major measure of professional status and survival.
However, when we look at the primary targets of these studies, we find a pattern that reflects the worldview of the denizens of the ivy covered halls. The founders who stood and fought for individual liberty and responsibility need to be taken off their pedestals and reduced to the level of the political agitators of our day. Better yet, if they can be shown as scoundrels, their inspiration and ideals can be further discredited.
Looked at from this angle, is it any wonder that men like Washington, Jefferson, Henry and Madison have been reduced to a band of rich white slave owners by those who fancy themselves to be intellectuals. The fact that many in their number were looking for peaceful ways to end the institution is ignored. The “intelligentsia” have a real problem with one man owning another, as do most readers of this, yet they have no problem at all with a few unquestioned and unaccountable leaders virtually controlling the people of an entire nation. Read more of this article »
Posted by Guest Writer on June 2, 2011 under How |
www.LC.org
Nashville, TN – The Tennessee State House of Representatives passed a resolution urging each county to permit the Ten Commandments to be posted in their respective courthouses. The resolution passed unanimously 98-0, with two abstaining from the vote. The resolution reminds Tennessee lawmakers of America’s rich history. Both citizens and their elected officials alike have respected the Ten Commandments, their profound influence on the formation of American legal thought, and their fundamental place in the history of law and government as a whole.
The resolution states that the United States Supreme Court “has even upheld Sunday closing laws, which originated in the Fourth Commandment’s exhortation to remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy.” Throughout Washington D.C., there are countless depictions of the Ten Commandments that can be found as a testament to the undeniable role of the Decalogue in America’s legal tradition, including the displays adorning the Supreme Court Building, the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the Ronald Reagan Building, the federal courthouse, and the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives. Read more of this article »
Posted by Guest Writer on May 17, 2011 under How |
By rjjrdq
The Republican 2012 presidential field looks to be crowded this year, and no clear front runner has emerged as of yet. Maybe because of the potential crowd, including those that have yet to commit, or maybe…the media is choosing candidates for us, and as in the past, those candidates are less than exciting. I suppose it could be my paranoia and distaste for the mainstream media that causes me to float this conspiracy theory. Yeah, maybe it’s just me.
The 2008 Republican field brought us the likes of Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Rudy Guiliani, and a few others that the media made sure never had a chance. Tom Tancredo comes to mind. Once those candidates saw that there was no way they could defeat Barack Obama-or any other Democratic candidate for that matter, they dropped out of the race, leaving the sputtering John McCain campaign to be the sacrificial lamb. And sacrificial he was. He never had a chance. Even Republicans weren’t happy with him, but in the end, he was the only one that stayed in. McCain didn’t put up much of a fight. In fact, none of them did. So what are the prospects for 2012?
We see the media choosing candidates for the people already. CNN had a list of potential candidates a few months ago, and it included the usual suspects. Romney, Daniels, Palin, a few others, but as it stands now, none that could defeat Obama next year. Political vetting isn’t just coming from the left. Hugh Hewitt, a noted conservative talk show host, said that Herman Cain should drop out of the race. He had no chance of winning and was just taking up valuable media time. Then there was a conservative host I heard tonight. The name escapes me, but he had Romney front and center. He took a shot at Ron Paul, the perennial nut that everyone likes to joke about. When mentioning Paul, the guy played the cuckoo clock sound effect in the background, just to make sure we all knew this guy wasn’t a serious candidate. He said Ron Paul has as much of chance of becoming president as Osama bin Laden. Cuckoo, cuckoo. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on April 24, 2011 under Why |
This weekend I took my five year old grandson to the Greatest Show on Earth. He had a permanent grin on his face from the time the show began until he kind of dozed off on the way home. He loved the clowns, the acrobats, tight rope walkers, zebras, elephants and tigers. The boy was blissfully ignorant of the turmoil in the world about us.
He was typical of youngsters in the smaller than usual crowd. The government damaged economy gave the circus joy to fewer families this year… and there are many children just like who have never had the opportunity to enjoy such an evening. Yet, all of the younger generation, privileged or not, already have debt upon debt piled on them by the scoundrels in Washington who insist on borrowing money that will never be paid off in their lifetimes to finance giveaways to people who vote to keep them in office.
If you’re like me, you really hate to think of the thousands of dollars that have already been committed in my grandson’s name, with more being piled on every day. We have three choices… only three. Read more of this article »
Posted by Guest Writer on April 11, 2011 under Why |
by Jim Baxter
Deterministic systems, ideological symbols of abdication by man from his natural role as earth’s Choicemaker, inevitably degenerate into collectivism; the negation of singularity, they become a conglomerate plural-based system of measuring human value. Blunting an awareness of diversity, blurring alternatives, and limiting the selective creative process, they are self-relegated to a passive and circular regression.
Tampering with man’s selective nature endangers his survival for it would render him impotent and obsolete by denying the tools of variety, individuality, perception, criteria, selectivity, and progress. Coercive attempts produce revulsion, for such acts are contrary to an indeterminate nature and nature’s indeterminate off-spring, man the Choicemaker.
Until the oppressors discover that wisdom only just begins with a respectful acknowledgment of The Creator, The Creation, and The Choicemaker, they will be ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth. The rejection of Creator-initiated standards relegates the mind of man to its own primitive, empirical, and delimited devices. It is thus that the human intellect cannot ascend and function at any level higher than the criteria by which it perceives and measures values. Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on April 7, 2011 under How |
I often receive inquiries from college and university students. Contrary to the thinking of most older adults, I find a sizable number of today’s youth much more constitutionally aware than are their parents. I’ve traveled all over America and spoken to thousands of high school and college age young people. My observation is this: the youth of America have not rejected the message of liberty and constitutional government; they haven’t HEARD the message of liberty and constitutional government. When they do hear it, as often as not, they embrace the message enthusiastically. If the Ron Paul Revolution of 2008 proved anything, it proved that!
Recently, a student from a prestigious university wrote me with a short list of questions for a thesis he is writing, which is entitled, “The Effect of the Evangelical Movement on the 2008 Presidential Election.” He reads my columns and was motivated to ask me to contribute to his report. I am using today’s column to answer his questions.
Question: “What, in your opinion, is the best way for the government and religious organizations to interact?”
Answer: The best way for government and religious institutions to interact is the same way that government and virtually all institutions should interact: by the government staying the heck out of their business! Read more of this article »
Posted by James Manship on March 31, 2011 under Why |
Rock and Roll Revolution, almost a “theme song” by the Who.
I like Country and Folk songs better than Rock, yet this song has a powerful message in the lyrics if you listen to the words beyond the screaming and throbbing Rock music genre.
From Wikipedia…
“Won’t Get Fooled Again“ is a song by the rock band The Who. Written by Pete Townshend, it combines guitar power chords with heavily processed organ and synthesizer sounds to create a textured, atmospheric introduction that explodes into the verse. It tells of a “revolution of revolutions” in an endless cycle, where “the change it had to come, we knew it all along” but each successive new regime turns out to be just like the old one, so that straight away it’s time once again to ”pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday, then I’ll get on my knees and pray we don’t get fooled again”. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on March 30, 2011 under How |
I just read an interview with new RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and, while he seems to be a good, dedicated man, it left me somewhat concerned about the future of our country. His predecessor, Michael Steele also is a good man, and he tried to do a good job. Yet, even if the new guy gets it all right, we need to be sure it is the job that needs to be done.
He has been hailed as the answer to the party’s financial woes. Woes that stem from the $23 million dollar debt left by the man who held the job before him. Somehow Steele is blamed for this financial fiasco as if his lack of fund raising skills was solely responsible for this debacle. Let’s think about this for a bit.
The Republican Party is the one that trumpets its dedication to fiscal responsibility. The thrust of the party line is that our national government running up unconcionable debt is the result of two factors – the amount of revenue and the amount spent. Yet, the party finds itself struggling under a load of debt… debt not all incurred by the former chairman. Like a less than successful football team, they seek to change their fortunes by changing the coach. The new guy seems to be doing fairly well as his efforts during his short tenure has reduced that debt by 2 million dollars. Read more of this article »
Posted by Guest Writer on March 20, 2011 under Why |
By Congressman Randy Forbes
[A few days ago, I received this from Congressman Forbes and thought I was worth passing on.]
Fifty-five years ago, the House Judiciary Committee considered a bill that would affirm one of the cornerstones upon which our nation was built. Although opposed by a small minority of the American public at the time, the bill received overwhelming support by Americans and members of Congress. The bill passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee, unanimously in the House of Representatives, and unanimously in the Senate before it went on to be signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The legislation was H.J.Res.396 and it declared the official motto of the United States to be “In God We Trust.” Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on January 25, 2011 under Why |
The shootings of at least 18 people (6 killed, at least 12 wounded) in Tucson, Arizona, has predictably ignited a firestorm of anti-gun, anti-right, and anti-anything not “liberal” diatribes from the typical big government talking heads in Washington, D.C., and New York City. Anti-freedom congressmen railed for more gun control, including resurrecting Bill Clinton’s so-called Assault Weapons ban, and other laws restricting “high capacity” magazines (the assailant reportedly used a Glock 9mm in the attack).
If the newly elected Republican majority in the US House of Representatives has a political death wish for 2012, they will stupidly facilitate more gun control legislation. If there is anything the vast majority of grassroots Americans (from just about anywhere) are absolutely sick and tired of, it is gun control legislation. The vast majority of Americans firmly support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the shooting in Tucson notwithstanding. In fact, since the hastily passed Assault Weapons ban expired, a majority of Americans has been truly educated regarding the intrinsic protection that personal firearms possession affords. Thanks to notable researchers such as John Lott, most Americans understand the veracity of writer Robert Heinlein’s sagacious counsel: “An armed society is a polite society.” So true.
I invite readers to study Lott’s recent column regarding the Arizona shootings at: http://tinyurl.com/4939z9c
I just spoke last week to a packed house here in my home State of Montana (with more than 500 people in attendance who came out on a Tuesday night in sub-zero temperatures to hear me), and I would estimate that twenty percent of them (or more) were carrying their own personal side arms. I would pity the poor idiot who would have attempted to duplicate Loughner’s attack in that assemblage. Obviously, guns in the hands of the citizenry are far and away more of a deterrent to violent crime than a contributor to it. Read more of this article »
Posted by James Manship on January 17, 2011 under Why |
[James Renwick Manship, Sr. is the author of the 2010 “Second to None: America’s Washington”, and “A Civil Air for America: An Eagle Eye View of George Washington’s Boyhood Rules of Civility” in 2008. Formerly a Member of the Board of Visitors of Mount Vernon with the father of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, for over a dozen years Manship has been one of America’s foremost Living Historians of George Washington. This was written in response to the display of historical ignorance by Ron Chernow on the pages of the New York Times.]
Like few movements in American History, the Tea Party movement has demonstrated both impact and staying power. Staying power is shown from the Ron Paul supporters March on Washington in July 2008 to the 9-12 Rally in 2009, to a similar event in November 2009, to the ObamaCare Protest Rally in March 2010, the Tax Tyranny Day Rally at the Washington Monument on April 15th, to the Glenn Beck Restoring Honor Rally on 8-28, to the 9-11 Patriots March up Constitution Avenue, and the 9-12 March on the Capitol from the Washington Monument. One George Washington Living Historian was at most events and is in the NY Times photos by Drew Angerer reading a Bible passage (Psalm 37) to the Citizens assembled. GW also calls for UPROAR Unite Patriots Recover Our American Republic.
And the “Staying Power” is not confined to the City of Washington, but seen in Rallies All Across America. “Impact” is shown “Sea to Shining Sea” by the Primary Election defeats of “RINO Republicans” such as Murkowski of Alaska, Bennett of Utah, to Castle of Delaware and other Tea Party supported candidates. Democrats are shivering in fear of what General Election Day may bring. All together, millions and millions of Americans are getting up and getting out to protest both party’s Elites in Government ignoring their wishes. “No more!” Voting Citizens uproar. Read more of this article »
Posted by Guest Writer on January 13, 2011 under How |
[This essay is composed of excerpts from "CENTINEL" letters appearing in the (Philadelphia) Independent Gazetteer, October 5 and November 30, 1787. As one reads his words, it is almost as he had been transport to view our times and problems.]
Why The Articles Failed
That the present confederation is inadequate to the objects of the union, seems to be universally allowed. The only question is, what additional powers are wanting to give due energy to the federal government? We should, however, be careful, in forming our opinion on this subject, not to impute the temporary and extraordinary difficulties that have hitherto impeded the execution of the confederation, to defects in the system itself. For years past, the harpies of power have been industriously inculcating the idea that all our difficulties proceed from the impotency of Congress, and have at length succeeded to give to this sentiment almost universal currency and belief. The devastations, losses and burdens occasioned by the late war; the excessive importations of foreign merchandise and luxuries, which have drained the country of its specie and involved it in debt, are all overlooked, and the inadequacy of the powers of the present confederation is erroneously supposed to be the only cause of our difficulties. Hence persons of every description are revelling in the anticipation of the halcyon days consequent on the establishment of the new constitution. What gross deception and fatal delusion! Although very considerable benefit might be derived from strengthening the hands of Congress, so as to enable them to regulate commerce, and counteract the adverse restrictions of other nations, which would meet with the concurrence of all persons; yet this benefit is accompanied in the new constitution with the scourge of despotic power. . . . Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on January 12, 2011 under How |
A bedrock principle of Natural Law (the Law upon which Western Civilization rests) is the primacy of truth. Without a desire for, and appreciation of, truth, society cannot sustain itself. Lies, deceit, duplicity, etc., are more than moral evils; they are the bane of freedom and liberty. Take away truth, and one is left without honor, justice, or decency. Truth is the cement that holds the bricks and stones of a sane and civilized society together. Remove the former and the latter will crumble.
Truth also demands courage and honesty, because sometimes it can be very painful to look at! It takes an honest man to desire truth, as truth will often reveal the character flaws in his own soul. It also takes courage to appreciate truth, as truth will often demand that one change his own opinion or conduct. Unfortunately, it does appear that the desire for truth has been replaced with a desire for deceit.
Years ago, a great, old preacher-warrior told my former church congregation, “People today love being lied to.” How right he was! For the most part, even professing Christian people today love being lied to. It would seem that many people find deceit easier to digest than truth. Maybe it’s because these people lack the aforementioned virtues of honesty and courage.
Truth demands the virtue of honesty, because honesty requires that information be objectively analyzed and studied; it requires that personal prejudices and proclivities be set aside; it requires that humility replace pride, which allows one’s opinions and conduct to change in the face of truth.
Truth also demands courage, as courage is the active response to honesty. To know what is right to do is great (many people do not even know this much), but to act upon what one knows to be right is even greater–and also harder! Courage gives men the fortitude and conviction to suffer personal loss in order to be faithful to their own honesty. Courage places more value on honesty and truth than on personal prosperity or aggrandizement. Courage propelled Daniel into the lion’s den; it drove Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego into the burning fiery furnace; it placed a youthful David onto the battlefield alone against a fierce and ferocious adversary; it gathered Pastor Jonas Clark’s congregants (mostly farmers and merchants) onto Lexington Green to face Britain’s highly trained, professional soldiers. Read more of this article »
Posted by Guest Writer on January 6, 2011 under Why |
CERTAIN POWERS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, CAN AND SHOULD BE LIMITED
[In Federalist No. 23, Alexander Hamilton spoke of the necessity for an energetic government. "BRUTUS" replied. “BRUTUS” is thought by many to be New York judge Robert Yates, a delegate to the Federal Convention. Antifederalist 23 is taken from the 7th and 8th essays of "Brutus" in The New-York Journal, January 3 and 10, 1788.]
In a confederated government, where the powers are divided between the general and the state government, it is essential . . . that the revenues of the country, without which no government can exist, should be divided between them, and so apportioned to each, as to answer their respective exigencies, as far as human wisdom can effect such a division and apportionment….
No such allotment is made in this constitution, but every source of revenue is under the control of Congress; it therefore follows, that if this system is intended to be a complex and not a simple, a confederate and not an entire consolidated government, it contains in it the sure seeds of its own dissolution. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on January 2, 2011 under Why |
The twelfth chapter of the book of Genesis begins:
The LORD had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:1-3 NIV)
This it was from the very beginning. Israel was created to be a unique nation in the world, with a special relation with God. Later we see:
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: “May those who love you be secure. May there be peace within your walls and security within your citadels.” For the sake of my brothers and friends, I will say, “Peace be within you.” For the sake of the house of the Lord our God, I will seek your prosperity. (Psalm 122:6-9 NIV)
These passages make it pretty plain that our Creator is looking out for the nation of Israel and expects those who follow him to do the same. This is true even though the modern country is a relatively new addition to the brotherhood of nations, but even it’s brief history is full of miraculous appointments and interventions. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on December 29, 2010 under How |
It’s difficult to watch a newscast on any channel these days where the word “sustainability” is not batted about as the ruling class attempts to tell us what we are, and are not capable of doing. We are told that our lifestyles are not sustainable. We are told that our leadership in the world is not sustainable. We are told that our consumption of resources is not sustainable. We are told these things by members of the party that has been pretty much in charge for the past fifty plus years. One has to wonder how they let us get into this fix in the first place.
The whole argument about the whether our path through the world is sustainable or not revolves around the question of whether the American genius that made this country the superpower in the world is capable of maintaining our position. To say that our lifestyle and position in the world is not sustainable is to say that Americans have lost their ability to create new products, concepts and energy sources. To say America is not sustainable, the speaker shows his lack of faith in the American people, the free market system that has carried us to the pinnacle of the global economy and the “divine providence” that guided our nation into existence is unreliable.
These naysayers, even when they recognize the historical significance of these factors, are telling us our time has run out and the individualism that has built our nation and made it prosper must give way to the collective approach driven by leaders with little real world experience who have sheltered themselves behind the ivy covered walls of academia, theorizing about all sorts of things, we, the little people, should be doing. Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on December 27, 2010 under Why |
As we approach the celebration of Christ’s birth, I am reminded of the words of John Quincy Adams. On July 4, 1837, he spoke these words:
“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? … Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth. That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?”
Adams was exactly right: America’s birth is directly linked to the birth of our Savior. In fact, the United States of America is the only nation established by Christian people, upon Biblical principles, and dedicated to the purpose of religious liberty. This truth is easily observed within America’s earliest history.
America’s forebears first established a written covenant with God as early as November 11, 1620, when they penned The Mayflower Compact. It states in part: Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on December 13, 2010 under How |
Yesterday, Judge Henry Hudson of the US District Court for the District of Virginia ruled in favor of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s lawsuit claiming that Congress overstepped it’s bounds when it required individuals to purchase health insurance from a private company. This individual mandate is the lynch pin of the entire ObamaCare hustle. Without it, the entire plan begins to disintegrate.
The government’s case failed to recognize that there really are limits on the power of the national government. As with other nefarious maneuvers by this administration, there is a firm belief in the concept of divine right of the executive branch to make or alter the rules of engagement to suit their purposes.
As Mr. Cuccinelli describes the two basic aspects of case:
First, Virginia argued that the individual mandate was beyond the power of Congress and the President to impose under the Constitution. Specifically, Congress claimed that their regulatory power under the Commerce Clause allowed them to order you to buy their government-approved health insurance, even if you decide not to buy health insurance. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on December 9, 2010 under How |
[Editors note: Speech by Patrick Henry to the Virginia Ratifying Convention given June 16, 1788]
Mr. Chairman, the necessity of a bill of rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before. I have observed already, that the sense of the European nations, and particularly Great Britain, is against the construction of rights being retained which are not expressly relinquished. I repeat, that all nations have adopted this construction — that all rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people are impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers, as necessarily inseparable from the delegated powers. It is so in Great Britain; for every possible right, which is not reserved to the people by some express provision or compact, is within the king’s prerogative. It is so in that country which is said to be in such full possession of freedom. It is so in Spain, Germany, and other parts of the world. Let us consider the sentiments which have been entertained by the people of America on this subject. At the revolution, it must be admitted that it was their sense to set down those great rights which ought, in all countries, to be held inviolable and sacred. Virginia did so, we all remember. She made a compact to reserve, expressly, certain rights.
When fortified with full, adequate, and abundant representation, was she satisfied with that representation? No. She most cautiously and guardedly reserved and secured those invaluable, inestimable rights and privileges, which no people, inspired with the least glow of patriotic liberty, ever did, or ever can, abandon. She is called upon now to abandon them, and dissolve that compact which secured them to her. She is called upon to accede to another compact, which most infallibly supersedes and annihilates her present one. Will she do it? This is the question. If you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation; for, if implication be allowed, you are ousted of those rights. If the people do not think it necessary to {446} reserve them, they will be supposed to be given up. How were the congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great Britain? The states were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the states, respectively, which was not given up to the government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You, therefore, by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the general government. Read more of this article »
Posted by Lisa Miller on November 1, 2010 under How |
In the September issue of the “New Guard”, Congressman Paul Ryan mapped out his plan to reclaim the American Idea. As a Tea Party leader it was necessary to respond with an alternative Tea Party Road Map. The most challenging task is to confront our ballooning and unsustainable entitlements and other usurped government spending from State and local governments, commerce, charity and the individual.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid grew to an unsustainable level through the legislature’s lack of prudent fiscal responsiveness to increased life spans and political pressures that expanded care under Medicare and Medicaid without regard to the costs. I submit these programs should never have been anything more than minimal fully portable safety net protections executed through private products. The conflict arose when the government decided to run these programs.
Social Security is not held to the same reserve requirements as the private sector hence we have no money set aside to pay these obligations. Government continues to expand government to “fix” the conflict of interest that exists from government engaging in the market and who then regulates, taxes and oversees its competition (the private unsubsidized market) and itself and its agents (subsidized Corporations and non-for-profits.) Government spending is now driving unemployment and preventing a recovery.
Social Security
The fundamental problem is that we are all forced to participate in these programs, we have few choices, lower return on our investment and a massive loss of opportunity through inflationary measures to shirk the debt these unsustainable programs demand. Transitioning from a program for all to a minimal fully portable safety net benefit may take decades but all participants need to be part of the solution from existing retirees to the teenage employee. For Social Security, increasing the eligibility age to 70, capping the income paid out and moving to private accounts will be the ultimate solution for America. Products that guarantee a rate of return that covers inflation will be the minimal option available in the market. Read more of this article »
Posted by Guest Writer on October 28, 2010 under How |
by Bob Marshall
The proposed “Repeal” Constitutional Amendment endorsed by some Tea Party leaders provides that “any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by . . . the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states . . . .”
I agree with the goal. Washington’s power needs to be curbed. That is why I introduced HB10, the Health Care Freedom Act, which passed the Assembly this year to give Virginia legal standing to challenge Obamacare’s individual insurance mandate.
However, supporters of the Repeal Amendment, including former Gov. George Allen, other Virginia elected officials, Tea Party Federation leaders, and Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett need to consider the problems their amendment creates.
Their goal is to restore “federalism,” which holds that Congress stays in its legislative sandbox (the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution) and state legislatures stay in theirs. Empowering two-thirds of the states to repeal any federal law or regulation (not executive orders?) abolishes the principle of federalism.
The Repeal Amendment, which surfaced in The Wall Street Journal, and a similar version unveiled at the Tea Party convention both speak of repealing federal “law,” not simply statutes or treaties. Article VI of our U.S. Constitution states: “This Constitution and the laws of the United States . . . and all Treaties shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Our Constitution, ordinary statutes, and treaties are all defined as “law” according to our Constitution. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on October 21, 2010 under How |
In the past, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said, “Multikulti, we are now living side by side and are happy about it.” She was echoing the politically correct mantra we have been hearing for decades. The idea that a common culture and language is not necessary for a smooth functioning society is a fantasy that academic idealists have been pushing for years. This thinking derives from the teachings that there are no absolutes, that all cultures and all values are moral equivalents and that those who believe one way is the answer, such as we poor deluded Christians would contend, were just plain wrong. This seems to be an absolute position in itself.
That was in the past. Having lived with the results of this philosophy, the lady showed a higher degree of perception than most world leaders when she addressed some younger members of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU), telling them that the much hyped and worshiped multiculturalism was an utter failure. She saw that pockets of people living by totally different values, work ethics and abilities did not fit in well with the solid, precise and productive German way of life. The problem was not so much that the newcomers looked different and spoke other languages, the problem was that they had no intention of integrating into the host country’s system, but instead, expected the Germans to bend to their demands and accept such idiosyncrasies as sharia law.
What Chancellor Merkel saw, was the same thing the people of Michigan are seeing, which is the same thing the people of Arizona and New Mexico are seeing. Conflicting cultures do not provide for a peaceful and productive society, particularly when those who have just arrived have little or no respect for the existing ways of the people. Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on October 20, 2010 under Why |
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies.”
I would argue that we, like our patriot forebears, have also endured “patient sufferance.” For at least a half-century, we have patiently endured the erosion and abridgment of our freedoms and liberties. We have watched the federal government become an overbearing and meddlesome Nanny State that pokes its nose and sticks its fingers in virtually everything we do. We cannot drive a car, buy a gun, or even flush a toilet without Big Brother’s permission. We are taxed, regulated, and snooped-on from the time we are born to the day we die. And then after we are dead, we are taxed again.
In the same way that Jefferson and Company patiently suffered up until that shot was fired that was heard around the world, we who love freedom today are likewise patiently suffering “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” In fact, I would even dare say that these States United have become a boiling cauldron of justifiable frustration and even anger. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on October 19, 2010 under Why |
[After the constitutional convention, there was still much discussion prior to its adoption. Some of the concerns were resolved by the addition of the Bill of Rights. Others were not, and we see some of their fears of an open door to tyranny are being realized today. Even so, there was a recognition of the need for some sort of central government. As we see today, the key debate was over just how much power to trust this central government with. This particular letter to an editor which is part of a collection known as the Anti-Federalist papers, signed with the pseudonym of The Federal Farmer, is thought to be the work of either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith, both Virginians.]
October 8th, 1787.
Dear Sir,
My letters to you last winter, on the subject of a well balanced national government for the United States, were the result of free enquiry; when I passed from that subject to enquiries relative to our commerce, revenues, past administration, etc. I anticipated the anxieties I feel, on carefully examining the plan of government proposed by the convention. It appears to be a plan retaining some federal features; but to be the first important step, and to aim strongly to one consolidated government of the United States. It leaves the powers of government, and the representation of the people, so unnaturally divided between the general and state governments, that the operations of our system must be very uncertain. My uniform federal attachments, and the interest I have in the protection of property, and a steady execution of the laws, will convince you, that, if I am under any biass at all, it is in favor of any general system which shall promise those advantages. The instability of our laws increases my wishes for firm and steady government; but then, I can consent to no government, which, in my opinion, is not calculated equally to preserve the rights of all orders of men in the community. My object has been to join with those who have endeavoured to supply the defects in the forms of our governments by a steady and proper administration of them. Read more of this article »
