Wednesday, October 5, 2011

The Campaign Begins

OK folks. Here's the deal:

No one running for President is really any good.

Furthermore, Republicans are so obsessed with beating Obama, they've completely abandoned the concept of implementing a successful, constitutional, and beneficial agenda. Want proof? Watch the way they've all been fawning over Chris Christie wanting him to run. Chris Christie as President would be little better than Obama in the White House - pretty much what you got with George Bush. Are we REALLY missing Mr. Bush so much that we would want him back again? Christie is Bush and Al Gore combined. In fact, you could probably get both Bush and Gore into one of his suits! Just a little humor there, Mr. Governor!

Don't get me wrong. Chris hasn't done a bad job here in New Jersey. We've long needed someone to stand up to big unions here and he's done that. Still, the economic tailspin continues. That means there's still too much government in Trenton - and it's NOT because there's so much governor!

Today, I am announcing my candidacy for President of the United States. I seek the Republican nomination, but am willing to run under the Federalist banner as well. It's time Americans got the Constitutional government they have always deserved.

I plan to run a very different kid of campaign. I have no plans to travel all over the country shaking hands and kissing babies. I just can't afford it - and neither can the taxpayers or the people I intend to represent. I will not run ads on television or radio. I will not be encouraging people to give up their precious time with their families or at their jobs to campaign for me. Those who believe in Federalism will surely be willing to spread the word on their own terms, as it is truly the only hope for America.

I will not be attending debates or visiting with foreign leaders. These people have nothing to do with America's true needs, and their opinions mean nothing beyond whether they will cooperate with us. I don't have to travel to their capitals to get those answers. If they want to see me face to face, I am more than willing to visit with them on our soil and at their expense.

I will acquire transcripts of the major parties' debates and answer ALL of the relevant questions here on my blog. I will answer questions honestly regarding other candidates instead of demonizing them in an effort to improve my chances of winning.

If elected, I will implement the Federalist Platform to the best of my ability. I know that I will likely face a hostile Congress and Supreme Court, but in situations involving differences, I will force them to override my veto. My personal opinions on matters will be subservient to the will of the Founding Fathers and their Constitution.

A major tenet of Federalist philosophy is the dismantling of illegal government programs. These will be dismantled in reverse order (meaning newest first). The newest programs would be the easiest to eliminate, since older programs and those using them would be entrenched more deeply. Each program would be released to the authority of the states, where final decisions regarding their fate would be made.

A further tenet of modern Federalist philosophy is the elimination of federal debt. In order to accomplish maximum debt reduction, tax codes must be adjusted so as to maximize revenues instead of to punish success. Initially, taxes would be cut to 1984 levels until the tax code set forth here on my blog could be finalized. This would increase revenues and provide funds necessary for paying down the debt. It should be anticipated that it would take approximately two years to implement the new tax code.

While a robust and state-of-the-art military is essential to American security, our presence overseas is neither needed nor wanted by many we seek to protect there. Therefore, those nations desiring our help will be asked to pay for it. If they don't want our help, they can simply choose not to pay the bill. If they cannot afford it, they will need to dismantle some socialism and cut some taxes to raise the money. Our nation's interests would be much better served with our soldiers guarding our own borders and fighting those who have chosen to fight us. Military action taken during my term will be taken with the purpose of defeating the enemy and coming home. Should a new enemy surface as a result of our departure, we will destroy that enemy as well - and come home. Forward bases overseas would be kept only as needed and only for purposes of protecting US citizens and those who pay for the protection.

It will not be enough to simply have a Federalist president. Americans will need to read the Federalist Platform and elect people who agree to implement it. We will need officials who are not only friendly to our beliefs, but who are willing to stand up for them.

I thank you for your time. God Bless America!


Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Freedom Government(Sage's Tax Plan)

" It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our leaders are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war(Revolutionary)we shall be going downhill. It will no longer follow of necessity to resort every moment to the goodwill of the people for support. They will soon be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will even forget themselves, but in the sole purposes of making money, and will never again think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. Whatever shackles, therefore, that shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war will remain on us long, and will only be made heavier 'til our rights revive, or expire in a convulsion." Thomas Jefferson: "Notes on the State of Virginia(1782)

I believe we are approaching a narrow, but distinct window of opportunity. With the economy soon to go farther in the tank than it already is, the "freedom movement" is possibly gaining the quantity, and even more importantly, the quality of Americans necessary to slough off the tyranny of the federal fleas. This will still not be easy, but I am optimistic(for an avowed cynic) that it is achievable. I think it will probably go one of two ways. We will either discover an extraordinarily clever technologically based avenue to cover our massive debt, or be forced to defend ourselves with arms as the shit hits the fan, and all hell breaks loose.

As far as the first option is concerned, and in light of my good friend RWR's posting of his tax plan; one which, by the way, I do believe would be a very viable operative if implemented, I have some fiscal suggestions of my own that, although some may view as "radical", I think are worth considering.

For the record, I would propose that the federal government be funded fully by user's fees, or some form of "head tax" that is linked to this concept. For example, if the cost of defending the nation against attack from its enemies cost, say $1200 per year, why not bill people,rich or poor, directly for that amount? Foreign tourists would pay about $3.50 per day simply tacked to their visa fees. It costs the same to protect a millionaire from attack as it does a street person, and both would pay a uniform cost of $7.00 to go to the movies, so why shouldn't something that it just as uniform in its application, and infinitely more necessary be funded the same way? It should be remembered that defense is like vitamins, and exercise, they are necessary because they are an investment in the prevention of ruin for the entire society. The rich should not of necessity pay more for it, because, in the end, they derive no more benefit from it than the poor. It would be like charging Porsches more at the car wash than Priuses.

Congress could be funded by a national lottery. Each elected Congressman would be paid $1,000,000 per year. This would pay his salary, and related expenses. Here is the catch, every word of law he votes for costs him/her $10.00, and what he doesn't spend, he gets to keep. Congress would therefore, be voting for fewer, and simpler laws; which would then translate into a major bonus for WE THE PEOPLE! Wouldn't you rather pay your representatives big bucks to do less, and reap the benefits than continue with the present system of tax, and spend? If Congress can pay farmers to not raise food, then we should pay them to not make laws!

I have long been a believer in the restoration of character-defamation based punitive damages in the event of frivolous lawsuits. The answer to this problem could be found in requiring the loser of a civil suit to pay for all of the costs plus the opposition's attorney fees, and by having the courts charge a premium on any legally enforceable contract that is to be repaid. That would guarantee the court's enforcement of the terms in the event that the loser weasels, while at the same time discourage the ongoing abuse of the legal system. The end result would be lower prices, and improved service with the truly legitimate litigants paying for their own services only instead of being forced to reward outrageous legal fees to the criminal elements of the legal profession.

All police, and criminal courts would be voluntarily funded by insurance premiums similar to car, or homeowner's insurance. If you want the protection of the police, or the judicial system "YOU" pay for it. If you don't want this protection, and are willing to take the involved risks of not having it,(as many are now doing by not having fire, or health insurance) then you neither receive police protection, or
court justice. Anyone convicted of a crime would be required to make monetary reparations, plus pay for all punitive fines. Thus, the "customers" would be the ones paying for the criminal justice system. YOU USE IT, YOU PAY FOR IT! What could be more fair, or free then that?

Perhaps not all of this is feasible, but in light of the present system's failures, let's at least consider some new ideas. I'll bet you have some too!

And how about Congressional programs? If the people demand illegal programs from their elected representatives, let them do so by vote. If they vote for it; they benefit from it, AND they pay for it! If forty million voters demand a welfare state, then let it be their welfare state, and their's alone! The rest of the country will neither use it, nor pay for it! This will put an end to people making themselves feel good at the public's expense. No longer will people be robbing Peter to pay Paul! Let the Socialist's live with their Socialism, and put the collectivists out of "our" misery.

The whole of the point that I am making here is that if people are held personally responsible for all of their actions, and I mean "all of them" we will not only become fiscally solvent, but finally be functional as a truly "free" people.

You can K.I.S.S. me now!(keep it simple sammy)

The Revolution is televised

Thursday, August 11, 2011

The Future of an Illusion

The defining moment when changes in demography, and attitude made the United States "post Jeffersonian" is difficult to pinpoint. My placement of this moment would of a certainty be somewhere between 1890 and 1920, which was the time period during which the USA went from it's being a "national" nation, to it's being an "international" nation. With it's entrance into WW1, there was no doubt as to what it's future would now be. And while the US had become "post Jeffersonian" in its manifest; it had ironically remained, at least in the hearts, and minds of its people, the complete modern embodiment of the fully sanguine presence of it's most famous Founding Father. If Thomas Jefferson were to announce his candidacy for the POTUS 2012, there is not a doubt on my part that he would easily win the popular support of both, or either of the two major parties, and go on to win a historical landslide victory in the November election. I am not sure however, that the modern ship of state would be ready to accept the political implications of a happening of this magnitude were it to occur. The sea of change that separates his world from ours is such that not only have his core convictions been swamped by the tides of time, but also that the shape of the shoreline upon which the tides have washed has been completely reshaped, and reformed.

The proof positive that I offer for this posit is to be found in the fact that every single grassroots movement for the reform of government has been a dismantling operation that has been designed to "take out the trash" of built up political debris that has been accumulating since the founding of the republic. From the 1860's to the 1960's, from the Civil War, to the Goldwater revolution, to the Reagan revolution, to the "Contract with America in the 1990's, to the Tea Party revolt currently underway, the desire of "WE THE PEOPLE" has been the shifting of political power from the federal, to the state governments.It would seem that since the end of the Cold War in 1989, the present American government has replaced the old Soviet Union as our own domestic counterpart of the "Evil Empire".

And this is all pure Jefferson. Like Jefferson in 1800, modern grassroots movements are born with a morbid fear of any centralized authority;while,at the same time, blindly overlooking the legitimate reasons why centralization became necessary in the first place. For Jefferson,this was a sordid truth from the beginning(1787). For modern movements the date is more indefinite, and likely to be determined from one's own perspective. However, the consistency of logic throughout is that the federal "monster" that has developed in post-Jefferson America is both dangerous, and unnecessary. It is also becoming more aware in the hearts, and minds of many Americans that this "monster" is also outside of the walls of the prison that the Founders for good reasons, originally placed it in.

The problem, as I see it, is that up to the present, this posture has been one of argument rather than action. That while the present view of most Americans is that the federal encroachments on personal freedoms has gone too far, very few are seriously contemplating the elimination of Social Security, or the Federal Reserve, both of which are "federal encroachments", and are "monsters" outside the walls of the Constitutional prison in its original intent. And, that in truth,it is for this very reason, that the ongoing assault on the powers of the federal government have had zero effect on the growth of federal spending, or the size of the beltway bureaucracy. Nevertheless, before we throw away the baby with the bath water, I believe that it can be said that it is in fact the residual power of Jefferson thought, and philosophy that has kept government on the defensive, to the degree that it is, for all of these years, and further, that this potent thread of remnant Jeffersonianism is the driving force behind the Conservative/Libertarian wing of the Republican Party today. For the record, it would seem that a majority of Americans still concur with Jefferson in the belief that, as Carl Becker puts it, "the only thing to do with political power is to abate it".

With that in mind, I believe that Jefferson's most enduring, yet least understood legacy is the principle of religious freedom. This has been most recently defined via negative, and I believe thus counter to the Founder's intent, by the SCOTUS as the complete separation of church, and state. This is a point that would have greatly distressed Jefferson in light of his extreme distrust of this governmental branch. The principle in question has gone from the position that the government has "no business interfering with a person's religious beliefs, and practice" in the late eighteenth century, to the position where the government is the determinant of the parameters of a person's religious beliefs, and practice in the early twenty-first century. This reversal has been thinly veiled, and disguised as "protecting the rights", and thus the "freedoms" of a person to worship as they please, but has,in fact, produced the exact opposite result via "democracy"(read:mob rule). Note the subtle shift in authority here from the "God of the Bible"(Creator), to the "Lord of this World"(government). This strand of thought is a "bone of contention" that I will chew on farther down the road. It is, however, purely Jeffersonian in its form, and intent.

On the other hand, it flies in the face of all we know about Jefferson to equate him with the advocates of racial equality, or any modern multi-racial ideals. All existing evidence portray him as a staunch believer in white Anglo supremacy in all of its forms, as were most members of the revolutionary generation. In addition, it can be said that he went far in identifying the differences between the races as products of nature, and thus ordained by God, rather than products of environment which is the modern understanding of this phenomenon. It was Lincoln, rather than Jefferson that expanded the "natural rights" section of the Declaration of Independence to include men of color.This may explain why MLK chose to deliver his "I Have a Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial rather than the Jefferson Memorial. And while it can be rightly said that he(Jefferson) was an enemy of slavery, it cannot be rightly expressed that he was equally a friend of integration, Sally Hemings not withstanding.

For all of these reasons, any invocations either past or present of Jefferson as "the apostle of freedom" are to some degree, misleading, and thus are inaccurate. Nonetheless, the truly powerful Jeffersonian legacy that has changed very little, and even yet remains strong with us is the parameters that contain the framework for all considerations of personal freedom. It should be noted that Jefferson was alone among the revolutionary generation in his seminal belief that government begins with an individual sovereignty that is a natural right from the Creator,and that this right was to be protected by the mechanisms of government. John Adams, James Madison, and even more so, Alexander Hamilton began with the assumption that in order for government to be effective, it must needs address individual freedoms within in a larger public context. Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that by the true expression of the highest form of individual liberty removed finally from all forms of feudal repression, a type of natural harmony of like interests would be produced that then would create invisible forms of discipline throughout the strata of society. The bulk of the twilight correspondences between Adams and he dwelt on Adam's failed attempts to apprise Jefferson of the truth of this illusory thinking. However, the temptation of this philosophy in the early years of the republic's boisterous optimism was simply too great for the idealogue that was Jefferson. It would not be seen until long after his death in 1826, that with the coming of the end of the Frontier Era, and the dawning of the inequalities of the Gilded Age, that his vision would finally be exposed for the "illusion" that it truly was. By then the Jeffersonian philosophy of individual freedom as a divine right was firmly established in the hearts, and minds of the people as a bedrock principle of American government, and thus the starting point of all future political dialogue. Thus, other than in times of great national distress, or crisis; individual sovereignty remains the heart conviction, and home base for all political thinking. It continues to be the framework for all political conversations in ways that have had us questioning all communal proposals for public rights in their various forms, and putting their promoters on the defensive perpetually. In short, Jeffersonian thinking in respect to the ideal of "self government", although a contradiction in its present application, remains the abiding belief of most Americans. That is why the telling of Americans that to improve their democracy they must "lose themselves in the comforts of a collective life" falls on deaf ears. In truth, there has never been any real notions of an "American democracy" without its equally accompanying thread of "American individualism", and nothing suggests that there ever will be save through subtle misrepresentation, and clever manipulation.

Like it or not, realistic or not, American political ideology will be forever framed in Jeffersonian language as an argument based on the absolute sovereign rights of the individual over the collective. As the years have passed, the simplicity of the Jeffersonian vision, "illusion" if you will, has only increased in its political, and moralistic implications, even as the size of the American electorate has grown larger, and more unwieldy. As a candidate for office, if we could ever persuade him to run, he would remain, as in the past, a formidable contender.

The Revolution has been televised.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

RWR Federal Tax Plan

The liberals in Washington will never do this, because it would require they relinquish control of taxation completely. Any plan that removes power from Washington, DC and places it in the hands of the States and the People is fine by me.

Check THIS out, and see what your Congressman or Senator thinks about it:

First of all, SCRAP THE CURRENT FEDERAL INCOME TAX CODE ALTOGETHER. Its purpose is obviously not to bring in revenue for purposes of paying for the federal government. If it were, there would be no deficits or national debt. The purpose of the current federal income tax is to control the behavior of the people. Every tax break or loophole is meant to encourage people to do something, and every new tax is meant to discourage people from doing something. Just look at who gets the breaks and the higher taxes for proof.

Here's how you get the politicians in Washington, DC to stop trying to control people AND force fiscal responsibility on both the federal government and the several States:

1. The federal government must put forth a balanced budget. Every dime paid must be collected in taxes. No deficits or overspending of any kind allowed.

2. Based on the figures from the most recent census, each state pays a percentage of the amount of the federal budget based exclusively upon its percentage of the population. For example, Alabama has 1.53 percent of the population. That state would therefore be responsible for 1.53 percent of the total federal budget. Texas has 8.04 percent of the total population. Texas would therefore pay 8.04 percent of the tax.

3. Each state decides on its own exactly how to come up with the money. If New Jersey wants to have a special tax on imported crude oil for purposes of paying its share of the federal tax, then so be it. If California wants to tax fruit, then so be it. If Massachusetts wants to simply incorporate the additional tax into its income tax, then so be it. Each State would have its own opportunity to design its own collection method based on its own economic strengths. What works for a rancher in Oklahoma may not work for a pineapple farmer in Hawaii.

4. Any surplus must be refunded to the states in the same proportion as it was collected, or applied to existing debt, if applicable.

5. All existing debt must be paid off within five years of implementation.

Of course, in the words of a great musician friend of mine, "They won't do that. It sounds too much like right".


Cross-posted at RightWingRocker.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

The Jeffersonian Legacy

A few months ago I posted an essay that I called "the flower of revolt" in which I hinted at the possible political/philosophical parallels between the 1960's Flower-Power youth revolt with the 1860's revolt of the Southern Confederacy that resulted in the War of the Northern Aggression. In this composition, I attempted to establish what I believe is a bonafide ideological link between the two events that is part of an inward expression of the original spirit of "76" In this respect, it has its root in the most seminal thinking of of perhaps the most quinessential American mind, Thomas Jefferson. Viewed thus, it then becomes the ongoing, and evolving present embodiment of the American Revolution that began in the minds, and hearts of the people with the Declaration of Independence.

At the time of my initial post, my blogging partner, and friend RWR asked for what proof that I might offer to substantiate this premise. In this document I will attempt to offer what I believe is evidence of the continued presence of what I have come to call "the Jeffersonian Legacy" in American History.

What, then, is the historically correct Jeffersonian legacy? What, if any, are the values that the real person who was Thomas Jefferson embodied in his life that remain vital, and viable over two centuries after he, and the other founders declared American independence? What is still living of the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson? Historian Carl Becker said of Jefferson that his ideas "come to birth too easily, and rest too precariously on the aspirirations and ideals of good, and moral men, and not sufficiently on the brute concrete facts of the world as it is." When John Adams spoke his last, and perhaps his most prophetic words-"Thomas Jefferson survives"- he had no way of knowing how these words would be transmuted to us in this modern era- the 21st century. He had no way of knowing about cyberspace. But there is more "talk" about Jeffersonian topics on America Online than any other historical figure. There is even a place where you can take a "virtual" tour of a typical day in the life of Jefferson at Monticello in the early 1800's!

So, to revisit the former question of "what remains...?" is to strike up a question that most people seem to have forgotten, or have avoided mentioning. And, might in fact, be better approached from the standpoint of posing the question of rather what has been lost between 1826 and now, to get the best perspective. Just what then of the Jeffersonian legacy has been lost to us in the tide of time that has raked the shoreline of the American experiment since then?

I have come to view a series of historical events that have taken place over these years as offering the best proof positive for my thesis. For the sake of description, I will refer to these events as likened to a series of historical waves such as those that precede an incoming tide. To understand what has taken place, we must try to imagine a line of sand castles on a beach, each located a different distance from the present high water mark, but all of them vulnerable to the incomng tide of time.

The first wave to strike was the American Civil War, which ended slavery, destroyed the political power of the South, and with it, the ideal that the states were sovereign in their relationship to the federal government. After 1865, Jefferson's Tenth amendment version of the United States was gone, and along with that went all of his notions of the correct distribution of power between the states, and federal government. One might argue that they were not completely washed away, but at the very least, it must be acknowledged they were permanently put on the defensive.

The second wave, which I believe was really a series of waves, arrived between the era of the Robber Barons, and the end of WW I; essentially taking place between the years of 1880 and 1920. In 1890 the census of the US revealed that the frontier stage of US history had ended, and with its going closed the end of the first period of American history. By the time of the 1920 census, it was reported that for the first time in our history a majority of Americans lived in urban as opposed to rural areas. Add to this the fact that the US received a huge influx of European, and Asian immigrants that forever altered the Anglo-Saxon fabric of the American character, and its population. When these events are viewed together, we have a picture of a very changed demographic that kicked the agrarian vision of the middle class yeomanry of Jefferson into the realm of nostalgia.

The third wave washed the American shore between the 1920's, and 30's with the coming of age of the USA as a global power, and the arrival of Roosevelt's "New Deal". One can see it's coming in retrospect from about the turn of the 20th century, and the rise of the wealthy class. During this period urbanization, industrial power, and increased population along with the control of corporations over the economy came together to create a movement among the people for more centralized government involvement in the attempt to regulate the burgeoning energies of 20th century industry, and prosperity. This government involvement, of course, had to be "framed" within, and viewed as a natural outgrowth of the vision of the Founders as an original part of the American experiment. Roosevelt's naming of Jefferson as a New Deal Democrat was perhaps the most sanguine act of political thievery in American history. This was especially true when one considers that the exponential growth of Federal power during the New Deal represented the antithesis of Jeffersonian philosophy in terms of its solidifying, and consolidating federal over state government control. This, in fact, was the final nail in the coffin of Jefferson's ideal of minimalist government.

The fourth, and final wave to hit the beach arrived at the end of WW2 with the coming of the Cold War. The government of the USA during this period used an essentially Jefferson morality to bolster American public policy/opinion in the campaign against the Soviet Union. This came with the consequent build up of the kind of massive military establishment that Jefferson would have abhorred. Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" followed with its entrenched military elitism, its dedication to the welfare state, the extension of full citizenship to blacks, and women representing the height of political disorder in the Jefferson scheme of things, as well as the complete,and full repudiation of the kind of racial, and gender differences that Jefferson considered to be "fixed principles of nature".

We have attempted in these few lines to postulate what we have lost of Jefferson to the ravages of time, and the concurrent impositions of change. Ironically, what of the thinking of "Sage of Monticello" that in fact has not been lost, and remains very much alive is the strand of steadfast refusal to accept the political implications of these impositions of change.

This is the point in time where the influences of "flower power" begin to make its case, I believe, as part of the Jefferson Legacy. The youth revolt of the 60's had its roots in the growing awareness of the general population that the federal government was becoming increasingly omnipotent, and omniscient in its control over the individual liberties of the people. There were many things going on at the federal level that would not "stand the light of day". To much of the youth it was an out of control bureaucracy that was feeding itself with the money, and blood of the American people. As this bureaucracy was not accountable to the average citizen, and its work was couched in the jargon of a legal profession that was neither wanted, or trusted by the people, it was not long before the critcism of its failure to follow its own laws burst forth on the streets in the form of the violent rebellion that was promised, and even encouraged by the Founders of the Republic, Jefferson especially among them."The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots, and tyrants alike".

A strange twist in this potent story of Jeffersonian nostalgia takes place at this juncture. One that I believe has not been well articulated by the writers, and pundits, and that being the superimposition of the legacy, and its consequent political thievery... again on the rebirth of the American socialist movement led by the demegogues of Hollywood, the "limousine liberals", in league with the musicians of the "European invasion" the Beatles, the Stones et al. Together, this "American Communist Party" found a voice in government through the willing accomplice of the Democrat Party, which used this instant to advocate more of the poison of "big government" in a classic display of Hegelianism, to solve the problems that it had created. Unfortunately, the minds of the youth of that period had already given over to indulgence in the mind altering drugs that prevented them from seeing the sleight of hand that they were being dealt. This was evidenced by the fact that the "real thing" of the Jeffersonian Legacy to be found in the conservative wing of the Republican party was in fact founded in the 1960's by Barry Goldwater. The conservative movement with Goldwater as its standard bearer railed against the encroaching character of the federal government, much as did Jefferson against the consolidation of power in post-revolutionary America.This movement was viewed by the molders of the mainstream as a very dangerous digression from the lock-step march toward the quasi-national/global political mindset that had been the ongoing trend in America since the end of WW2. As a youth, I well remember that there was no small number of other like-minded young "conservatives" who supported Goldwater's failed bid for the presidency(AuH20 "64"). However, the CFR/globalist masters have never been interested in the constraints placed on them by American national sovereignty especially as it pertained to economics , no matter what the American Constitution had to say about that subject. They were quite prepared to implement damage control by the assertion that Goldwater's notions of less government, and a strong America would, in fact, "create world instability", and not provide any real solution to the problems of those times, but rather that Johnson's "Great Society" military elitism ad infinitum was the necessary antidote to moving the nation, and the world toward forward progress. Note the use of the wording "great society" to describe its intentions of largesse for all. The Democratic Party became the repository for this new focus with a mantra of "peace,love, and power to the people". Goldwater's continued railings against this "international" policy was painted by the media as giving further example of his being out of touch with reality, and the will of all of the people. Some even went as far as describing his "rants" as being the froth, and venom of a truly dangerous "mad man" that if elected President, would be the cause of WW3. By Election Day 1964, Goldwater's American conservative minimalist government emphasis was viewed by most Americans as a dangerous regression into the failed politics of the past. Lyndon Johnson won the presidency in a landslide ending the influence of conservatism on American politics for a generation. It would not be until the rise of Ronald Reagan in the 80's, who, for the record, was a Goldwater supporter, that the voice of conservatism would be the prevailing voice again in American politics. Of course, the Jeffersonian legacy was once more the rally cry for the further encroachments of the Federal government in the many forms of addional blood, and money that would be necessary to carry out its provisions "in the name of the people". Talk about a twisting of the truth! The "flower power" revolt of the 60's was in fact a counter revolution of the Jeffersonian Legacy archetype. It was a grassroots expression of revolt against an ever expanding, and encroaching federal power that has been aggressively on the march toward the destruction of the bill of rights of the Constitution covertly since its beginnings in 1787. I believe that if Jefferson had been present in the 1960's, he would have been one of the loudest voices in support of the "youth rebellion", led by Goldwater whose philosophy would eventually be stolen from "conservatives", before being mislabeled, and resold as "liberal" in its intent, and handed over to the "American Communist Party"(Democrats) for its propagation. I also believe that he, along with the then Sen. Goldwater, would have been the champions of the liberties of the people as they were rightly represented by the "flower power revolt", much as he was at the time of the Constitutional Convention.

This unshaking faith, and belief that the true ideals of freedom can only be reposed in the heart of the people was the bedrock of the Jeffersonian Legacy. It is the one true, living, breathing body of thought that yet remains from the Founders, and yet also resides so deeply in the soul of the people. It is the sole reason for the time honored,continued practice of saluting the American flag. How appropriate a thought to be in possession of on this "Flag Day 2011"! This belief has survived, even as Thomas Jefferson has, and has been present in every truly "American" expression of "WE THE PEOPLE from the 1860's, to the 1960's, even unto its present embodiment in the "Tea Party Nation". To quote John Adams: "Thomas Jefferson survives"

Thursday, May 5, 2011

In God We Trust

The face photo of a dead Osama Bin Laden has been confirmed by "The Guardian"(British) as being a fake. It is a composite of an old Bin Laden photo, and an unknown dead man whose face has been made unrecognizable by beating, and mutilation. A somewhat similar situation in respect to the counterfeit so-called "birth certificate" that was produced by the usurper in the White House just last week... what a coincidence, don't you think? Just in time to take the people's focus off what would be the logical next question in respect to this issue; that being the citizenship of the first father, which would verify once, and for all the massive fraud that has been perpetrated on the American people by their government .This would, without a doubt, have been occasion for the rise, and fall of the star's of many of the rich, and famous in the District of Criminals.

But, that was last week's "trick", to be quickly forgotten in the excitement of the present moment's sleight of hand.

I have been pegged by many as a "cynic"; which I define as being "a realist with experience". I take no pleasure in this calling, or in the statement of my beliefs, but to quote my colleague RWR: "I calls 'em as I sees 'em", and this is how I "sees 'em".

Modern America is a seething pack of lies, voiced by a professional hit squad of liars from the top down. I am not sure at this point which makes me angrier... the lying... or them thinking that I am stupid enough to believe their lies.

So, that is why I have adopted a variation of Ronald Reagan's "Trust, but verify" philosophy. I DON"T TRUST UNTIL I VERIFY. Or,to say it as it is stated on the old coin: IN GOD WE TRUST. So, "show me the money!"

That being said; I offer the following proofs, or the lack there of, for the necessity of my present reasoning.

They are telling us that:
*Bin Laden is dead.
*they buried him in the ocean
*he was unarmed
*but we can't handle the pictures
*that terrorism has been dealt a deadly blow

Bullshit, prove it!

They are telling us that:
*Obama is a natural born citizen
*his birth certificate is authentic
*he loves America
*he is eligible to be POTUS
*he loves Jesus more than Mohammed

Bullshit, prove it!

They are telling us that:
*Republicans are for smaller government
*Republicans are opposed to abortion
*Republicans are in favor of the free market
*Republicans believe in individual liberties
*Republicans are a better choice than Democrats

Bullshit, prove it!

They are telling us that;
*The economy is improving
*the dollar is strong
*we don't need to buy silver, and gold
*the stock market is safe
*the housing market is improving
*the bankers are all honest

Bullshit, prove it!

They are telling us that:
*secular Jews don't control the media
*don't control Hollywood
*don't control the financial systems of the world
*aren't the power behind the ACLU
*are a trodden down, powerless minority, and as is the case with our black pseudo-President, if I speak out against this I am an anti-semitic, or a racist

Bullshit, prove it!

They are telling us that:
*Our schools are improving
*we need to spend more on education
*education is not state controlled programming
*the state dept. of education exists to improve educational standards
*our students are not being purposefully "dumbed-down"

Bullshit, prove it! I was there as a teacher, and saw it with my own eyes.

They are trying to tell us that:
*individual gun ownership makes us less safe
*the courts can be trusted
*judges are all impartial in their decisions
*our elections are fair, and honest, and the voting machines are tamper-proof

Bullshit, prove it!

They are trying to tell us that:
*Fox News is unbiased
*Glenn Beck represents the interests of the Tea Party Nation
*Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are not Republican cheerleaders
*Fox News is not controlled by the globalists, whose sole purpose is the destruction of the USA

Bullshit, prove it!

They are trying to tell us that:
*homosexuality is normal behavior
*women don't regret choosing abortions
*Planned Parenthood knows what is best for your children
*our tax dollars do not fund abortions
*God doesn't care about the national murdering of babies

Bullshit, prove it!

They are trying to tell us that:
*our elected officials are there to serve the interests of the people
*the Constitution protects us from any official wrongdoing on the part of our elected officials
*absolute power does not corrupt absolutely
*you have a right to healthcare, but not to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
*there is honor amongst the Washington establishment

Bullshit, prove it!

To misquote a famous quote with effect: "Never in American history have so many lies been told by so many people about so many things so often."

And to conclude by quoting the words of my father: "In God we trust, all others pay cash!"

Well, its about time to pay up boys; 'cause I don't trust until I verify!

Wake up people. No one save God in Heaven is looking out for you.

The revolution has been televised

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Can God bless America?

I was reminded recently of a time past in the history of sports. The sport of Ice Hockey specifically. It was back in the seventies, when the Philadelphia Flyers were the team to beat to win the Stanley Cup. When the word in the media was "only God saves more than Bernie Parent". For those of you too young to remember, Bernie was the goalie for the Flyers then, and he along with Doug Favell, were the one, two punch that elevated the Flyers to the top of the world of the ice sport. There was another player of a different kind, however, that made a special appearance when the Flyers were playing at home in the Spectrum. This player never put stick to puck, or blade to ice, but was just as much an integral part of the team as any of the other great players on that championship team. I'm talking about Kate Smith. Before every home game, and especially in the playoffs, Kate's singing of the anthem "God Bless America" was not only part of the pre-game routine, it was the victory song. In fact, the Flyers never lost at home when Kate sang this anthem! In effect, she became an unspoken member of this team by the routine singing of this glorious song of praise that never went unnoticed, and was never to be forgotten! When Kate sang, the team won, it was that simple!

During Barack Obama's April 2009 visit to Turkey's Cankaya Palace, he was asked if America was a Christian nation. His reply was most disturbing: "America's a predominantly Christian nation, but I do not consider us a Christian nation."

If polled today, most Americans still believe that the US was founded on Christian principles of godly living. In fact, according to a 2008 head count, approximately 76% of Americans weighed in under the "Christian" by name banner.

Recently I did some research on the religious beliefs of the fifty-five men present at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Fifty-three were members of one of the orthodox established Christian believing churches that were represented in America at that time. In fact, the main reason for the enactment of the first amendment in regards to religion was not to establish a separation of church from state, which is the modern interpretation of this statute, but rather to prevent Congress from passing a law that would favor one Christian denomination over another: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Which was to say, in sum effect, that the Christian religion, in one form or the other, was indeed considered the very foundation of the faiths of the founding fathers upon which the government of this nation was to be established.

Patrick Henry had this to say before the House of Burgesses in May of 1765: "It cannot be emphasized too clearly, and too often that this nation was founded neither by atheists, or religionists, but by Christians; and not on religion, but rather the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of all faiths have been afforded asylum, and freedom of worship here".

Article VII of the US Constitution states: "Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the 17th day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth in witness thereof..."

Note that the phrase "the year of our Lord" refers to the year that Jesus Christ was believed to have been born, and the capitalization of the word "Lord" denotes his deity. The reference to the independence of the United States of America refers to July 4, 1776 when the founders signed the Declaration of Independence because that document was the article of incorporation of the Constitution, and thus was the bedrock foundation of the American republic. The Declaration itself refers to God as "Nature's god", "Creator", "Supreme Judge of the Universe", and "Divine Providence".

On September 15, 2010 Obama addressed the Congressional Hispanic Caucas Institute and declared: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Note his omission of the key phrase upon which this statement turns, that being: "endowed by their Creator." This misquote(purposeful?)comes from,of course, the Declaration of Independence, which was the seminal document that was to distinguish the USA from every other country in history.

Inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in in our nation's capital are these words: "God who gave us life, gave us liberty". And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated without his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that his justice cannot sleep forever."

While men have fought for liberty since the dawn of civilization, they have in nearly every instant replaced one tyrant with another. The American experiment, however, has been different. The documents coming from the minds, and hearts of the Founding Fathers have provided unparalleled freedom, and prosperity for over 150 years; and only began to be eroded when the Supreme Court started to "lawyer" the law, and the people no longer upheld the belief tha all freedom comes from, and is a natural right bestowed upon them by the Creator.

Prior to that time,(1963) public schools opened each day with prayer, and the Bible was read in the classroom. I remember those days in the early years of my education in which these harmless acts of reverence took place before they were struck down by the courts.

The founders rightly feared from the outset that the Bill of Rights would be compromised, and eventually eclipsed by subsequent acts of Congress, which is why they included the Tenth Amendment which states:"The powers not delegated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people".

Thomas Jefferson was obsessively paranoid of the centralization of power because he knew that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely everyone. He therefore wrote: "It has long been my opinion that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the Constitutional power of the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night, and by day, gaining a little today, and a little more tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief in the night over the field of jurisdiction, until all power shall be usurped from the states, and the government of all shall be consolidated into one. To this end I am opposed; because when all governments domestic, and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as its center, it will render powerless the checks of one government on another, and will become as venal, and oppressive as the government from which we separated..."

It was in Engel vs. Vitale, 1962, that the "thieves" discovered a previously unrecognized chink in the "wall of separation between church, and state." Despite dozens of previous court decisions establishing the Christianity of the USA, they decreed that there could be no future mention of religion in public places. With that one single decision, the SCOTUS nullified the Judeo-Christian heritage of our nation.

Then, they followed with a series of unprecedented decisions outlawing prayer in public schools, and the discussion of religion in schools, references to God in official publications, the acknowlegement of Christmas in public places, and all "language" references to its acknowledgment in signs, and announcements. As a direct result of these decisions, chilren can no longer be taught about our nation's Christian heritage, and, even more importantly, that our laws, including the Constitution, are based on Biblical scriptures.

The removal of God from public schools was replaced by a new philosophy that taught children to no longer base their moral decisions on traditional Biblical teachings of right, and wrong, but rather on their own concept of what they think is fair, and just. Accordingly, our schools adopted the belief system of Aleister Crowley who taught his disciples: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

In the years that have followed this train of events there have been instances far too numerous, and with increasing degree of attacks in both scope, and dimension into the public sectors collective religious consciousness. The Supreme Court's initial ruling in 1963 has now become public policy to the degree that the God of the Bible has been barred from our governmental, and public institutions, removed from our schools, forbade to be mentioned in the workplace, marginalized in the pulpits, vilified in the media, and slandered in plays, movies, and television.

William Penn, the founder of the colony of Pennsylvania wisely warned:"Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."This nation cannot govern itself effectively without a principled Godly foundation. Constitutional government cannot survive without this basis for its existence. It was not founded on any secular premises, and has become irrelevant only to the degree to which it has been subject to the ravages of this so-called "modern" social mindset. Simply put, if we are to maintain the structure, and function of the governments of our States, and federal system, we must "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's."
Perhaps this nation should try to practice a little of the medicine that kept the Flyers of yore healthy eh? Can God bless America? The book of Chronicles tells us that"if my people, which are called by my name, will humble themselves in prayer before me, I will hear their prayer, and heal their land."
I can think of no time better than the darkness of this present hour to effect these words.

This is the Revolution

Saturday, March 26, 2011

A Moral, and Religious People

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a fishing net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral, and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The words of Founding Father, and America's second President John Adams. And he was absolutely right. The reasons why the Constitution of the United States is no longer relevant to the underpinnings of our country is that America is in a complete, and I believe fatal; moral, societal, and cultural meltdown.

America's first US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay correctly summarized the reason that our new nation was successful in Federalist Paper#2 when he wrote: "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that 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 efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long, and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty, and independence."

In other words, Jay was confirming that a united constitutional republic can only exist within the confines of a rather narrow framework of conditions. And that removing those conditions would thus bring about the consequent failure of liberty, and limited government. Both of the above stated quotes are very clear in their summarization of the conditions that are necessary for this freedom's framework.

At the founding of America, the principles of Christianity in respect to its fundamental philosophy, and ideology were universally accepted by the population at large. The vast majority of colonists were churchgoing, practising Christians who firmly embraced, and respected the sacred principles taught in the Holy Scriptures. In fact,the reason for the high premium that was placed on education was so that children would be able to read, and understand the Bible for themselves.It is especially interesting to me as a former educator to note that all of America's early educators centered their curriculum on the Bible, including the real "Father of American Education", Noah Webster, and the author of America's most successful educational textbooks, William Holmes McGuffey(McGuffey Readers).

Going beyond that was Early America's love of worship, and we are not talking about what passes for "worship" in its watered down modern American format wherein many Americans attend church in Disneyland entertainment villages with theatrical capabilities that rival Hollywood. We are not talking about espresso mochaccino Sunday Schools, or deified social clubs of political correctness. We are talking about a places where preachers proclaimed the word with boldness, and truth, and where the people went to learn it as, "thus saith the Lord". When they left the service, which was usually several hours in length, they were afraid NOT to apply what they had learned to every area of their lives, including politics.

The men that preached these messages were not the likes of Joel Osteen, or Rick Warren wallowing in the slurpy, sugary platitudes that do nothing to prepare men, and women for participation in Christian warfare, which is exactly what good governing entails. Can there be any wonder then why one cannot clearly distinguish the conduct, and attitudes of professing Christians from those that make no such profession? Is there any amazement that modern churchgoing so-called "Christians" appear to be as unkind, as deceitful, as greedy, as lazy, and as immoral as those who make no pretense as to their unbelief? And, can it then be followed that this apostasy has made its way into the very halls, and corridors of both state, and federal governments to the degree that each of these institutions(church&state) has become nothing more than big business enterprises that are focused more on political correctness, individual gain, and entertainment for the masses than they are on possessing any real conviction, or the spiritual, and moral imperatives that are absolutely essential for their continued function as viable operatives in the
21st century and beyond? The so-called separation of church and state look more to me like the complete agreement of both in the failure of each to where neither is able to effectively serve God, or mammon. Talk about a waste of human potential!

Adding to the collapse of spirituality in the churches is the collapse of general morality in America's culture. And we're talking about old fashioned, grassroots basics of morality here. How is it that greed, and ambition have replaced honor, and character in the workplace? When did comfort, and ease become the standard over the conviction, and understanding of the importance of what constitutes "good" government. How is it that even so-called "conservatives" now look to Washington D.C. for answers to their state, or local problems? Why is the fear of God no longer a standard by which we choose our public officials? Why are we allowing a cadre of godless bankers, and businessmen to sacrifice the sacred principles of our republic on the altar of financial gain in the name of globalism? Do we really no longer believe that liberty, and peace are more important than money, and materialism? Why do we continue to allow the members of Congress that have sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution to blatantly thumb their noses at us in total disregard to its dictates? It all comes down to whether we are a "moral and religious people" or not.Therefore, it is my profound belief that the collapse of basic morality portends the collapse of America. God will not be mocked!

Contrary to the politically correct left-leaning poltroons that are babbling on endlessly about the virtues of "diversity, and multi-culturalism", the wording "United States of America" implies that "unity" rather than "diversity" has been the key to America's greatness over the past 234 years of its existence. John Jay was quoted earlier as saying that early America was "blessed" with the principles that "united" the peoples, those being the same "ancestry, language, religion, and principles of government". And I believe that he was right.

By and large, early America was a Christian nation, speaking the same language,reading the same Bible, worshipping the same God, and seeking the same form of government(a constitutional confederation of free states, and embracing the similar concepts of a shared culture. But, this is no longer the case.

Thanks to generations of Federal meddling via public school indoctrination, and media/entertainment propaganda, the principles that once united this nation now serve to divide it. And, divided we are!

I would argue that we are hopelessly, and helplessly divided to the point of a complete schism into sectional regions, which is,in fact, already planned as part of the "new" United States of North America after the break up occurs.

In short, it has become abundantly clear to me that The United States of America is in the throes of a complete, total, and ultimately fatal spiritual, cultural, moral, and soon to be political meltdown, barring divine intervention, which brings me to the final point of this essay.

I recently asked my blogging brother of another mother RWR to write me a recommendation to attend seminary in pursuit of a theological degree. I am not doing this to provide any divine competition for the Joel Osteen's of the world, God will do that in his own time, but rather because I truly believe that self government is the natural right of man that was bestowed upon him by the God of the Universe at the creation of the world. I believe that the initiation of this governmental model was the intention of the Founders at the time of this nation's inception. I have found the Bible to be replete with scriptural quotations to support this belief. I therefore advance the premise that all of the talk about "saving America" will come to nothing without the recognition of this most salient point. And, further, that this must take place first among the people that have the greatest capacity to understand, and implement its possibility, that being the Church. I am firmly committed to provide the necessary leadership to foment the "spiritually based rebellion" that I believe is the only possible way to restore constitutional federalism to this nation.

The alternative to this restoration is to prepare your family, ready your resolve, and to start the preparation for life after death- the death of liberty, and law in America that is, because the meltdown of American society, and culture has already begun.

This revolution is now televised

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Bachmann Throws Down the Gauntlet

Michelle Bachmann
Natural Born Citizen
(and willing to prove it)

Palin wannabe or not.

Lousy speaker or not.

If Michelle Bachmann runs for President of the United States, she will present her birth certificate in the first debate to prove her eligibility.
I'll tell you one thing, if I was ever to run for president of the United States, I think the first thing I would do in the first debate is offer my birth certificate so we can get that off the table.
We will all know first hand that we are dealing with a constitutionally eligible candidate in Michelle Bachmann.

Does that make her the best for the job? No. Does that mean she has my vote? No.

However, it does mean that if she does in fact win the election, she holds the office legally, at least from the perspective of her status as a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

The current occupant has yet to show anything of substance.


Cross-posted at