“There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as ‘caring’ and ‘sensitive’ because he wants to expand the government’s charitable programs is merely saying that he’s willing to try to do good with other people’s money. Well, who isn’t? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he’ll do good with his own money – if a gun is held to his head.”
- P.J. O’Rourke
On May 5, 2013, at Ohio State University, in Columbus, Ohio, President Barack Obama gave the commencement speech to the graduating class. In his speech, he included the below words:
“Still, you’ll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.” (see below video)
Interestingly, if we journey back to June 28, 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt, in his 5th Fireside Chat, included these words:
“A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it “Fascism,” and sometimes “Communism,” and sometimes “Regimentation,” and sometimes “Socialism.” But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.” (see below video)
Both of these Presidents, I’m sure, have claimed to be upholding our Constitution, and were/are discharging their duties according to the principles espoused by, and agreed upon by, the very men who brought this Constitutional Republic into existence. But, if that were the case, wouldn’t the words of these Presidents also be similar in style and tone to the men who Founded the United States?
Please consider some of the very words, written by our Founders:
Below, is a very insightful post, from The Tenth Amendment Center, written by Judge Andrew Napolitano:
“Here they go again. The Obama administration has asked its allies in Congress to introduce legislation that would permit the feds to continue their march through the Fourth Amendment when it comes to obtaining private information about all of us.
The Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to be left alone, was written largely in response to legislation Parliament enacted in the colonial era that permitted British soldiers to write their own search warrants and then use those warrants as a legal basis to enter private homes. The ostensible purpose of doing that was to search through the colonists’ papers looking for stamps, which the Stamp Act required the colonists to affix to all documents in their possession. The laws that permitted the soldier-written search warrants and the Stamp Act were the British government’s fatal political mistakes, which arguably caused a major shift in colonial opinion toward secession from Britain 10 years before the bloody part of the Revolution began.
I will never forget my father’s provocative words, that he spoke to me while watching the news, shortly after the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001: My father said, “Mark, they won.” Not knowing exactly what my father meant, I said, “what do you mean dad”? He simply replied, “the terrorists won.” In my anger, and disbelief, over what took place on 911, I replied to my father, “they [the terrorists] didn’t win a dam thing”! We [as in our military response] are going to kick their freaking ****s! Besides the pain and grief of seeing those events unfold, over and over on T.V., and mourning the loss of nearly 3000 fellow citizens, my only concern was that we send our military over to Afghanistan, and used such an overwhelming amount of force that, these thugs would think twice before ever considering doing such a thing again. But, without relitigating the pros and cons of our military response, and the subsequent military decisions, my father’s words still remain with me to this day:
The below, insightful, words, are from Chapter 10 of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s great book, “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom“:
“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” – Rahm Emanuel, then Chief Of Staff to President Barack Obama
“The truth is that the ultimate crisis—war—is a dear friend of the state. In fact, the government uses war as the ultimate means to expand its own power, size, and scope. It does so in a multitude of ways, to which we will return below: Tax and budget increases, security laws and regulations, nationalization of industry, censorship of speech and expression, suspension of due process, warrantless searches and seizures, and blanket arrests of war resisters. This list goes on and on. Every one of these measures grossly swells the size and scope of government, thereby stripping us of the freedom to live as we please. The “opportunity,” as Rahm Emanuel states above, to grow, to expand, and to garner power is too alluring and too easy a feat for the state and its politicians to pass up. Mr. Emanuel’s remark fundamentally exemplifies the government’s cavalier and exploitive attitude when it comes to war. The government rejoices in war and utilizes it to leverage its own power. The president’s poll numbers rise in war, the Defense Department’s budget is of no importance, defense contractors close to the government make money, and elected officials get reelected merely for “staying the course.”
Among the many great words, written and spoken by Thomas Jefferson, during his time here on The Earth, and the miraculous things that he accomplished, in helping to bring The United States into existence, the below [Jefferson] words have really resonated with me lately:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it’s laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”
Anyone who truly understands Jefferson’s philosophy on governance, would, likely, not need to have the above words explained to them, as Jefferson was a strong advocate of Individual Rights, and the sovereignty of the individual, to choose the course of their own life, with minimal interference from the state. And, to that extent, it truly makes sense that each generation, or few generations, in theory at least, should not be bound to horrible laws etc. anymore then they should be bound to the debt of previous generations.
For the last 5 years, there seems to have been a torrent of never-ending attacks on rich people in this country. Rich people are being told, over and over, by The American Left that, they need to pay their (so-called) Fair Share. For those of us who truly believe in Individual Rights, and a person’s sovereign right to their own earnings and property, we don’t need to be told how disconcerting, and downright disgraceful this tone is – particularly in this country. But, beyond this never-ending rhetoric by the left, I have noticed a consistent theme in their words, throughout the last five years, and that is their mistrust of the Private Sector – which includes the free-market, private charity etc. But, who is the Private Sector? Put simply, the Private Sector is We, The People! Who on Earth does the left think they are criticizing when they attack the Private Sector? They are criticizing their neighbors, their employers, their co-workers, small business owners, and so on. On the flip side, they tend to believe that Government can solve all problems; and, even though most Americans know that Government can not solve most problems, and usually turns minor problems into major problems, this simple fact remains: Who is funding the Government? It is We, The People, in the Private Sector!
Below, is a very insightful post, from FEE, in regards to The Welfare State:
“A February 27, 2013, article in The New York Times on last month’s Italian elections included this interesting paragraph:
“Increasingly, experts on both sides of the Atlantic are asking whether politicians in some advanced nations, faced with high debts, aging populations and slower growth, are capable of promoting plans that offer a way out of the malaise—or whether they could be elected if they did.”
So the “experts” are finally beginning to wonder if the welfare State is affordable and sustainable. I guess that’s progress. But in my view, these Johnny-come-latelies aren’t experts at all if they didn’t see it coming.
Below, is a very encouraging, and insightful, post, from The Tenth Amendment Center:
“Arizona may become the second state, after Utah, to recognize gold and silver as legal tender authorized for payments of debts and taxes.
The Arizona Senate voted Thursday to approve SB 1439, the Constitutional Tender Act, which allows businesses and the state government to accept payments in gold or silver. The vote was 17-11. (see how reps voted here)
The Legal Tender bill specifies that legal tender in Arizona consists of all of the following:
1. Legal Tender authorized by Congress.
2. Specie (containing gold or silver) coin issued at any time by the U.S. government.
3. Any other specie that a court of competent jurisdiction rules by a final, unappealable order to be within the scope of state authority to make legal tender.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
- Ayn Rand
“History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world.”
“The state has typically been a device for producing affluence for a few at the expense of many. The market has produced affluence for many with little cost even to a few. The state has not changed its ways since Roman days of bread and circuses for the masses, even though it now pretends to provide education and medicine as well as free milk and performing arts. It still is the source of monopoly privilege and power for the few behind its facade of providing welfare for the many—welfare which would be more abundant if politicians would not expropriate the means they use to provide the illusion that they care about their constituents.”
- Yale Brozen
“I will speak until I can no longer speak, I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our constitution is important, that your right to trial by jury is precious, that no American should be killed on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”
- Senator Rand Paul
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
- Frank Herbert
Below, is a great book, by Frank Chodorov, called, “The Income Tax: Root of All Evil.”
“Frank Chodorov was an extraordinary thinker and writer, and hugely influential in the 1950s. In this classic work, he argues that the income tax, more than any other legislative change in American history, made it possible to violate individual rights.
He argues that income taxes are different from other forms of taxation because they deny the right of private property and presume government control over all things.” – Amazon.com
Enjoy!
“The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time.”
- Ayn Rand
In a recent article, by The Blaze.com, they posted the below, insightful, and well thought out, open letter, recently penned by Columbine survivor, Evan Todd, to President Obama, in regards to Gun Control; “in which he offers a point-by-point analysis of proposed firearms control initiatives, dismissing them as ineffective and dangerous to Americans’ rights.” -
“The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.”
- Ernest Hemingway
“Where teaching is conducted by private schools, there will be a considerable variation in different schools; the parents must judge what they want their children taught, by the curriculum offered. Nowhere will there be any inducement to teach the “supremacy of the state as a compulsory philosophy.” But every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later, whether as the divine right of kings, or the “will of the people” in “democracy.” Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property, and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.”
“The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
- Samuel Adams
In a prior post, entitled, “If Congress Can, Unilaterally, Modify The Constitution,” I wrote this brief history of The Bill of Rights:
“Following The Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention of 1787, where The United States Constitution was debated, written, and sent to the thirteen respective states for ratification, many notable, and well-respected Patriots, and statesmen, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason, also referred to as The Anti-Federalists, publicly spoke out against the ratification of The Constitution. Among the several reasons: they believed it was a threat to Individual Liberties; they were opposed to the new Federal Court system; and feared that The President would eventually morph into a King.”
“Ought not a [Federal] government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are willfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.”
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”
- Alexander Hamilton (Federalist 84)
Below, is a very insightful post, from The Tenth Amendment Center, that explains, beautifully, our Bill of Rights, in their proper context; and, more specifically, The Second Amendment:
“Following the recent school shooting in Connecticut, American citizens have once again displayed their total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment. Facebook postings, comments to so-called news articles and letters to the editor are calling for repeal of the Second Amendment. These individuals believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed. Unless the Second Amendment created the right, then repeal of the Amendment cannot constitutionally abolish the right.
Following the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the several States began submitting amendments to Congress for consideration. By September of 1789, Congress had reduced approximately 210 separate amendments to 12. The amendments were inserted into a congressional resolution and submitted to the several States for consideration. Of these, numbers 2-12 were ratified by the States in 1791 and became the so-called Bill of Rights.
“As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.”
- Judge Andrew Napolitano