Chris Dixon

Open Letter To The State of Maine

2010-05-12T12:45:00.001-04:00

Dear fellow Mainers,

I offer this letter openly to you all to first tell you a little bit about who I am, what I’m all about, and then express some concerns to you. My name is Chris Dixon and I am a hard working member of the barely surviving middle class, working a part time job. I first became interested in politics in my later years of high school, when experiencing firsthand how the Federal Government has completely demolished the education establishment with overregulation and just flat out mishandling of the system. I had already given two speeches about a little thing called a Constitution for a contest, the long forgotten topic in our nation’s political discourse. Even more forgotten than this, is the most important part of the United States Constitution, which is the Bill of Rights. Whereas the Constitution provided for the structure of a new government on a national level, feared by many at the time, the Bill of Rights had given us protections from this new creation. Logically, it was not necessary, because the States created the Federal Government the reluctant behalf of the people, in a limited capacity that would have only specific numerated powers. Usurpation would be hostile in nature and thus unconstitutional off the bat. Or that’s how the story was supposed to go. And luckily, we have these safeguards.

I became quite involved in following the 2008 presidential elections, only to become horrified at the things people will consent to and the people that will be voted for. I’m not speaking in relation to any one party; it’s all around, across party lines and all over the political spectrum. The word “freedom” has become as if an outdated footnote in history. Whenever it is brought up today, it is considered an element of “right-wing extremism” by the left and has become a cool little catchphrase on the right, along with words like “Constitution” and “Liberty.” Does anybody really know what the Constitution is anymore, however?

I became heavily involved in State politics a little over a year ago, with the drafting of my own State Sovereignty Resolution. Inspired by the work of Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key and his efforts in his respective State Legislature, I began to follow the movement taking shape across the country. The idea that States’ Rights are relevant was becoming reality. The original idea of these resolutions first took shape just several years after the passing of the United States Constitution, when the country faced the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. It was a series of four bills that featured the Sedition Act, a bill that essentially made it a crime to speak unfavorably of the United States Government. Now anyone who understands the foundations of this country and what it stands for understands that freedom of speech is one of the most widely known provisions embodied in the Bill of Rights and is, just as the other rights are, essential to our Republic. But these bills had passed and become law, now giving the power to the young Federal Government to prosecute individuals for merely exercising their freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to voice concerns in regards to the government they created. This was surely a dark time in our nation’s history, but one that has been long forgotten.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and soon to be third President of the United States of America, came forth with the argument against this horrific overstepping. While acknowledging the obvious violation of the First Amendment, his main argument was in regards to the violation of the Tenth Amendment, which reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." For those unaware, for a little background, this amendment resulted from the fears raised that the Federal Government could misconstrue or even ignore the provisions of the Constitution and thus run the newly formed constitutional republic amok. What it does is simple, and that is to ensure the limitation of power exercised by the Federal Government over the States. The idea was not difficult to grasp, as it basically stated that if the Constitution does not specifically say the Federal Government can do it or that the States cannot not do it specifically, than all other powers are left for the States to enact on their own. Simple, enough? That also was how the story was supposed to go, but quite obviously, the later chapters of our history have featured cruel and dark surprises for our nation’s people.

Jefferson was joined by the “Father of the Constitution” James Madison in opposition to the bills. Jefferson drafted the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, and Madison drafted the Virginia Resolution of 1798. But because of the Sedition Act, these two influential founders in our nation’s history had to work in secret and introduce these resolutions into their respective Legislatures secretly, because if discovered, they would be prosecuted under the law. Even though they were not faced with this fate, Alexander Hamilton still called for the building of an army to test the resistance of Virginia, in a shocking turn of events. New Hampshire denounced the efforts, claiming that both states were attempting to incite an insurrection. In all truth however, it couldn’t have been more wrong. Hamilton’s response was a given, considering his support for an overpowering government. The cause of States’ Rights has always been a point of contention, but one has to wonder, why?

This has always been the hostility involved in response to it. But I’ve never understood it. I’ve seen it across the country when people oppose the efforts to enact the Tenth Amendment or when the media falsely portrays this movement in a negative light. I experienced it first hand when I e-mailed the Maine State Legislature a year ago with no results. The media, just as people did in 1798 and 1799, paint this movement as a push for secession and rebellion, being disrespectful and destructive towards the Union. When all truth, we are here for the exact opposite, as we are here to protect the people by ensuring the laws of the American Republic are respected and obeyed, with the freedoms and liberties of the people standing firm. If anything, the destruction of the Union is a policy of the Federal Government that blatantly disobeys the boundaries set forth beneath the law, including in the Constitution, which serves as the basis of our government’s structure. If our government cannot respect the document that created it, than what is it? It is a beast out of control.

A couple months ago I became State Coordinator for the new Maine chapter of the Tenth Amendment Center, an organization founded by Michael Boldin and run by himself with Bryce Shonka, two individuals who are very hardworking and dedicated to the cause. There are other chapters across the country with State Coordinators and lower level coordinators. We aren’t overpaid politicians sitting in some high office or some kind of celebrity here to win over attention. We are ordinary people who adhere to the freedom and liberty originally set forth for this country, specifically the provisions of the Tenth Amendment. While I cannot speak for a single one of any of these individuals, I can speak for myself in saying that I am perplexed. Whereas the Tenth Amendment has been painted as some type of piece of a right-wing extremist agenda, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The Republican Party, just as much as the Democratic Party, has been involved in a wide range of severe violations of the Constitution that have produced the situation we face today. So to say this movement is apart of a partisan agenda couldn’t be more false.

With that said the Tenth Amendment appeals to the people of both the Democrats and the Republicans. A major talking point of the left in recent memory is participation in democracy. How can you participate in national politics? All the members of the Federal Government as a general rule are bought and sold. While we have a representative government, where we elect these people to voice our concerns and enact them accordingly, with respect to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the result has become the great opposite. The United States Congress is out of touch. The Executive Branch is out of touch. Both of them have been for a very long time, no matter what party has the grip of control. This is what happens when you take the chains off an overly ambitious beast and subsequently move to open the door in its cage. Logically, it would be in the best interest of a Democrat to support States’ Rights on the simple grounds of participation in democracy being more direct and involvement is much easier at the State and local levels.

Republicans seem to be starting to get the message, but with most of the politicians, it is still a simple catch phrase enacted to hook people’s ear and allow them to follow. And this is another talking point of mine: the politicians. While I have touched upon the corruption at the national level, something most people are aware of to begin with, I will now touch upon the State levels. When this country was founded, one of the protections against the new national government going out of control was the State Legislatures. It is the responsibility of the States to protect their citizens from mandates and laws that violate the Constitution and infringe upon their liberties, through a process called “nullification” by Jefferson or “interposition” by Madison. Obviously, this has not been the case, as State Governments have been reduced to simply administrative units of the Federal Government and sacrificing the people for their own interests. What is the point in having a State Government if it does nothing more than act apart of the Federal Government? Surely, this wasn’t the vision of government as provided for by our founders.

Now, why should you support the Tenth Amendment and the cause of States’ Rights, you ask? Most of our major issues could be solved by a return to the respect of constitutional limitations and the division of power. As I mentioned early on in this letter, education is a major area. I’ve spoken to teachers and school board members alike who have confirmed the point for me, that their hands are often tied by bureaucrats miles and miles away. Teachers are the subject of frequent attacks, because of the underperformance of students abroad. But what can teachers do when they are unable to teach? Teachers see students walk through the doorway into their classroom and sit down there at their desks, and with further discourse and progression through the curriculum, an educator becomes aware of the needs of a student. But more often than not, these days, teachers are unable to meet these needs because they are too caught up having to meet federal regulations and requirements. Now I will agree with people in saying that there is needed oversight to make sure that teachers do not slack, because not every teacher is as hardworking and dedicated as others. This is where local governments come into play. If things are not desirable, we should not be giving additional power to bureaucrats. We should be attending our local school board meetings and voice our concerns, or we should go to the offices of the school department to address them directly with the individuals who are there to address these issues. This is not only the constitutional position; it is the sensible and logical one.

There are a wide range of other issues and I could talk all day about them, but what is important is that we understand the core issue. The issue is that the Federal Government is hungry with power and out of control. The idea of limited government is not exclusive to any party, as both parties have not adhered to it, ever. If anything, the agreement of the two main parties on bigger government should convince the people that something is very wrong. Most of our issues we can handle at a State level. Who would argue against local governance and a more direct channel of influence over politics and our lives? This is why the Tenth Amendment is so important.

Now I am no constitutional scholar, I have never gone to an Ivy League college. I’m not a celebrity, I’m not a politician. I’m only here for one reason: freedom. Freedom speaks to all of us and it is something that transcends politics, it is the very basis of our lives as Americans. Without it, we would not enjoy privileges such as elections and free speech. Would anyone wish to forfeit this? I doubt it, highly.

It is time for Mainers to rise up. I encourage you to be involved and if you have any questions, concerns, or comments, please contact me via e-mail chris.dixon@tenthamendmentcenter.com. If you wish to talk at length, I can give you my phone number and we can talk more directly via phone. Please do not hesitate; I am here for the people. Not for the politicians, not for any political party or specific wing of the spectrum.

Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you in the future.

Sincerely,

CHRIS DIXON

State Coordinator,

Maine Tenth Amendment Center

Http://mainetenthamendmentcenter.com

Scarcelli Misses The Point

2010-05-10T22:56:00.001-04:00

As I blogged about last night, the Maine Republican Party had passed a stunning new platform at the State Convention, much to the surprise of everyone both on a State and national level. While including frequent mentions of the United States Constitution, the often ignored document that provides for the structure of our government, it also brings up the topic of State’s Rights. While I’ve been quite excited by a more constitutional platform passing through the State Republican Party and becoming a more mainstream thought, there are indeed some shortfalls. I noted that it still seems widely believed that there are constitutional rights, whereas the Constitution provides nothing more than privileges, and that the real freedom is something inherent to all beings and lives on in the hearts of humanity. While it is indeed important to defend the U.S. Constitution, which provides for the structure of our government, it is just as important and if not more important, to remember the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is true founding document of this nation, because it came at a time when revolution was brewing among the colonies and they were ready for real change. As Samuel Adams once noted, a majority is not required, but merely an irate minority determined to spread the brushfires of liberty in the minds of men. By no means was revolution a popular idea in the beginning and even as time drew close to the first shots, there were three sects divided among those considered revolutionaries, those considered Tories, and those who wished to remain neutral in the conflict. Our foundation was built upon the solid ground of determination with the building blocks of freedom, with all of the firm strength holding, as the patriots knew that all odds were stacked against them. Whereas now, the worst we face is a lost election, back then, their lives were all on the line and if it were not for some luck in the beginning that kept us steering forward, the men we consider heroes such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would be men who met execution in a small footnote in what would have been our continued British history. Yes, there were sects of individuals who believed in specific ideologies and philosophical conflicts raged, threatening to burn the movement to the ground, but they held steady on their one true goal, which was freedom. This is something that most cannot even grasp in this day and age.

When I read Scarcelli’s response to the passing of the new Maine Republican Party platform, I sat here scratching my head over the typical mainstream rhetoric I had expected. But considering every candidate paints themselves as the champion of change and the savior to deliver us from evil, the similarities all ring the same. What she showed us now, is several things; First, she fails to understand the roots of this country, and second, she fails to understand how it applies to the problems we face today.

As I mentioned to begin this article, the Declaration of Independence is the foundation of our country. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights serves as our sword and shield whenever the darkness brings us the demons of tyranny. Without it, we would not have the constitutional protections of free speech in our elections or daily discourse with other individuals, as well as have the right to free press concerning our opinions in these difficult days. These two are only among many in this document that safeguard all of the freedoms Americans take for granted. Without it, we have a document that gives us a government and nothing that protects the people. Do we forfeit our souls for protection? That’s a common selling point of dictators, who generally rise first as radicals telling people in a rather upbeat and eloquent manner that some great threat is facing them and that he will be the lead them to liberation. After securing this, he tells the people that if he’s not able to keep an eye on their every move, than our safety is in danger. This is of course not a question of safety but rather the point about insecurity over their regime and empire. Insecurity breeds hostility. We have our Bill of Rights to tame the ambitions that threaten to burn the Republic’s pillars and annihilate its foundation.

Now to clarify, I am no way equating the platform with either of these two documents. Both are indeed imperfect, yes, as all three were drafted by human beings and endorsed by such. But the Maine Republican Party platform still has a ways to go, especially involving contradictions involving marriage and war. But I feel inorder to strike at the root of Scarcelli’s error, I must note these points and then elaborate, as I have done.

First, Scarcelli attacked the platform as being more out of the agenda of right-wing extremists than of the hopes and dreams of the middle class. What are the hopes and dreams of the middle class? To be overtaxed? Her party is one that has had firm control over Augusta for some time now and has made it difficult to thrive, in the forms of high taxes and unbearable business environment. If we have no business, we have a flat economy, and if there are high taxes, than people are not helping feed the economy, but rather simply shoving hard earned money down the throats of disconnected law makers who only work once every few years (a.k.a., per election cycle). The hopes, dreams, and values of the middle class do not involve having the money taken away, having business driven away, and having bureaucracy expanded. This is the entire issue that bred the Tea Party movement to begin with and if you want them to go away, try taking away their reasons for existence!

Sifting through her points on her website, she herself seems out of touch. First, rather than simply realizing that setting a business up in this state is too complex and too frustrating for most and thus concluding to relax the regulations reasonably, she wants to create a centralized office for business development. Yes, I agree with her, everything is scattered and inefficient in Augusta, but her solutions are out of touch. Government cannot create business, it can only destroy it. She again as the right idea in recognizing that the Dirigo Health Plan is a failure and thus it must be removed, but her solution is at fault. Surely, the industry is profit driven, but not in the right way. Whereas competing with each other would drive prices down so they would attract more people as the laws of capitalism generally dictate, most businesses find themselves competing with government and the corrupt bureaucrats that have to get their hands on everything. To understand why our health care system is a mess, you must first understand the beginnings of government intervention, compare before this point to after, and then realize that a great injustice has been done upon us not by those evil, demoic, hateful people trying to make money, but rather by the irresponsibility of government.

There is a point where she puts education on her list as a target objective for her plan as governor. This is where it dumbfounds me and it stems back to my conversations with educators and those involved at local levels in monitoring the work of educators. Scarcelli attacked the platform as being the agenda of right-wing extremists and essentially calling it counterproductive, yet a major selling point of the platform involves the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, which protects the rights of the States and ensures our sovereignty is protected. One of the biggest fears at the birth of our country was that the creation of a larger national government would result in the States losing all of their sovereignty, sacrificing it and thus enslaving themselves. This isn’t right-wing propaganda, this is common knowledge of the founding of our country, something long neglected. We had the Bill of Rights, with the Tenth Amendment added to calm the fears. Now returning to my point, a major issue concerning education is that educators are unable to educate anymore. I have spoken with individuals who have confirmed this for me, that rather than meeting the specific needs of the children that enter their classroom, they are instead having to fulfill regulations set hundreds of miles away by bureaucrats who would never meet even the children’s extended family, and thus not even have a remote possibility of what they need. There is a lot of fuss in the country about how teachers are underperforming and doing a great injustice to our children, yet, this is a huge distortion of the problem. The problem isn’t our teachers, the problem is the politicians in Augusta and Washington D.C. First, in the unneeded and misdirected interference by the Federal Government and then the subsequent inactivity of the State Governments, both in Maine and abroad, to not only act to reject unconstitutional legislation, but also protect the interests of their children. The enforcement of the Tenth Amendment alone and the nullification of these regulations would alone fix the problem. Not even State Governments should be deciding what is taught in our schools, that should be left up to teachers. When the politicians step in and shackle our educators, they demonstrate an absolute lack of confidence in them and inflate the nanny state by insisting they cannot perform their jobs on their own. How ironic though, that people who can’t even manage a simple budget believe they can do better teaching children than educators.

The Tenth Amendment is relevant and this is why the new Maine GOP Platform matters. Yes, I will agree there are several flaws and I have noted those before in a previous entry. But this platform represents a departure from the mainstream Republican Party that has been a base of inactivity in a longstanding Democratic nightmare of taxation and regulation. I don’t even believe the Republican Party could handle doing anything responsible either, but that is why people are stepping up to replace longstanding doctrines of their party. While one party stands there and endorses the programs that aren’t helping our State or country, another has active members trying new avenues relative to our nation’s heritage.

Education has long been a concern of mine, being someone who just traveled the damage system and barely escaped with my sanity. The bars set by bureaucrats hurt our children’s growth. We don’t endorse fostering their talents, we overwhelm them with an excess of irrelevant topics at once and bury them with all of the many issues irrelevant to their goals. Why should an english child and a writing prodigy have to suffer through Algebra 2, if they’re not going to need to understand all of these complicated equations to write for a newspaper or craft a legacy like that of fellow Mainer Stephen King, for example? Our legislators just don’t get it. And they won’t. Scarcelli proves it here.

Scarcelli and I would both agree that the platform has low points. We would disagree on the extent and range of it. We would agree however, that the GOP is still wrong on marriage. Although we would disagree on how to deal with it. The point is here, though, rather than offering specific points of error and her ways of correcting their low points, she is simply just spitting rhetoric. Mainers don’t need rhetoric and petty political quarelling. We all are aware that anything the Republican Party does will probably not be well received by the Democratic Party, it’s not rocket science, so we don’t need it simply reiterated. What we need is your reasons why and why it is wrong. She failed to do so in her statement.

Maine’s government is damaged, inefficient, and broken. It needs a leader to fix it and we need someone who understands the problems. We need somebody who will legitimately listen to the people and understand the issues at hand. The United States Constitution and even the State Constitution isn’t right-wing craziness. It’s the basis of your country. What pride do you have if you ignore the foundation?

I find it borderline commical however, that Scarcelli launches a missed dropkick in saying she finds it curious that with all the mention of values of the Constitution, you don’t find the word “Democracy” once in the platform. There is very good reason for that and it is because democracy is not constitutional or even consistent with the principles of this nation. Democracy, if anything, has been nothing more than justification in the twentieth century to drop bombs on anything and everyone in the eastern hemisphere under an overactive intervention obsession perpetuated by both parties. Not only has Scarcelli demonstrated her lack of knowledge or comprehension of the foundation of our country, she also shows she’s never opened a Constitution before. How do I prove this? Simply by observing that Article 4, Section 4 states “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” We’re not a democracy, we are a republic! Please allow me to introduce you to an individual by the name of Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson was the principal writer of the document I mentioned earlier known as the Declaration of Independence, the foundation of our country and the beginnings of our rebirth, starting with the secession of the British Crown. Jefferson, through his writings and his hard work and dedication to the establishment of the United States of America demonstrated a great understanding of the people and the freedom they require to thrive. All of our founders unstood that freedom is necessary, not to a point of anarchy, but just enough where we’re doing more of a reenactment of a George Orwell novel more than anything. This individual once said “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” This is absolutely true, that a democracy is pure mob rule where laws are meaningless. This is why our founders gave us a republic, a form of government involving democratic processes where we vote in elections for our leaders and laws, while still upholding the laws to ensure justice and prosperity of all individuals.

Another founding father by the name of Benjamin Franklin, who among other things, was a well-educated inventor and also a man dedicated to the cause of liberty in the colonies for its people. He once said that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” This is also true, it is also a variation of the point Jefferson had. It’s not defense of principles, it’s the execution of the majority. And this has always perplexed me, considering the Democratic Party is generally the one that champions themselves as the ones who favor diversity against the greedy rich white men that run the Republican Party. Just as the Republicans are also riddled with contradictions, the Democrats are as well. They are saying that, while the minorities should be protected, we shall endorse a form of government that is the strict execution of a majority in a mob rule existence.

Go ahead. Tell me that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are uneducated right-wing extremists. I dare you.

The ideas of state sovereignty are embodied in our Constitution and also exist in the words of our founders, like Franklin and Jefferson. The topic of responsible monetary policy is another point raised by this “right wing agenda” and rightfully so. Fiat money has been a disaster historically and it was for us. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the dollar has lost over ninety percent of its purchasing power. Why? We keep printing money to come up with all of the shortfalls in our budgets when our legislators refuse to live within the means of a responsible budget. The only difference here is that when we print money, we have committed forgery and go to prison, but when bankers do it under a veil of secrecy, they are performing a great deed for the economy. There is no transparency when there is so much secrecy, and thus, responsible management cannot be ensured. If we adhered to the priciples of the Austrian School of Economics, another point mentioned in the platform, we would have things such as a Gold Standard. We would not need offices created and people employed to manage an economy, because the market would manage itself. Money cannot be debased if it has a firm, dependable backing in precious metals. Just think of how different Germany would have been in post-World War 1, if they hadn’t overprinted the Mark to a point where it became virtually worthless. Monetary inflation is a very real issue and it is very dangerous to the prosperity of the people. Our fiat money endangers economic stability by discouraging the saving of money, because when more dollars are printed, the dollars saved lose their value. Who wants to save money that will just lose value? There’s no point in making the investment if you know it will only be counterproductive. We have created a culture of living beyond our means. This is why the Maine budget faces significant shortfalls, as do other governments, and why our Federal Government is sinking under a debt amounting to well over ten trillion dollars. How many zeros are in a trillion? It’s sickening.

How is this relevant to Mainers? Because us, like the members of all other forty-nine states, are suffering the effects of irresponsible government at all levels and unlike those making the unfavorable decisions, we are feeling the pressure of the pain. Foreclosures are occuring because of a bubble popping, a bubble that should not have occurred in the first place if we had a legitimate economy built on an honest monetary policy. We have seen the Federal Government destroy freedom and prosperity and it is the responsibility of the States to defend against it. But most governors won’t do it and our State hasn’t. Current Governor John Baldacci has submitted to the unconstitutional and often determintal policies of the higher government instead of defending the people he was elected to represent. The State Legislature too, is at fault, because among their responsibilities to properly manage the State internally, they have a responsibility to, with a principled governor, protect people against the tyranny of the Federal Government. We are sovereign above the Federal Government, which is why we created it, and not vice versa. What is even the point of having a State Government if they do nothing but dictate orders given to them? They’re irrelevant to the process at that point. Their jobs mean nothing.

Bottom line is we need a leader who is responsible. Who will understand the problems and properly act. Governors cannot be oblivious to the national situations, because regardless of whether it is directly an internal State issue, it affects the people of their States, and if they refuse to protect their people, it is difficult to understand how they believe they will act positively for the future of Maine. If, Mrs. Scarcelli, you cannot understand this, how exactly do you plan to lead the State of Maine as governor?

On The New Maine Republican Party Platform

2010-05-09T23:13:00.001-04:00

For those of you who are aware, I’ve been a member of the Republican Party. Though it really isn’t a happy affiliation at times and I despise the two-party machine, I am here for the primaries and with the glimmer of hope that influence can be achieved. I’ve been an outspoken critic of the direction of the party and its policy of not practicing what it preaches, whereas their opposition party is at least overt in its cravings for bigger government and statism. It’s an overgrowth of corruption that rages through both parties to varying degrees in varying ways, but exists nevertheless. It is why that, while I am registered to the party, I do not consider myself a Republican. I agree with some points, I disagree with many. Getting to the point however, recently, we had the Maine Republican Convention and there were much in the plans to alter the direction by various organizations that have led the Tea Party movement in the State. I’ve always maintained a level of skepticism when it comes to significant change in the mainstream of politics, simply because of the firm grasp of the elite and the influencing control exerted over the system. But when word got out on Facebook that the new platform had gone through, I was as much intrigued as I was pleased. It’s no secret that the neoconservative movement, oddly reminiscent of modern liberalism in many ways, has in recent memory hijacked the Republican Party. Change is coming though, as evidenced here. But change isn’t always positive change. Reading over this platform tonight, there are some obvious pluses, but still some flaws I see as counterproductive. I attempt to break down the worst and the best, and the in between, as an independently thinking advocate of freedom and liberty.

One of my major issues with the entire Republican Party itself is the delusion that believes somehow “freedom and individuality” can coexist with the doctrine of moral regulation. While they call for us to adhere to the Constitution, they feed the idea that the government at any level has any place regulating private matters. We have this on the topic of drugs and the idea that bureaucrats must raise up their swords, proclaiming the great crusades against that of which is unholy and demonic. But what is freedom if you are gearing government towards a state of overregulation under the guise of preventing immorality and thus depriving of us of our free will. If you believe in God, than you know that God granted us the free will. If we opt for the deprivation of free will, then are we not then taking away what was granted to us by God himself?

The other is the Constitution. The idea that there is a philosophy of “We must adhere! …except for here, here, there, here, and under these additional exceptions” has become a prevalent one. Especially under the George W. Bush years, when the Bill of Rights was gutted out even more so than in recent years. I realize it’s not just Bush, but he did a lot for the statist movement and the tyrannical power now wielded in the executive branch at the expense of the U.S. Constitution owes a lot to Bush, Dick Cheney and their administration, as well as the Republican Party that held total control over both the legislative and executive branches for six years. This is the reason why the party has lost much credibility in the eyes of not only those on the outside, but some on the inside as well.

So as I approached this platform, these thoughts still lingered, sitting alongside the hope of a paradigm shift. Sure enough, there was a shift, to some extent, and for what has changed; now we just await the results.

My first issue might seem petty and a simple problem of word play, but the preamble states “Freedom is not a pre-existing condition into which everyone is delivered. Freedom and personal liberty are conditions of existence which are hard fought for and once won, must be maintained.” I dispute that only on the grounds that it is a personal belief of mine, that under natural law of humanity, we are all born free. The concept of liberty is one that is indeed pre-existing and is often thwarted by government. The second sentence quoted here does however raise an excellent point, that, it is hard fought for and after it is attained, it must be maintained. But that’s just the thing, we’ve already been down this road and we lost the Republic. Our fight isn’t to fight for freedom, but rather fight to protect it. We have it, it lives in our very existence, and the only way it escapes us is if we let it. In countries that do not have the privileges we have, they lost it because somebody let it go. We give too much credit to government and never enough to ourselves.

I was however encouraged to read a few points acknowledged, such as the statist movement and undermining of our constitutional privileges being present in both parties. Finally, the party as a whole has formally acknowledged what has been said by many of its members for quite some time now, that their party is as guilty as the other; not only through deliberate attacks and infringements, but also through standing idle when these sort of offensives against freedom occur. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have launched their own direct attacks on the Constitution and both have stood silently as they occur under the administration of others. Neither will admit it, or the fact that when they do it, they are hurting the people they’re there to assist. And while the Republican Party may have been created in 1854 as the party of freedom, eventually they had a man named Abraham Lincoln undermine the foundation of America in the name of defending the Union. The government does not grant rights, it cannot take them away, and neither should be sacrificed in the name of protecting any government. If a government requires the sacrifice of liberty for its survival, then it is thus rendered inadequate. This is the basis of our country, as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence, our founding document.

The four points at the end of the preamble however are excellent and the thing I liked most is the point about State Sovereignty preceding the point about National Sovereignty. While I am unsure as to whether this is merely coincidence in order or if it is deliberate, this is how it should be. The United States Government was created by the United States Constitution, a document drafted to replace the previous government as provided for under the Articles of Confederation, with a new functioning and more efficient one. Thus, the sovereignty of the States reign supreme over that of the United States of America and in effect, provides for the rights of the States of to nullify and even secede. While I am not advocating secession, it is nevertheless a right. And this is where Lincoln went wrong.

As State Coordinator for the Maine Tenth Amendment Center, I was especially uplifted by the idea of the Maine Republican Party making specific mention to push for Maine to join the State Sovereignty movement that is currently sweeping the country. Across the country, State Legislators have been introducing legislation and resolutions asserting their rights as States under the Tenth Amendment in regards to specific issues or just in general, with varying degrees of success. Maine has yet to have an actual bill be introduced, and has had a resolution brought forth once, only to be buried by Legislative Council. This has led to one of my major talking points that we must start with the people and work from the ground up. We can’t work change in our legislatures by simply depending on them. We must influence them, or else the democratic processes in our free and once prosperous Republic are useless. The people must be educated and then real change will occur.

Another part of the platform involves pushing for term limits. I’m a firm believer in not requiring term limits, because then what happens is freedom supporters are eventually ousted. If someone is indeed a tyrant and counterproductive to the prosperity of the people, then if the people truly understand and care, they simply won’t cast a vote. And if they don’t do so, then they are faced with the consequences for their actions. There are much greater issues at hand in this country than wasting effort and time on requiring limits on service, something that can be simply reinforced by education of the people.

One major issue facing America and the platform addresses it well, is the idea that Congress is exempt from what it does. If there’s one thing that has always been perplexing, is the idea that much of what Congress is doing is going to save the world, yet they won’t apply it to themselves and even take it a step further by exempting themselves from it. Congress likes to think of itself being on a higher plane of existence, far above that of us, little peons at the bottom of the totem pole. They’ve become quite discontented from the people over the years. We were all treated as terrorists under the Republican Congress and the Democrats that now control it believe we are incapable of managing our own funds or health care plans, to a point now that the already illegal and unconstitutional Internal Revenue Service will be passing out fines to people who cannot afford either the illogical penalty or the health care, and then thrown in prison when they are unable to come up with the money as a direct result from an economy tanked by the government under both parties.

Another thing I have always taken issue with in regards to the Republican Party as a whole, as I mentioned earlier, is the moral regulation. In very recent memory here in Maine is the long duel over Marriage that resulted in the veto of Homosexual Marriage. We spent months debating what we thought to be civil rights or protection of the sanctity of marriage, but altogether ignoring the true question of the matter: Why does government need to be involved in marriage at all? It shouldn’t be, for it is the union between two individuals in their own private lives. The ceremony doesn’t conclude with “I now pronounce you man and wife under government.” I don’t think it is logical or efficient for government to be involved in it, either. It is no secret that we are overtaxed in this State and our budget is a wreck. When we could be directing funds towards balancing the budget and lowering spending to lessen the burden on the hardworking population, we instead feel that our entire marriage system should be run by bureaucrats. Where do the bureaucrats get the money to manage the marriage system? Our pockets. Opposition to homosexuality is one thing, but taking it to an extreme saying that homosexuality will taint it is absurd, logically. Marriage is still there before and it will be after. It is no more different after the change than it is before, just as a film is no different after its remade, you just have an addition that is not favorable in the eyes of some. We then take a moral high ground in saying that government has a responsibility to protect the sanctity of something, by the same people who proclaim government is inherently evil. How can a government institution have any sanctity to protect? It doesn’t have any. This issue isn’t about sanctity, it’s not about morality, it’s about government power. Do you really want to give government more power over our personal lives? That’s just what happens when you give credence to the government-run marriage institution.

Now, the platform itself doesn’t specifically say it will pursue it as a policy of government under the Republicans, but it does go as far as to say to promote it. But the problem is we’re all giving credibility to government interferences in institutions where it has no business whatsoever. Even the Republican Party has this illness running a severe infection in their systems.

Another issue is the mention of foreign policy, something I have believed this country has had all wrong. I was once a supporter of Iraq and Afghanistan, but I am now opposed. I favored a military reaction to the Taliban and anyone else involved with the atrocities carried out on 9/11 (and a real investigation into the greatest intelligence failure in United States History, which is highly unlikely to occur), but I believe the policy of nation building and policing other regions to be detrimental to the freedom agenda. And for the Republicans who disagree with this stance, even Bush once advocated it when he ran in 1999 and 2000 for the Republican nomination and then for the Presidency after receiving it. Why did he oppose it? It was wrong and it was counterproductive. But returning to the point, there is another point in the platform about fighting the war on Jihad and radical Islam. I’ve always been baffled by the war to protect Christianity, but when it comes to another religion, being Islam, it becomes a different game. This isn’t even about constitutional rights or natural law, it’s just about flat out hypocrisy. It shouldn’t be an open-ended, ambiguous conflict against a religion. It should be a conflict against specific parties with specific offenses named against the United States of America or any of the States. There are certain radical groups that oppose us aggressively for whatever various reasons, but it isn’t the entire population of the religion. All of Islam isn’t out to kill us, and not even all of the extremely devout sects are. The generalization of the religion and the simplification of the conflict has greatly distorted what the goals should be and thus done nothing but worsen the issue at hand. Unsurprisingly, nothing changes here, it is business as usual.

Don’t be fooled however, I’m not trashing this platform, I’m simply highlighting points I consider flaws. It would be pointless to write a blog simply praising the high points and ignoring the low points. There is much I am impressed with, for sure. I didn’t expect much of this to ever hit the mainstream so soon and even if it did occur, I couldn’t expect all of the mainstream Republican neoconservatism to fade away. But nevertheless, what is represented here is a step forward. Such as next, which impressed me most, was the specific reference to ending the Federal Reserve system and the idea of adhering to Austrian economics. The Austrian School of Economics being mainstream in the Republican Party? Mainstream in any party? This is big here. The Federal Reserve has been here since 1913 when Woodrow Wilson sold the soul of America to banking interests and thus shrouded our monetary policy in the thick fog of secrecy. It has debased our currency to a point where it has lost over ninety percent of its purchasing powers in fewer than one hundred years. Austrian school economists have been advocating sound money and the Gold Standard for quite some time now, predicting the business cycles that occur and the popping of the bubbles, resulting from a system of credit and illusionary wealth. It’s time to turn away from the Keynesians and turn towards the Austrians, as far as economics is concerned. This represents a step for one of the parties.

Furthermore, there is a push for financial responsibility and returning to honesty in statistical reporting and a greater increase in transparency. Something government has lacked across administrations and under both parties is transparency and honesty, for whatever various reasons, and it is inconsistent with America. As John F. Kennedy once said, “secrecy in a free society is repugnant.”

This point however, intrigued me: “Espouse and follow the principle: It is immoral to steal the property rightfully earned by one person, and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits.” The principle is stated, but says nothing about how to go about achieving this. Are we advocating an abolishment of the income tax at either the State or Federal level, or even both? It would seem difficult to accomplish by a platform that advocates the open ended conflict against a religion, when the Federal income tax is much related to our war budget. We’re going to keep spending money on wars, invasions, and occupations, while ceasing our sources for funding it? What else will we do? Don’t get me wrong, I agree whole heartedly with the idea that our property owned, whether it be wages or other just compensation for our work, is the fruits of our labor and thus, ours, not theirs, but I’m lost as to what the Maine Republican Party is hoping to accomplish here.

I do however agree with the principle that healthcare is not a right, for it is the service of another human being. This being a free nation, no individual has a right to what another individual provides in order to fund their existence. What you have when you have the state forcing individuals to offer their services is forced labor, and this contradicts the basis of a free society. The government has destroyed the system for decades with its frequent intervention that has invaded the patient-doctor relationship and driven costs through the roof. Competition is healthy, contrary to popular belief, but it no longer exists. Laissez-faire capitalism would help things, but the problem is that too many people knock it without ever experiencing it, let alone educating themselves on it. Capitalism gets blamed for corporatism’s problems.

All in all, while much of the article seemed negative, I’m pleased. It seems people are finally waking up for the most part and we can steer towards driving the freedom movement more mainstream. This new platform represents the shift away from the neoconservative movement that has undermined freedom in an unprecedented manner in our nation’s history, and instead it has moved us more towards something that Republicans aren’t known for. I only wish that they would give up their moral regulation as dictated by government. It is preferable for individuals to have their convictions and beliefs, but to execute them by the hand of government is tyranny. If you endorse the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, than there is no moral regulation and there is no interference in the personal lives of individuals. It just doesn’t occur. Here’s to a step in the right direction however, I applaud the Maine Republicans for making the change for the better. The Bill of Rights shall triumph!

Why The Tenth?

2010-02-05T22:22:00.004-05:00

Perhaps this topic applies overall to the United States Constitution itself, the idea that this is completely beyond politics itself. There is one common misconception about constitutionalism and that is about it being a political matter. It is not. But this is the common misconception that allows Americans to ignore it and thus forget the present crisis involving unrestricted government.

I offer a quote, which I never heard until Michael Gallucci put it on the front page of Focus On The Tenth, from Thomas Jefferson: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." This quote alone hits the reason on why the Tenth Amendment is so important. Whereas the other portions of the Bill of Rights list specific rights of the people, the Tenth Amendment not only acts as an affirmation of the rights of the people over their government, but then takes it a step further by specifically denying the Federal Government anything that it is not enumerated in the Constitution. This was the chain on the beast and our founders all realized this. They remembered this, for they had the Revolution still on their minds and the long days prior of oppression beneath the British.

Here is a quote by George Washington, General in the American Revolution and first President of the United States: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." This is another reason why the Tenth Amendment was included. Although many believed the principle behind it was implied, others knew that if it was not legally defined, then it would be a loophole that would be exploited by tyranny. It was more than just a political maneuver as part of the calming of the Antifederalists, it was a method of safeguarding the fragile experiment known as the American Republic.

Now add a point to this brief moment in history, it is that we have lost our understanding of what it is we used to stand for and the tragedy that has become of an ambitious experiment, the American Republic. Even as we inherit the American legacy, we do not understand it. We do not understand, as we are taxed excessively under a complicated tax code justified by unconstitutional measures, to support doctrines and philosophies we often disagree with. We do not understand as we are being told that being spied and closely monitored will help stop terrorists. We live in a country where we are told that we are being attacked by terrorists because they hate the free world and its freedom, then proceed to make this world less free by removing more of its freedom. I don't understand. Is the Federal Government indirectly calling itself terrorist?

The answers aren't there. You have the radical ends that offer dangerous solutions that will provide zero positive products. Those who seek aggression and violence and those who seek to nothing at all; these people will do more harm than good to the Republic. Either abiding by a doctrine of extremism or a doctrine of allowing the Fedzilla beast to run free and unchained, the fact still remains that the Republic is being harmed. Our only answer is to win in the system that the politicians won't even use. The fact of the matter is bureaucrats fear Republicanism because it opposes concentrated power. The elite prefers simple governments, such as dictatorship or democracy. With dictatorship, the concept of absolute control is a reality; with democracy, the control lies purely in deceiving the people. A Republic on the other hand, is a state of democratic involvement beneath a set of laws. It has muscle to accompany its words.

We must defend our Republic in a civil manner, by working our system. But how? By the Tenth Amendment. But now you ask, why the Tenth?

The text of the Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Basically, if the Constitution doesn't say the Feds can do it, or that the States can't do it, than everything else is left to the States and the people, not the Federal Government.

Next, why does the Tenth Amendment completely transcend politics itself? Simply because it is about protecting the basic rights of humanity. Although many of those freedoms we enjoy are rooted in natural law, they require protection in a world where government is necessary in our environment. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment offers a system of localized governing. A government grows tyrannical when it becomes disconnected from those it is meant to represent, much like Washington D.C. has. But if we stood by the rule of law, much of what D.C. does would not be happening and instead, the State Government and local governments would be doing it. Hypothetically, much more individuals would be better informed and more involved, if their local politics meant more. Instead, the enslavement of the lower governments has been a successful scheme for bureaucrats and these lower governments have been reduced to nothing more than merely administrative units of the Federal Government. Nevermind the fact that the Federal Government was a creation of the States, that doesn't seem to matter anymore.

This is why I am so involved with the Tenth Amendment. Because although I am very involved with and informed in politics, I loathe it. If I truly wanted to get entertainment from a scripted series of entanglements, I'd either watch a soap opera or professional wrestling. Modern politics is merely the catapulting of the same balls of fire between two different camps that don't even realize they're destroying the environment they are meant to protect. This is what they do to the Republic. And this is why politics turns me off. But this is also why I feel I must be involved and why the Tenth Amendment must return to the forefront of discussion, along with the Bill of Rights and the entire United States Constitution. If we obeyed it, then hypothetically, we wouldn't have a problem here, because then government would be properly restrained. But this is where lies the problem.

Furthermore, I believe in local governance. We should only have a Constitution to protect the basic rights we all share under the natural laws of humanity, and to provide for the construction of government and how it shall operate with respect to these natural laws. We shouldn't have specific regulation over petty local issues that in all truth should be issues left to local communities or even the State. I have spoken with individuals who are members of local governments and they have all said the same thing to me, that their job is difficult purely because the Federal Government has their hands over everything. Why do they? They don't need to be. This is not only by moral reasoning, but by constitutional reasoning as well. Why should we bother concentrating on our local governments and participation in such, if the Federal Government is going to over regulate it? And how are we going to restrain the Federal Government to maintain our lower governments, if all of the members are apart of larger schemes and are bought and sold to special interest. The fact of the matter is the Federal Government is a mess and we only have ourselves and our previous generations to blame, for all of the continued ignorance that has allowed the Federal Government to expand to unconstitutional extremes. Indeed, it is like a body ingesting excessive steroids. It is getting bigger, it is getting stronger, it is getting more intimidating, but it is internally breaking down and is due to completely collapse. What are we going to do then if the system fails? It would be one thing to fail, but its another when most of us depend on the system.

All of our problems can be solved by keeping things in perspective. And this is why the Tenth Amendment matters. It matters because it involves keeping the Federal Government on a tight leash, and by doing so, empowers the lower governments at State, county, and local levels. It is a deterrent for national corruption and widespread tyranny. It provides for a larger opportunity to facilitate an informed and awake populace. This is what we need most. Yes, we have a long way to go, but this is where we need to begin.

Take the message to the streets. Take it to gatherings. Take it to the internet sites and message boards. Explain to people this isn't politics, it is your way of life. It is about the American Republic and everything we enjoy that we call freedoms. Nothing is safe if the very thing constructed to protect these liberties is denied. We need these resolutions in legislatures and passing. We need governors that will sign these resolutions after they clear the legislatures. If this is ignored, than we need to start considering bills, actual legislation similar to "HN880: State Authority and Anti-Racketeering Act" introduced by Representative Bobby Franklin to the George State Legislature.

This is our movement. It's time to get moving.

The Blog Rebirth

2009-09-06T20:37:00.002-04:00

CONSERVATISM, CONSTITUTIONALISM, LIBERTARIANISM; BACK WHEN CONSERVATISM ONCE MEANT LIMITED GOVERNMENT, CONSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY, NONINTERVENTIONALISM, AND ECONOMIC RESPONSIBILITY.

This was the former header of my blog. Ideologically, yes, my views tend to be leaning in the direction of traditional or Goldwater conservatism and libertarianism. But when I was at work today pondering what had been on my mind for a little while now, I reached a definite conclusion that tags are irrelevant when it comes down to what I've set out to become. I'm a constitutionalist. Pure and simple. Might have touches of conservatism, might have touches of libertarianism, but when it comes down to it, these tags have extra baggage that give attached images to my point. Conservatism is commonly associated with the Republican Party and libertarianism with the Libertarian Party. But there are differences, which is why different types of conservatism feel the need to defect from the party or simply just distance themselves from it, while libertarians go by either small "l" or large "l" associations, in reference to the party.

The rock solid truth about who I am. I am a registered Republican, but only for primaries. I endorsed Dr. Ron Paul, United States Representative from Texas, in the 2008 Republican Primaries. I would ultimately go on to vote for Mr. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for President of the United States. I am in serious consideration of defecting from the Republican Party to completely sever ties with tags, as I am more an independent thinker. But the primaries are a battle and some of our leaders are in the party. Rep. Paul for example, is a Republican, but hardly in line with the party leadership.

I anger mainstream conservatives with my observations about the disaster operation known as the Bush Administration. I anger mainstream liberals with my observations over the destruction in progress, known as the Obama Administration. I even can get on the bad side of large "l" liberarians with my distrust of Bob Barr, who ran on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2008. But when it comes down to it, I don't want to anger anyone. I want to live by peaceful means, being left to our own devices. We are a Republic for a reason. We have a Constitution for a reason. We are free for a reason. It is all here for a reason.

I am still young, at a still youthful nineteen. I spent a time in both the liberal and mainstream Republican camps through my teenage years. I was an anti-Bush critic for some of the right reasons. I was then a Bush supporter for all of the wrong reasons. Most of my teenage years, as I developed and matured, my ideological and philosophical standing was like a ball in a pinball machine. It was all over. And then I read the United States Constitution. Everything changed.

When one reads the Constitution, everything changes. The Democrats are wrong. The Republicans are wrong. The mainstream media is wrong. Everything you came to know in politics growing up is wrong. And that is for all of the right reasons. Why? Because the Democrats, the Republicans, the mainstream media, and the field of politics itself, is off in a world of its own, deprived of the Constitution.

Since, I have become an ambitious thinker and learner. I dive into books and do not return without a new treasure of knowledge. What is life without intelligence? You are reduced to a sheep without it, following the herd. I will not be herded. I will stand tall. With the U.S. Constitution and God by my side, for the American Republic.

And most of you who know me, are already aware of this. But I feel the need to reaffirm this as I relaunch my blog, as the first step towards completing an objective of more frequent updates.

I am one of thousands on the Internet, but I hope I become one of those you read. I will post quotes often. I will post bits on the news often. And I will have periodic blogs similar to this, where I discuss a point of interest and hope to further engage in civil discussion with you.

Welcome to the blog madness...all over again.

-Chris

The Case For Maine State Sovereignty

2009-07-15T16:06:00.008-04:00

My days since my previous blog entry have been accumulating by the weeks that became months, but I have not been silent. I attended the Tax Day Tea Party in my State [Maine] capital of Augusta on April 15th. This among other things, became the inspiration for my big project. Up to that point, I had been playing around with a draft of a State Sovereignty Resolution since late 2008, but never got anywhere with it. With Maine being a liberal State, at least in recent memory, I found myself debating whether there was a serious base that could be strong enough in numbers to accomplish such an objective as this. Our Legislature has bitten the hook from the Federal Government and has been caught like a helpless worm since. We have a Governor who refuses to acknowledge the needs of the people to be protected from the Federal Government, by creating further precedents of inaction on matters that will return to haunt us. The people, in elections at least, seem dominantly left leaning. Then I attended the Tea Party.

I was quite surprised by the numbers of individuals at the Tea Party event, of all the women, men, and even children. Everyday citizens would take the microphone and speak honestly of their concerns regarding the future. People bearing signs regarding debt, the Federal Reserve, the swollen size of the Federal Government, and the exile of the United States Constitution, among other things. According to numbers kept by the sign in desk, there were hundreds that came and went throughout hte day. Although we have a larger population in Maine, this is a fairly large step. I'd come to learn from talking to others, that there may be a majority for constitutionalism after all. The silent majority. But if there was one thing that became clear, the majority was silent no more.

When I arrived at home that evening, among the first things I did was sat down in front of my laptop computer and opened up my everchanging draft of a Maine State Sovereignty Resolution. Within an hour, the first draft was complete. By the conclusion of that night, I had it revised to a point where I could call it finalized and ready for the eyes of others. I got in contact with Pete over at Paint Maine Red, a conservative group here in Maine. He looked it over and soon thereafter, it was posted on the group's page with his support. The words of support would continue. It was then I realized this was a little more than just a simple idea among a select few angered patriots, but rather a growing sediment that could be achieved. But it would be a long road.

State Sovereignty is a sensitive topic largely because of the misconceptions involved in the topic. Because of the implications of nullification throughout the resolutions, it is often linked to the nullification movement that preceded the first State secessions that would lead to the American Civil War in the nineteenth century. That, and in general, when declaring there is a sovereign power to the State over the Federal Government, some instantly believe this is the expression of an intention to abandon the Union. But this is not the case and when I wrote this Resolution, I kept in mind this point and made sure it was made clear within the Resolution that there was no intent to secede. But I was also positive to observe that there are implications if we are ignored yet again, which include that the Federal Government acknowledges its negligence and disrespect for the Republic and its Constitution.

Another question that comes up against this is whether it is all necessary or not. I tackled this question early on with a solid yes. To say that something such as this is unnecessary is to say that attempting any alternate methods to recovery is unnecessary. But as history clearly will show, all of the methods by which we've attempted recovery have been counterproductive and ineffective. We've operated within a Two-Party System that exists only by deception, as there is no legal obligation against Third Parties and the only reason they are not viable is because there is a media refusal to cover them. We've lived on a system of secrecy, despite every election preaching a greater need for transparency. There are many ranging issues and our remedies have failed, and for this, we have to take it a step further.

This is a country where you must pay a tax upon the fruits of your labor, and if you do not, imprisonment will arrive (unless you are a member of the Federal Government). This occurs, despite the fact that there is question to the legitimacy of the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court rulings that diminish the power of this Amendment, as well as there being a lack of defined law or statute requiring the payment of an Income Tax and the penalty if it is not. This is just one example of a Federal Government unchained and unleashed. But to take it another step further, we are currently monitored closely and have lost many legal protections under the United States Constitution. We as a country took a major loss on September 11th, 2001, when four planes were hijacked and turned into suicide missiles to cause harm to America. But we took another hit soon thereafter and through the years to come, except this was not an attack from a foreign power, it was instead domestic. The USA PATRIOT Act, a clever and deceptive acronym title for such a tyrannical bill, was shoved down the throats of the United States Congress, with most succumbing to the fearmongering of the moment and ultimately neglecting their responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution, no matter what. On this, all four of our elected officials to the Congress from Maine betrayed us. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins voted for passage and John Baldacci alongside Tom Allen voted for passage in the House of Representatives. Baldacci would go on to be Governor and further weaken the power of the State.

To the argument that sometimes extreme steps are required for extreme situations, I offer just one quote: "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." This was said by American Revolutionary War General and first President of the United States George Washington, who made an excellent case against usurping the U.S. Constitution for any matter.

Another question that has come about in regards to this Resolution is whether the complexity of the Resolution is necessary. Standing at four pages long, it is longer than the usual Resolution that has arisen throughout several State Legislatures across the country in the last year and much more indepth. This has not been much of a controversy thus far, but it will with time when more individuals read this, especially those who are more to the left or even moderate. I feel it is necessary for effect and necessary for the record. By beginning with exercepts of the United States Constitution and the Maine Constitution, it has been observed that we do indeed have the rights that we claim to have. Throughout the Resolution, it notes in a significant level of depth, the various methods that offenses have been made, among other points. But perhaps the strongest piece of the Resolution is the list of powers that are denied and thus null and void in the State of Maine, as they are found inconsistent with the American Republic and the law as laid forth by the United States Constitution. Now I made the specifics in all of these areas for a reason, rather than simply making broad and short observations like the more common resolutions have is because they are ineffective. I don't mean in any way to diminish the efforts of the many patriots involved, for they are doing their duty as Americans who wish to protect their Republic. But in this day and age, legalities and all the specifics involved with law are very thoroughly dissected. For a Resolution that has no legal basis, rather just a simple statement, then perhaps the common form is necessary. But for something that aims in the direction of changing the way Government runs and playing a role in our future, then we need something with more clarification and specification.

Now I am not a partisan individual. In the Presidential Election, I voted for a Third Party candidate. I have consistently criticized both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, as well as the major third parties for faults in their ways. As a Constitutionalist, I believe in the United States Constitution and the rule of the law over partisanship. So when I bring this forth, an individual who is unaware of what I stand for, can now be notified that I am not a partisan of either wing. I am simply for the U.S. Constitution and the restoration of the American Republic.

The implications if this is passed does not necessarily mean anything will change, I will acknowledge that right here. But what it acknowledges is there is a body of individuals interested in being caretakers of the Constitution and guards to the Republic. The least we can do is flex our muscle, figuratively of course. We must stand up. This country was founded for the people and it must be returned to the hands of the people. Our way of life is ultimately controlled by the bureaucrats on Capital Hill, who are nothing more than slaves to whoever will pay them the top dollar or serve their political interests. This cannot continue if the Republic is to continue as well.

The first goal of this Resolution was to be passed as a Citizen's Initiative here in Maine, but I have stepped it up to include the Legislature as an additional objective. I believe if we move on both fronts than we can double our effect. Before the Citizen's Initiative can move forward, we need the committment from many individuals because there is a limited window to acquire a large amount of signatures for ballot access in the next election. I would prefer spend this time getting the signatures with a level of certainty that we can get them, rather then spend a majority of this period striving hard and falling short because of a level of uncertainty that haunted us throughout after a premature launch.

I am currently contacting members of the Maine Legislature and have one Representative who has agreed to give things a shot in the Second Session that begins in January and then again in 2011, if things fail in 2010. Until January, myself and others are working hard to make the voice of the people heard and educate the masses in regards to the United States Constitution and the American Republic we must maintain.

After the Continental Congress, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a member of the crowd waiting outside in regards to what they had given the people. Mr. Franklin replied "A Republic", but then proceeded to warn "If you can keep it." We have surely lost it, but not entirely and we can work to restore it. We have been a Republic of the People, with laws to maintain a standard of freedom and liberty. We cannot ever sacrifice freedom or liberty if we wish to maintain it for all of eternity.

This is why the State Sovereignty movement must continue. It cannot die. This is a patriotic nonpartisan movement for freedom and liberty. For the United States Constitution. For the American Republic. This is why I am attempting to bring it to the State of Maine, the place I have always called home. Please help me. It will be a difficult battle, but we can win.

Thank you!

-Chris

NOTE: Below is a copy of the Maine State Sovereignty Resolution I have written.

---

STATE OF MAINE

A RESOLUTION affirming the rights of the States based on Jeffersonian principles; claiming their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

WHEREAS the Declaration of Independence stands as the foundation of this country’s beginnings, it declares that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.” The Government, as stated in the document that dissolved our ties with the British Crown and began the climax of the Revolution, is an entity deriving its power solely from the people, and therefore, is to be policed responsibly and constitutionally by the people, and not vice versa.

WHEREAS the Constitution of the State of Maine declares in Article 1, Section 2: “All power is inherent in the people; all free governments are founded in their authority and instituted for their benefit; they have therefore an unalienable and indefeasible right to institute government, and to alter, reform, or totally change the same, when their safety and happiness require it”, it is not only the responsibility of the people, but it is their right to hold the governments, both State and Federal, accountable for their actions and exercise the will they see justified and fit in altering their course towards another more suited for the peace and prosperity of the people.

WHEREAS the Constitution of the State of Maine was written and ratified at the time of Maine becoming her own State, it is to be understood that the Government of the United States of America held no objection by releasing Maine from control of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Therefore, all principles and provisions within the Maine Constitution are to be accepted as a binding contract between the State of Maine and the Government of the United States, holding that any violation is a direct conflict with the Constitution of the State of Maine.

WHEREAS the Constitution of the United States declares in Article 4, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, it is understood that the respect onto the State by the Government of the United States as an operating entity with its own sovereign powers and jurisdictions over the rights of its people, shall not be infringed in any way.

WHEREAS the Constitution of the United States of America declares in Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, it is here the right of the State to claim powers not delegated to the Government of the United States specifically under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, or prohibited to it under Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States, with respect to limitations and restrictions as provided by Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

LET IT BE ESTABLISHED BY THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF MAINE

THAT the Federal Government has been named as a party violating the United States Constitution, which was ratified by our Founding Fathers to be a restriction upon the powers of the Government, not the People.

THAT the United States Congress has passed various legislation over the years that both directly and indirectly impedes upon the rights of the State of Maine and other States in the Union, as defined by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

THAT the President of the United States of America, both current and former, have allowed these violations to continue by failing to veto the legislation, and even introducing their own unconstitutional measures through various methods including, but not limited to, executive orders and presidential directives.

THAT the various courts, both Supreme and lower level, have participated and assisted the various violations through allowing these abuses to continue, by either loose and irresponsible interpretation, or by completely ignoring the United States Constitution altogether.

THAT this resolution is not a declaration of secession, for the intentions of the citizens are not to abandon the Union or dissolve their ties to it.
THAT this resolution is not a partisan act, for we act as one body who oppose the frequent intervention that is held to be in violation with the laws and inconsistent with our principles.

POWERS AND ACTIONS REJECTED THAT ARE HEREBY DECLARED INEFFECTIVE IN THE STATE OF MAINE, INCLUDE

I. The establishment of Martial Law, a State of Emergency, or any other scenario that results in an abnormal process of operations at any level of Government, without the consent of the Legislature of the State of Maine.
II. The institution of any program requiring involuntary servitude of any kind, including a draft, without the consent of the Legislature of the State of Maine.
III. The surrendering of any powers at any level to any entity or government in violation of the United States Constitution.
IV. The endorsement or establishment of, or prohibition of any religion.
V. The limit of free speech, whether political or not, at any time, even in war time.
VI. The limit upon the freedom of the press to publish any stories or events.
VII. The prevention of the establishment of citizen militias aimed at defending the People from any and all dangers, both foreign and domestic.
VIII. The restriction of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as well as ammunition required for the usage of these arms.
IX. The violation of the right to security on one’s own private property and their right to retain such land, unless due process of law is guaranteed and is exercised in such a way that is consistent with the United States Constitution.
X. Any act delaying, preventing, or otherwise hindering the due process of law and the right to Habeas Corpus, as provided for under the United States Constitution.
XI. The prohibition of the right to seek legal counsel when facing any trial and to meet with such counsel in a unmonitored, private sessions to ensure a fair administration of justice.
XII. The infliction of torture or any cruel and unusual punishment amounting to such upon any citizen of the State of Maine.
XIII. The deployment of active duty United States Military within the State of Maine without the consent of the Maine Legislature.
XIV. The forced relocation of any citizens of the State of Maine.

POWERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MAINE, THROUGH ITS LEGISLATURE, INCLUDE
The refusal to accept and subsequently nullify any legislation, ruling, or other action by the Federal Government that directly violates the United States Constitution, or the people it is aimed to protect.
The refusal to contribute to operations perceived to be counterproductive to the continued prosperity of the Republic.

LET IT BE STATED THAT
Any violation of the United States Constitution, the freedom and liberty of the people, or any other principle held in this resolution as passed by the People of the State of Maine, will result in a broken contract with the People, established when the People signed the United States Constitution and thus establishing the Federal Government.

Actions include:
I. An Executive Order, Presidential Directive, or any other order or decree issued by a member of the Executive Branch.
II. A Judicial Order by any members of the Judicial Branch at any level court that impedes upon the principles described herein.
III. Any piece of legislation passed as law by the United States Congress that impedes upon the principles described herein.
IV. Any level of force used in relation to the actions I-III, which include the insuring of proper execution and cooperation with such actions.

It is to be understood that the people have declared their intent to remain within the Union known as the United States of America, and not seek to dissolve their ties to such, but also understand that on both sides there are responsibilities. As there are responsibilities of the People to respect the powers of the Government under the United States Constitution, there is also a responsibility of the Government to respect the powers of the People over the Government under the United States Constitution. When a violation by the People occurs, the Government holds them accountable through lawful due process and if properly found guilty, reasonable punishment is subsequently applied. Likewise, the Government should be held to a degree of accountability, with guilty individuals and parties being properly dealt justice in cases of violations of the law.

IF THE VIOLATIONS CONTINUE, THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

I. Refuses the claims of the People in this Resolution and simultaneously denies them their sovereignty, as well as the constitutional rights that this Resolution details.
II. Refuses the voice of the People within this Republic and its democratic processes.
III. Goes on the record as denying the power of the United States Constitution and also denying the restraints placed on its own powers.
IV. Denies the power of the law in maintaining the integrity and justice held in this Republic; If the Republic is in a state of lawlessness, then the Republic is effectively denied itself, and this is also agreed on by the Federal Government.

As the State Motto is Dirigo, we as the People of the great State of Maine intend to lead our fellow citizens into a new direction, while also doing so with our country by example, through a returning our Government at all levels to the properly functioning Republic it was created as. We have hereby rejected all measures that are in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, deeming it unlawful and therefore not recognized within the boundaries of this State. Through passing this resolution, we have declared we fully intend to work within the system of law under the U.S. Constitution, unlike the various members of our Government, both Federal and State.

Another President, Another Constitutional Nightmare

2009-03-02T22:23:00.004-05:00

The office of the President of the United States. Summarized simply, it was the product of a reluctance that was compromised when the Articles of Confederation’s weak union suffered to a damaging degree. The failures of the Articles of the Confederation however, were not because of the writing contained in the articles and the government it provided, but more so because of its reliance upon the human mind. But perhaps this is also the failure of the United States Constitution. Let me emphasize this however, as a strict constitutionalist, I do not believe the Constitution is a failure. There is a certain failing aspect of it, which is the strong quality it holds with the now forgotten memory of the Articles of Confederation, and that is the trust of the human mind and heart. There is a great deal of responsibility left in the hands of the human. Take this quote from Judge Learned Hand, for example:

“I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes, believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

This is true. For when too much hope is laid in the hands of a paper, it leads to a neglect of personal responsibility. But the same could be said for too much hope in government, or any other entity or document that is other than the individual human. True, to be said, that the United States Constitution has been among the greatest testaments of the human heart and soul, as it constructed a free union of states, but equally, the United States Constitution has been history’s greatest tragedy. Our beginnings were prestigious with our hope in a great land, abandoning the past and dissolving our ties with the tyrants across the Atlantic Ocean. Now where we stand, is worse off then when the British Crown had us.

Let me be not misunderstood, the United States Constitution must be protected at all costs if our free country is to remain. But we must not depend on the U.S. Constitution to solely stand against tyranny on its own, without our assistance. As Judge Learned Hand suggested, if it is not in the hearts of men and women, then our hopes will fail us. And here is where we find, the American tragedy known as the fall of the Constitution, at the hands of the Executive Branch’s rise.

Another president means nothing, for in a non-existent two-party system, we find ourselves in an awkward and deceiving position. While some would suggest that two-party systems only serve as a single step away from one-party rule, it is essentially the workings of a one-party system. To say otherwise would suggest that there is always a tie in both houses of Congress and that somehow, the Commander-in-chief had a less partisan mind. So at all times, we are by technicality, subjected to some level of single-party rule. From here, bipartisanship simply means both sides no how to work together to get what they want, as opposed to what the people want (unless it’s election season). History adequately reinforces such a thought.

So when another President raises his hand, takes the oath of office and swears to uphold the U.S. Constitution, he has subjected himself to what would become his first point of failure. The current state of the United States cannot be blamed upon its Constitution, simply because it would be blaming freedom for tyranny’s measures. Similarly, it would be illogical to blame our economy’s shortfalls because of capitalism, when it is the imbalance created by socialism for select classes that is the problem. An economy cannot survive if there is economic Darwinism, a survival of the fittest world, for the lower and middle classes, while the upper classes get subject to socialism at the expense of those beneath them. Likewise, we cannot survive as a Republic if we, as citizens, are being held to the rule of law to the letter, while the governing who hold us to it are regularly breaking these laws.

The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The Sedition Acts of 1918, USA PATRIOT Act of 2001…there’s a tyranny to be found wherever the heart of man holds to much power. There will always be a threat created without justification, at least in the boundaries of logic, and it will be given reason that has been generated out of the imaginations of cronies and pushed to reinforce an agenda that must be completed without time wasted. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt entered office, the rate at which socialism, which Benito Mussolini had referred to as “American Fascism”, moved was great. The collapse of the Stock Market a few years ago and the Great Depression was the ultimate reason this agenda must be completed. It should not be questioned the extent of the issue, for it was great, but the point is that the New Deal measures were not meant to assist in the economy. Instead, it was another big government bundle of policies that exploited a crisis and utilized its fear to lead to its easy acceptance. This has been seen traditionally in wartime. When September 11^th, 2001 rolled around, the world would be the same. A plane crashed in Pennsylvania, another disappeared completely into the side of the Pentagon, and then two planes took out three large skyscrapers, as the story goes. With this act of terrorism, the United States of America would never be the same. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was shoved down the throats of the United States Congress without thought, because of the threat at hand. A copy of the bill wasn’t even available at hand and being easily subject to laziness, the Congress simply passed the bill. The Republic died yet again.

Now here we sit in the year 2009. Just today, the Dow closed out at a point so low it hadn’t been seen by our eyes in nearly twelve years. We’ve been seeing record-breaking free falls as if it has become a trend to be blindly accepted without question. Unemployment is up and the rate at which homes are foreclosed are rising. Jobs are snatched away from the hands of hard working Americans and people are finding it more difficult to put food on the tables of their families. Surely, the economy is becoming worse. This is not the question. But the question rises ahead, in the intentions of our rulers.

Last year we saw yet another extent of the tyranny that was the Administration of George Walker Bush. This situation was in its beginnings, back before the government was ready to admit there was a recession, which was obvious to those of us actually suffering from a life that doesn’t include a secret service detail, top dollar service, and one of the best equipped airplanes in the world. Like years prior, the efforts of the administration to come were not in defense of the people or even the economy itself. It was an agenda. Here, we found the economy destroyed and yet again, the Constitution ignored. Anyone who has truly read the fine document that is the United States Constitution would understand that the federal government has limits. In a laissez-faire economy, government intervention is not one of these. Hence why we have the freedom to prosper, not the right.

Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson sat in front of the United States Congress feeding them horror stories similar to how the rest of the administration had spent the previous years spreading campfire tales of demons in the dark and monsters everywhere that want to get us for no apparent reason. The subject at hand was Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, otherwise dubbed as the bailout bill, and the administration was desperate to shove it down the throats of the Congress. Here we saw the exaggerated stories of how the country would plummet if action were not taken, and how martial law would have to be declared. Now picture the minds of these Congressmen and women when one of the Commander-In-Chief’s cabinet members is detailing the idea of military men parading through the streets and running the show, in what would have otherwise been a free Republic built on the concept of liberty.

Needless to say, this bill flew through Congress. And again, the elected officials failed us. Our leader, the President, failed us. But not only did they fail us, they failed our U.S. Constitution. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was dubbed by sum the Economic Patriot Act, for it presented the Secretary of Treasury and the Executive Branch in general with unprecedented powers over the economy. The nightmares that were only known to George Orwell were becoming a bitter reality.

Under an administration of a different party, a different everything, there was supposed to be hope. But of course, that was how the story goes. And anyone who knows remotely anything about the history of politicians, the story is never ever how it is told. Why is this safe to assume? If the full story were told, without omissions, then the politician would ultimately be subjecting himself to guilt that would undermine his or her entire career. Ladies and gentlemen, the administration of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

This is the administration of interesting definition. The definition of new politics is several appointees and actual administration officials who are incapable of paying taxes, owing thousands to the Internal Revenue Service, while running the government that would stop at nothing to make the lives of a tax evading regular citizen an absolute living hell. The definition of new politics is utilizing the same economic fear mongering that was introduced in recent memory by George W. Bush, the same man that every liberal who voted for the new president loathed for various reasons. Change involved keeping Robert Gates too, a warmonger from the Bush years.

The economy took more of a downturn. Now let’s cut to the present. You know the story. The sky is falling.

When the President should be worrying about the warrantless wiretapping problem, he has his lawyers in the Department of Justice making threats to federal judges if papers nailing the federal government for its crimes are released. When the President should be paying attention to the rate at which states are declaring they won’t take this unconstitutional madness anymore, he is busy breaking the U.S. Constitution, the same U.S. Constitution he swore to uphold and protect. When the President should be letting the markets rebound by letting failing companies fail, he is too busy meddling and prolonging the process of death and regeneration of the economy.

The message of hope has turned into a message of fear, as we frequently will turn on the television to see the President painting a picture of the economy with grays and blacks, all the grim and dark colors that make such a morbid depiction of things going down. The method is a thousand page bill that presents a bill that could eventually touch the mark of trillion dollars, a number that Congress raced to as if it was a marathon run. We are not supposed to even read the bill, despite the fact our Congressmen won’t. We’re not even supposed to think about the bill, because as Senator Chuck Schumer observed, the people just don’t care. Isn’t that quite the picture?

In the mix of things, we have two issues. One issue is the constitutional and the other is the economic. While the case has been made the economy should be let to suffer through failure, for then it will quickly rebound, as shown through the little-remembered Depression of 1920. Regardless however, there should be one thing not forgotten. Whether you are to do something or not do it, regardless of ideology or creed, as a leader of the free Republic as laid forth by the United States Constitution, the laws of such document should always be respected. Yet again, I will lay forth a quote I will forever refer to, because of its wisdom, as said by our first President of the United States, George Washington:

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

This excessive amount of regulation that is bound to come, the frequent intervention that is already here, and the levels of power being accumulated by the powers that be, are both wrong and unconstitutional. Whether they are, as Washington observed, for the good of the moment at hand, they will always become tools of tyrants in the future. Therefore, any usurpation of the U.S. Constitution is not favorable if we wish to preserve the Republic for future generations.

This is not a philosophy held in Washington D.C. however. Where every politician takes an oath to uphold our Constitution, they in the end violate it so many times we lose a tally after the first week. Days become months, which become sessions that add to another execution of the Constitution. Bills are passed and rights are diminished. All of it is generally under the guise of fighting a fear or a danger.

But to break our own laws for protection, does this not suggest a severe weakness in our government? Essentially, the government here insults itself and its people.

We will never find change without a change in philosophy. Such a change must also be positive if we are to expect it to serve us properly. The only change we can accept that falls into both categories is that of realignment with the United States Constitution and all of its principles. Until then, we will be continued to be subjected to the same abuses of power and the same extensions of tyranny that have haunted all of our days.

It’s simply another president and another constitutional nightmare.

On State Sovereignty

2009-03-01T20:35:00.003-05:00

What is the movement for declaration of state sovereignty? On first thought, many would think that it is meant to lead to the secession of states from the Union; similar to how the southern states did in the American Civil War. This is far from the truth however. As many know, but some are unwilling to admit, the federal government has become bigger with its continuous overstepping of boundaries as laid out by the United States Constitution. Generally, it’s libertarians and constitutionalists, along with traditional conservatives, making this point. The more moderate and mainstream conservatives only make the point that Democrat big government is bad, but generally leaving out the point regarding the United States Constitution. Either way however, it is an issue. Article Six of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that it will be the law of the land, meaning that its boundaries are to be respected above any codes, legislation, orders, etc. But from here on, is where it gets tricky.

Since the beginning, the U.S. Constitution has been under attack by forces that wish for a less free nation. This was evident with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, under President John Adams. It was in ways similar to the Sedition Act of 1918, that President Woodrow Wilson would help push through. But unlike in 1918, the response of the events of 1798 would lead to another stand by two American patriots. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would join forces to help write Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the United States, would write the Kentucky Resolutions of both 1798 and 1799. James Madison, the father of the United States Constitution and the fourth President of the United States, would write, with assistance of Jefferson, the Virginia Resolution of 1798. Due to the harshness of the penalties and the strictness to which they were held, both documents had to be written and introduced to the respective state legislatures anonymously. Both documents cleared and were passed, reaffirming the principles of state sovereignty. Boldly, the documents would declare the federal government was an agent of the states, being created by the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, the response then by some was identical to that of what we see today: secession is the coming event.

What the states would see here is opposition from areas of the country, newspapers predicting secession and a coming civil war that would plummet the new union into civil war. Alexander Hamilton even suggested the idea of sending in the armies into Virginia to test the resistance. Now, much of the response is mixed, but prevailing among many is the thought that we will see another civil war and the collapse of the union. They understand this as an act of aggression and something that is to be met without tolerance. But this is a perspective that is generally held by those supportive of the bigger federal government without a general understanding of constitutionalism. But perhaps this battle is not about bigger government versus smaller government, although much of it is, but further more, maybe it is over the United States Constitution itself. Take the following quote, a favorite of mine, for example:

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

This quote is from the hero the American Revolution and the first President of the United States, George Washington. This holds true that any usurpation of the U.S. Constitution will have positive value in the end, for even in the small moment of time it is intended for positive effect, in the long run it will become a tool for which future leaders will use for exploitation to increase their ambitious hunger for power. In essence, tyranny will prevail. But why is this relevant to the discussion of state sovereignty? This is related to one major point that keeps getting made, but ultimately ignored by not only the mainstream media and mainstream discussions, but in our government and by our politicians. This point is that the United States Constitution cannot be abused. Abuse will lead to bigger government and bigger government is wasteful government. Bigger government is also tyrannical government that knows no boundaries.

“The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source.” Here, we find a quote from Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. Now notice the words for a second. If this is true, then what does this mean when the United States Government violates its own Constitution? All of its power is derived from such a document and when the document’s integrity is assaulted and ultimately dismissed, does that not also dismiss the power of the government in return? It’s an argument that can go both ways. But it makes sense to suggest such.

The Kentucky Resolutions boldly stated that the few powers that the federal government have are described within the U.S. Constitution and are limited by the Tenth Amendment of the same document.

Fast forward to the year 2009, where we sit now, and we will find a series of state sovereignty resolutions currently in state legislatures, whether they be in active discussion, just been introduced, or resting in committee. But the activity is something not seen in history normally. Similar activities were taken by the southern states during the conclusion of the segregation era, when they claimed their sovereignty had been violated by the federal government in declaring they must not discriminate based on skin color.

Arizona has introduced a bill into committee. Here, we see a few points cited from within the United States Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment. One other is Article 4, Section 4, which states “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” The other is the Ninth Amendment, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The powerful opening of the bill is quoting the Tenth Amendment however, the final amendment to the Bill of Rights, which states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” These three points are important. Contrary to the popular misconception, we are not a democracy, but rather a republic. In fact, the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence and spent eight years in the position of President, once said “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” This is why we have a republic, where we still have democratic processes, but we still respect the process of law and have limits that are necessary to create a limited, but efficient government.

The two amendments are also equally important. The Ninth Amendment makes point that the recognition of rights of one individual or entity cannot be used as a tool of manipulation or limitation towards those of that of another individual or entity. This includes the federal government versus the state governments. The Tenth Amendment was created to affirm the point that the U.S. Constitution was created to limit the federal government and reassure those that feared a coming tyranny in the future, whether distant or near, that such would not occur.

The Arizona resolution also referred to the 1992 case of New York v. United States, which stated that the federal government cannot simply “commandeer” the states. What was at stake in this bill was the powers of both the federal governments and the state governments. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act was the target of the case, which used a popular Washington tactic of coercing the states into compliance, by offering incentives for continued compliance with the conditions set forth. The court struck down the piece of legislation, thankfully, declaring that the United States Congress had overstepped its constitutional boundaries.

The resolution introduced in Montana, although carrying the same objectives of affirming the state’s sovereignty, is more concentrated on the topic of firearms. Montana has been a driving force in the protection of firearms owners and their right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Prior to the decision of Heller v. District of Columbia, Montana had declared that the country had entered the union with the federal government agreeing, as the state constitution was a binding contract. When no objections were made, Montana claimed, that they approved of the individual right to bear arms. In a bold and controversial warning, Montana said that any decision to the contrary would result in a violation of this agreement and would render the membership of the state of Montana as part of the United States of America null and void. A crisis was sharply avoided, when the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in its decision of Heller v. D.C., that the right to bear arms was indeed an individual right.

Oklahoma has been hard at work as well on state sovereignty measures, as well as a few other states. Passing the House of Representatives at a margin of 83-13, the bill has now found itself in the Senate, where it currently remains.

The boldest and strongest of resolutions has to be the one that was introduced in New Hampshire, which takes strides to directly warn that continued violation could mean in the loss of federal power over the states. Speaking on the Glenn Beck Program on Fox News, Representative Dan Itse posed the question “If the general government nullifies the Constitution, how do you withdraw from something which does not exist?”

New Hampshire’s Resolution takes it a step further from doing the typical citations from the U.S. Constitution such as noting the Tenth Amendment, as they even cite provisions from their state constitution. The Resolution goes on to note that the General Government was not created for the purpose of complete control over the states, as the powers of such government are specifically enumerated within the U.S. Constitution and all else, as long as it is not specifically prohibited by the same document, is left to the states for self-governance. And taking a huge step up, the resolution moves on to state the following:

“That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government”

This is a significant step, whether believed to be justified or not, and the significance cannot be denied. If this resolution passes the New Hampshire Legislature, this will be the strongest move taken by a state legislature against the federal government since Jefferson and Madison anonymously led Virginia and Kentucky to stand up against the tyrannical actions of the newborn federal government.

It is extremely important for those inquiring into these resolutions to understand, that this is not an act of secession or neither done with the intent to purposely inflict ill will on the stability of the union. In fact, the latter is already done by the abuses inflicted upon the United States Constitution by the federal government. All these individuals in the State Legislatures are attempting to do, is reinforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and defend the belief that individuals should be left to their own will and ambition, to partake in whatever actions they wish, as long as it does not impede on those rights of another individual.

But ultimately, people cannot allow these efforts to be compromised by partisan issues. Although it is being stimulated, ironically, by the stimulus bill by the United States Congress, it should not be construed to be simply a partisan act of political combat. This is an honest defense enacted by concerned representatives who seek to perform the true patriotic duty of an American citizen. This true patriotic and American duty of a citizen is not to blindly follow the doctrine of a government of ambitious individuals, but rather to provide for the defense of the principles of freedom and liberty as embodied in the United States Constitution, and guarantee the continued stability of the republic for which we created centuries ago, when our founding fathers dissolved from the tyrannical British crown.

If The Federal Reserve Was Abolished

2009-02-28T10:25:00.003-05:00

The Federal Reserve, the one thing people always hear about, but rarely ever understand. Generally, you hear about pumping money into the market or see the bald man with a beard on the television going before the United States Congress regarding the actions of the Fed (the short name for the Federal Reserve), or just the economy. Then there are discussions regarding interest rates, bubbles, money pumping, inflation, deflation, and a series of economic terminology that generally fly over the heads of America. But what exactly is the Federal Reserve?

In 1913, the beginning of the Federal Reserve came with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Here we saw the beginnings of what would be the conclusion of the Gold Standard, which would be several decades lately when President Richard Nixon would officially declare it dead, clearing the way for money to be printed freely. Now before we move further, we’ll address one thing and that will be the Gold Standard. What is it? The Gold Standard is the policy of backing your currency with Gold, to ensure that the money has solid value. There was a day and age where currency in this country could be exchanged for gold, as each dollar bill had a solid value in gold. This policy ensured solid stability for the value of the dollar, enabling more countries to be trusting in our economy and investing in the dollar.

The Federal Reserve Bank presents two main issues: its existence and its operations. The existence of the Federal Reserve itself is unconstitutional. Now to those who aren’t familiar with the United States Constitution (I’d recommend if not familiar, to go read one online. They’re easy to find), here is how it is unconstitutional. The United States Government was created by the several States to carry out certain, enumerated duties that would ensure the stability among the States, and also to establish channels of communication and commerce with foreign nations. Among these, is the coinage of the money. Article 1, Section 8 specifically states that one of the powers of Congress is “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Now it doesn’t say that banks have the power to coin the money, or even issue worthless pieces of paper with artificial value. Much less, it doesn’t provide for the Congress to give away its powers. For it Congress was to be allowed to sacrifice its power, wouldn’t tyrannical men seek to infiltrate it with his own pawns for the purposing of creating a movement towards shifting power to the Executive Branch? Far fetched, but anyone who understands the processes of government would understand otherwise.

Operations can be a shocking truth to know. Contrary to what the bank’s name might suggest, the bank is not an entity of the Federal Government. This alone, is the greatest deception. The bill that created the bank wasn’t even written by a member of Congress, but rather the interests that would benefit best from the outsourcing of currency control and coinage. The Federal Reserve Bank is a private cartel run by bankers. The scary thing is that much of the bank operates in secrecy and is exempt from any sort of oversight by the United States Congress and the entire Federal Government itself. Some of the banks and bankers who have stakes in the interests of the Federal Reserve are secret and requests to change that fact have been denied repeatedly.

So let’s summarize this. A bill written by banking interests was passed through the United States Congress that would create a private cartel of bankers who would act in secrecy with their control over the monetary system. The beginnings of the slow death of the Gold Standard would provide for greater ability to freely print worthless pieces of paper containing an artificial value that changes depending on the amount of other worthless paper within the system. It also could tweak other regions of the economy, such as with artificial interest rates. This sort of meddling, as opposed to allowing these points to be set by an economy itself and economic conditions, creates a trust in humanity that history shows to be the road to ruin.

President Woodrow Wilson was the man who signed the bill into law. He had this to say later in life, in regards to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” Where’s the pride in the system that for decades we’ve depended on without question? Simply, you can’t have pride in creating a black hole for gold (something that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt would make worse, by setting the precedent that all gold can be seized by the Federal Government), and essentially leaving your children at the mercy of bankers who act on greed, not kindness.

The words can get harsher however. Thomas Jefferson, one of this country’s Founding Fathers and an influential man in the construction of our government, as well as the author of the Declaration of Independence, once said this: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency first by inflation, then by deflation the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” This alone states the point, that bankers cannot be trusted.

James Madison, the father of the United States Constitution, another influential member in this country’s creation, and a President of the United States, once said this: “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.”

Less eloquently put, is by the second President of the United States John Adams, but still put truthfully: “Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”

To reinforce my points and expand the insights and facts greatly, there is some recommended reading. Among these are the works of G. Edward Griffin and Thomas Woods, who provide excellent insights into the topic. Then there is also Peter Schiff, an economist who operates outside of the mainstream economists who tend to have certain areas of conversation and consideration isolated from discussion.

Now let’s move forth in the points. Abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank, revoking the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, undoing all the monetary woes that have been brought upon it over the last century, and reinstating the Gold Standard may be radical. But wasn’t it radical to get us to this point in the first place, and undo all monetary stability we had? Generally this sort of talk is attributed to conspiracy theorists called crazy by a dismissive, close-minded mainstream. It is also generally attributed to Congressmen Ron Paul, Representative of Texas, who most people are not willing to listen to. Now without getting on the topic of Representative Paul, let’s just say that his words on this topic are true. And he has acted on several occasions to introduce legislation providing for the steady and responsible abolishment of the Federal Reserve.

What would happen if the Federal Reserve was really abolished?

We could reinstate the Gold Standard. Again, would faith in our money be found. Especially in recent times, there is difficulty in the world to believe in our money, and the stability of the dollar, for it is collapsing and shedding its value rapidly. But this is where the topic of inflation and specifically, monetary inflation, enters play. Since our dollar holds no actual value, its artificial value is dependent upon the amount of money in the system. If you reduce the amount of dollar bills circulating in the economy, then the value of the dollar rises. Likewise, if you increase the amount of dollar bills circulating in the economy, then the value of the dollar falls. This is why it is important to be listening when on the television you hear the words “pumping” or “printing” money into the economy. Essentially, they’re creating money out of nowhere and then in the process, killing the value of the dollar slowly as it circulates into the system.

As Representative Paul has pressed current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about several times in hearings with the U.S. House of Representatives, this essentially is a hidden tax on America. When people put money in their wallet, in their bank accounts, or wherever they might store or invest it, that is the sum they have there. But that money is stolen when the value dies, because the value they put away decreases. If ten dollars was put away, it might not be ten dollars anymore in relation to the economy as it was before, because prices have been driven up with the death of the dollar. The uglier thing about this is most times, the dollar is printed for corporate and Wall Street interests, as well as banking interests, and very seldom for middle and lower classes. So when you line up the facts in due the math, it is essentially a hidden tax.

Perhaps it was Henry Ford who best said this about the American ignorance regarding the banking system in this country: “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand banking and monetary system for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” He’s right. If people truly opened their minds to understand what really goes on, the open opposition would be increased greatly. But of course, that involves true education and not institutionalized conditioning. The former seldom occurs, as it requires personal direction.

But returning to the point, this could be all prevented if money was required to be backed before it could be created. More countries would then be willing to invest in a coin that has solid backing in gold, and then in the long run, our economy would be more stable. It would also be more stable if the conditions of the economy would dictate interest rates, not the minds and hearts of men that are swayed by power.

Here’s another scary point about the Federal Reserve. Why would the bankers print off money like this? Well, they do indeed operate for their own interests. Interest, literally. When every dollar is printed, it is printed with interest, as when it is repaid back to them, they will have a larger return then what they loaned. Now let’s do a little processing here. If every dollar is created with interest, doesn’t that mean we’re creating a debt larger than the amount of dollars itself? Exactly, and this creates larger incentive to prevent money. And anyone who understands truly what is going on in our economy knows the Federal Reserve exploits this well.

This is the sad truth of our economy. We have invested in a system that even the man who signed it into law, regretted it. It didn’t take him long to realize the damage he created and all the additional damage that will come to future generations. Why could he realize it and not us? Have we truly been conditioned to not consider what might be the extreme, but wouldn’t be extreme if extreme measures hadn’t been taken in the first place to undo it?

Bubbles bursting launched the Great Depression. Bubbles are created by banks printing money and altering interest rates to create the illusion of health. Put simply, this creates a state of everybody living outside their true financial scope. When people refuse to live within their means, economic turmoil is inevitable.

The only way we again will have solid trust in our dollar is solid value, through the reinstatement of the Gold Standard.

The only way that our economy can operate with best interests served, is through the revoking of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

The only way that the people can trust their economy again, is through the abolishment of the Federal Reserve, and returning the power to coin the currency to the citizen-controlled Congress.

This is the answer to the economy. Until then, we will continue to dwindle.

RECOMMENDED READING:
“Meltdown” by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
“The Creature From Jekyll Island” by G.Edward Griffin
“The Revolution: A Manifesto” by Ron Paul
The United States Constitution

Thoughts On Belief

2009-02-25T00:03:00.004-05:00

It was only a few months ago when I unveiled a plan that has been received with much positive response, but at the same time, in all reality, is a far-fetched one. With my growing disapproval for the direction of not only my country, but the very state I live in, I opened up about the possibility of running for the Maine House of Representatives. Now under the Maine Constitution, I am ineligible for the lower house of the Maine Legislature as of now and will remain such until my 21^st birthday, making a wait until the 2012 election. I have a few reasons for not officially announced a run. One reason is because I really am not to big on the idea of being a politician, but at the same time, I feel someone needs to step in and inject some life into a dying power of the State over itself, and the constitutions of both Maine and the U.S. Another reason is, I feel, that something so early and premature would be disrespectful to the current representative of my area, Dale Crafts, who was just elected and has barely held the position. I see it as lacking of faith in his ability to properly represent the area; he was elected by the majority of the people who saw him as fit and I will respect the opinion of the people and offer him fair opportunity in my view. The day I officially become eligible, I will offer a decision officially. Until that time, speculate if you will, but I will not say one hundred percent until then.

But such a young individual? How can he not be naïve, not being in the real world for very long? These are reasonable questions and I have three years for them to be answered. Please challenge me, I do not expect any following that would not question every word of every line spoken and written.

Around the time I announced a run, I also announced I was leaving the Republican Party. Since then, I’ve been greeted with mixed reaction. With a majority of it being positive, what has been a huge point to note is the positive response for going Independent was met from both sides of the spectrum, liberals and conservatives. Now why both sides, if I am obviously a traditional conservative with some libertarian leanings? This is because, despite obvious strong divides over certain topics, there are some common goals that are, while broad, still unifying.

But then there will always be the party loyalists who will never lose faith in a political entity no matter what it does, who believe that a spectrum location is synonymous with a party and there is no way around it. It has been a rough ride. But I believe that this is the correct path for me. I once believed in the Republican Party, but it lost its way. I may have been a member of the Republican Party, but I am a conservative first, and my philosophy will stand tall over entities who act for human ambition.

As far as other parties, I could never go to the liberal side of the spectrum, the Democratic Party, because I do not agree with any of their points. The Libertarian Party was appealing, but I agree with a couple positions and same for the Constitution Party, who seems more focused on religion and morals, like the Republican Party to an extent, then the Constitution, for which the party is named after.

I’ve unveiled a personal platform that has slowly grown with time. I’ve made some points of concentration for the future and I’ve been continuously speaking on both the state of the nation and the state of the state. But I still feel as though my objectives are not properly outlined and therefore, I cannot expect the citizens of Maine to even bother consider me as a piece of their future if I have not offered my objectives.

I am a believer in the Constitution, of both Maine and the United States. I am a believer in individual freedom and liberty. I am a believer in limited government. Where the government is big, individual opportunity is little. And to that tune, I hope to form a symphony of voices acting in unison. For not the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party, or even the Libertarians or Constitutionalists, but rather the people as a general whole. It is cliché rhetoric, but I became an Independent because I believed that such strong partisanship is detrimental and counterproductive, and such factionalism that James Madison spoke against in the Federalist Papers, will lead us to ruin.

I’m not in a party for another reason. It can be disheartening to have a civil debate be turned upside down by comments that target a party unfavorably. I will never fully accept the actions of any party; it’s just not possible. It may be stubborn and it may uncompromising of me, but I see it as a step up from what we’ve been offered in politics thus far. Everybody can be wrong, alternately, everybody can also be right. But we must observe the fact both can occur, and that an entity is not completely perfect or entirely wrong. There will be pros and cons, and we must piece together all of the former, in opposition of the latter, to create a puzzle of forward motion.

I still monitor and work hard with the movement to reform the Republican Party. I feel its only choice is conservatism. True conservatism. Not the beliefs of recent politicians who completely contradict the term while claiming to be such, but rather the beliefs that history has held true for it: fighting when absolutely necessary, sound money, laissez-faire capitalism, individual liberty, limited government, etc. I actively take part in commenting on the progress, or lack thereof, and enter debates regarding such reform.

I do not, however, believe in the party as a proper entity for positive change. I do not believe in the government as a caretaker or babysitter. I believe only one person can turn his or her life and that is that individual. The heart that beats deep within them in unison with the brain that thinks the thoughts that define their ambitions and dreams. This is where positive influence is found, not in the hands of those who make money than us by passing bills they don’t bother to write or even read.

I believe in the state of Maine. It has been cast in a rather unfavorable light due to recent events regarding the stimulus bill, in which both of our senators joined Arlen Specter in voting for, being the only Republicans in the Senate to do so. It holds an even darker image in the eyes of some, because of a welfare system perceived to be out of control and too easy. Even in the eyes of many citizens, it is seen in a more negative light, because of taxes and the need for such to be higher to fund the government. Spending money you don’t have doesn’t fix deficits. If this was the truth, there would be no such thing as a Chapter 11 filing, because people could just tear out a credit card and slide away.

One point that might be buzzing around in your head might be this, a valid one: These are all specifically national issues, what about the local? What use would a State politician be if he were purely concentrated on the duties that should be left to a U.S. politician? Well I believe the State must be resistant of the federal government when it has been abused or unconstitutionally reduced in power, but I do recognize there are many in-state issues. Those I would like to tackle, such as reforming the welfare system dramatically and decreasing taxes. Both only occur with efficient and less wasteful government.

I believe in the voice of the people. As a possible future Representative, I’d be relatively easy to contact and accessible to the public. I run a screen name on AOL Instant Messenger that is wired to my cell phone, so I can be contacted at all times. I also maintain Twitter and MySpace pages where I can be contacted and followed. I believe in accessibility and transparency. Such, I would offer.

To allow the people to familiarize themselves with me, I will offer some points regarding myself. I am an admirer and writer of poetry, having always been one loving the painting of a picture using words. I’ve also been writing stories since I was very young, as I’ve always held it as a great method of expression and a healthy hobby. I aspire to play many instruments, but it is a journey which I still have much ground to cover. I love music of all genres, literally, as my iPod is an endless gold mine of anything and everything. I also love to read, fiction and nonfiction. I could open a small library with all the books I own, I believe it is a healthy hobby and with my nonfiction, it is a method of self-education, something I believe very strongly about. I am also a family man. I believe in the strength and the integrity of the family. I’ve always offered myself in a rather selfless manner, for I’ve always held faith in the ability of those around me to perform better than I.

If there are any more questions, you know where to find me: MySpace (http://www.myspace.com/grungerock807), Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/cdixon25), e-mail (chrisdixonime@gmail.com), or AOL Instant Messenger (chrisdixonmaine).

Until then, continue to read my thoughts, my blogs, and my rants. Perhaps one day, you will have the opportunity to vote for me. Or against me.

The Conservative Identity Crisis

2009-02-11T10:42:00.004-05:00

As many people know, there is a crisis in this country. The economy is enduring a multi-trillion dollar deficit, businesses are suffering and as a result jobs are being cut, ponzi schemes and con games are being uncovered, and as a whole, America is being swindled from all ends. All ends? There is a crisis indeed in this country, but much of the crisis is much more severe than anyone realizes and that is largely because most of America does not realize it. What is this crisis? There is a moral standard being purged from society, there is a political process under fire, and an economic stability that is being tortured as if it were chained away at the soon-to-be faded memory Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. Our politics no longer make any sense and as a result, the ultimate coup d’etat in history is in progress. Allow us to trace these steps.

In politics, there is an identity crisis in a two-party system that neither exists or ever has, but is rather being perpetuated by the media-political complex. Now this is not only the result of an absence of education and knowledge among the people, it is also evidence of a growing ignorance of the supreme law of the land: the United States Constitution. As Article 12 to the United States Constitution details the election process of the President and the Vice President of the United States of America, it specifically observes that if there is no majority in the vote, then the top three candidates will be sent to the United States House of Representatives for them to elect. Top three? In a two-party system? Where’s the logic here? It doesn’t seem to matter to people, for when this simple fact is brought forth, it is dismissed as being a delusion of the “lunatic fringe.” But the problem gets worse.

If you chose to accept there is a two-party system, the least this phantom system could do is have the two parties on separate sides of the spectrum. Historically, this has been generally the fact of existence. But as of recent, we have seen a radical change in this. Republicans, claiming that simply being apart of the party signifies you are a certified conservative, have come to define that conservatism as war mongering, fear mongering, endless political wars, deficit spending, bigger government, centralized government, globalism, and socialist economic intervention. Former President George W. Bush launched a war, Lyndon B. Johnson style, in two ways. He stole the hidden object that was used in the infamous War on Drugs. Under this plan, there is the creation of a monster and that monster is not necessarily defined clear enough to have a specific target location or object for reaching it, but it’s definitely out there in the dark and if you keep shooting, someday you’ll hit it (billions of dollars later, thousands of lives gone, and hundreds of constitutional and American laws sacrificed). He also stole the practice of senseless war on shaky grounds and prolonging a no-win occupation that is simply sucking down the taxpayer dollars and funneling it into a bon fire. Both of these policies are liberal at the least, possibly even radical.

But while Bush utilized these to an extent, the partisan minded people, who lost their conservative principle in favor of an ego high state of mind, claimed this was indeed conservative. To further observe the damage that has been done, the fear mongering took a radical turn come the financial crisis and the recession that the government was in denial about for at least a year. Historically, intervention has a poor record of success. Contrary to mainstream history’s infamous distortions, Herbert Hoover did go forth with many interventions in the economy and they indeed did worsen the Great Depression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt came along to replace a bitter Hoover and took the liberalism to the ultimate radical standard, which Benito Mussolini praised on several occasions as “American Fascism.” The Depression lasted for years, until Pearl Harbor came about and the United States officially had a reason to enter the war (they had been feeding the Allies for years, while claiming a bogus state of neutrality). We emerged from the Great Depression not on intervention, but because bloodshed makes the industrial world go round. So what Bush brought forth months ago was seven hundred billion dollars for the paper pushers on Wall Street who helped worsen the mess. When resistance was met, he with Secretary of the Treasury Paulson, tag teamed the Congress with horror stories of the economy failing and martial law being declared, as several congressmen would later detail in testimony. Between an easily pushed Congress and most of them being funded by those being bailed out, the bailout bill flew through the Congress despite a strong outcry by the American public. And most of these cronies on The Hill got reelected, sadly. And Bush is still a conservative.

Now the crisis with conservatism losing itself lies in the fact that people must rely on conservatism to protect the people from its government, for while the true, traditional conservatives stand guard with their philosophical strength and the United States Constitution, the liberals utilize a slash and burn policy against the law, through using the Supreme Court and its “Judicial Activism” movement that has plagued it, as well as an Executive Branch that refuses to acknowledge its limits. Last night it was rather disturbing to watch a small meeting in Congress on television, between Lynn Woolsey of California and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, two Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives. As typical liberals and poster child Democrats, they were both literally glorifying the federal government as a selfless entity that is always there to protect you. Perhaps government is capable of being good, but as Thomas Jefferson once observed, a reading of history observes more government is bad government. This couldn’t be more true. For humans are ambitious and imperfect creatures, and when given the power, they will allow their moral standard to collapse and will succumb to all the temptations of power. Our founding fathers were aware of this because of many decades of abuse by the British Crown, and this is why they wished for a federal government that was limited by a Constitution with a series of checks and balances, and later a Bill of Rights to further limit the federal government. For if you give too much power up, it will never be returned, because that would require an entity that feeds on power to give up what it hungers. This is an illogical assumption to hold.

The Republican Party has a responsibility to stand up for conservatism, but it has failed. Conservatives have a responsibility to stand up for themselves, and this is where it gets tricky. Many conservatives have abandoned their posts and favored what many like to call being moderate or bipartisan, which in all truth, tends to be a more liberal leaning. The ones still remaining in the right, the true right of constitutionalism and laissez-faire capitalism, have been purged from the mainstream and been labeled as apart of the “lunatic fringe.” It’s essentially a steady purging of conservatism, the principle of small and limited government, from society.

But if the Republican Party has found itself in the liberal seat, where does that leave the Democratic Party? The Democratic Party in recent years has shifted further to the left to occupy the radical seat on the spectrum. It’s interesting to watch Republicans, claiming to be conservatives, claim that Bush is good while Nancy Pelosi is bad, while more often than not; they were on the same side. Pelosi could be depended on to defend and fund the war, as well as support and push the socialist bailout policies. Now here is another flaw of logic. As seeing that they’re on the same side, does this make George W. Bush a radical, or does this make Nancy Pelosi a conservative? It’s a tough question for the mainstream Republican, who is not exactly sure who it is. It’s an even harder question for them when you bring the current President Barack Obama into the question, considering the striking resemblances between the two. While Bush threatened martial law alongside Secretary Paulson on the Congress, Obama has been giving constant speeches detailing how the world will end and the sky will fall if we don’t act fast and without thought. Obama is derided by the Republican Party, but he’s utilizing the same tactic as Bush, and not even to the fullest extent of Bush’s extreme yet. Obama is continuing the War on Terror, but instead slapping a smiley face on it and painting it bright pretty colors in the form of choosing a more optimistic name. Obama is further centralizing the government by giving more powers to the National Security Council and defending the continued existence of the Department Of Homeland Security. What I see here, is a current president who is exactly like the last one. Now, again, does this make George W. Bush a radical, or does this make Barack Obama a conservative? Difficult question, at least to those hypocritically minded mainstream Republicans who can’t stick to a definition anymore than a Democrat can (interestingly enough, there’s another similarity between the two).

Now the Republicans had their chance to redeem themselves after the disastrous election process was completed and Senator John McCain was sent back to his hole in the Senate to further deprive the American people, but they opted not to. Instead of admitting that their image of scare tactics and fear mongering was a complete and total failure, being rejected by the American people, they ignored it in several different ways. First, they have continued to glorify the corrupt image of the pseudo conservative, or the neoconservative, by continuing to hope for the likes of Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who represent the failing way of the Republican Party. Second, there was a strong group during the RNC chairman process that blamed all the failures on the fact they weren’t modernized. The Party was criticized for not utilizing the Internet and social networking, as if Barack Obama won the election overwhelmingly because he used Twitter. Still, they protect Bush’s obvious liberal and socialist leanings and policies, insisting he was the right step for both the party and the country. They’ve become ignorant to the fact that we have blown away a surplus and jumped into an endless hole of deficit, we’re funneling more money into the bon fire in the forms of several no-win occupations and constant interfering in other countries in direct violations of their national sovereignty. What we’re seeing here by the Republican Party is a complete and total rejection of the conservative principle.

Does anyone not remember what the Supreme Court elected George W. Bush on in 2000? No nation building, no more parading around the world telling them how to live their lives, and decentralizing the government. This is the platform that the Republicans rallied around to fight the green fear monger that is former Vice President Al Gore. But as quick as their undemocratic win came, they completely abandoned their principles in the wake of fear and vulnerability. Osama bin Laden aimed to destroy America. He has succeeded in the respect that we are a different country. We were once a country that depended on integrity of the law, the United States Constitution, and checks and balances. All of those have now been abandoned under the guise of fighting the bad guys, an enemy we’re all afraid of who reside somehow out in the dark, because our inability to allow pilots to be armed allowed angry, bitter middle eastern men to turn airplanes into missiles using box cutters. These terrorists were spawned from the training and arming of the mujahideen, the Islamic extremist movement under the Jimmy Carter Administration. Now this is not to say that America attacked itself or that the whole thing was a simple charade, it wasn’t. But there’s a point in time where America needs to take responsibility for its mistakes. And we haven’t. And this rampant policy of foreign intervention is hurting us severely.

Liberalism has no defense, logically. But it is a sad day in America when socialism seems like the most appealing policy for recovery. In all truth however, we’ve been living in a mixed economy for years that is capitalism and economic Darwinism for the lower classes, while offering socialism to the corporate entities and the higher classes. This is the method by which all lower classes die, by protecting the higher class while having all the under classes fight to the death. It is what we find here, in all these bailouts and gigantic loans to big industries that are reeling because of their own selfish policies. We have come to reward failure and set the example that as long as you have friends in high places, all of your greed and failure will be rewarded. All the while, the lower classes slowly wilt away as they have to struggle among themselves in a survival of the fittest in an environment that is stacked against them.

Where is conservatism when society needs it? The laissez-faire capitalism that worked for the first part of our nation’s history, by promoting freedom for all business, big and small. Or how about the policy of nonintervention that our founding fathers spoke of, as they knew full well, that intervening in battles and debates that were not ours or our business in anyway, would never have positive effects, but simply negative consequences. Where is the side of the spectrum believing in sound money backed with gold to ensure financial stability and economic prosperity? Where has our Constitution gone and the wing that protects it against an overly ambitious left? Why are the poster children of the Republican Party violators of the United States Constitution and essentially dictators in many ways, such as Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush? Have we lost our way? Has the conservative movement really died?

The Liberal GOP

2008-12-23T22:01:00.002-05:00

I want people to listen, and in particular, those members of the Republican Party. Those who believe conservatism, without actually knowing the definition of the word and the history behind it, is true of their party’s recent history; I also want to listen, those who believe they are reformers. There are many who claim to be aiming for the resurgence of the Republican Party as the dominant party in politics, the one that will be trusted by the American people. There are ironies though, considering, the GOP walks into the left-wing and the liberals turn around and point the finger, who looks bad? We can’t say that though. The war loving, fear mongering, chickenhawk-ruled, federal government centralizing, constitution violating, law-ignoring, nation building, interventionalist happy, deficit spending “conservatives” say so. The terms “Meatless Meatballs” and “Jumbo Shrimp” hold more logic than the previous statement describing the modern Republican Party’s current team of self-proclaimed “conservatives.”

Why is that historically, Republicans have been elected to end wars? Up until George H.W. Bush, the Republican Party has been normally been opposed to wars, much less preemptive strikes and reckless battles with no conclusion. Why is it historically, the Democratic Party have been housing the liberals that seek to expand the government and deprive States of their Tenth Amendment rights?

We have a crisis in politics, because now, instead of having a solid historical definition, conservatism has been hijacked by people who seek to define the word as it suits them, just as they seek to define the laws they create and wars they wage, only as much as it will benefit them at the only times it will be suitable to their agendas. Does this sound like a party that is seeking the trust of the American people? How do you expect people to invest trust in politicians who rely on smoke in mirrors tricks and secrecy, denying transparency of government as it could compromise national security? Obviously, people aren’t fine tuned on their knowledge of the intelligence community, because if they were, the histories of such would suggest that if there is a secret in the world to be known, there are moles everywhere to dig. The ISI, CIA, KGB, Mossad, MI6, etc.; all intelligence agencies are professionals in their industries of deception and corruption. National security is a simple term in the wide arsenal of fear tactics utilized by a party that has become the ultimate resistors of constitutional checks and balances. People also were not paying attention in their high school and college history classes when the topic of despotism was discussed and how it came to power. Let’s cover two points, by with totalitarian tyrants rise to power:

1) Unrestricted power to federal government, typically to fight terrorism or a foreign enemy, or both, or the illusion of such.

2) The collective social mindset that “it could never happen here.”

Ignorance. And ignorance.

We witnessed an unprecedented centralization of the federal government under the Bush Administration, putting many loathed liberals to shame on the topic of big government. Bush has superseded all checks and balances against him, by pushing legislation and signing executive orders creating and enhancing the power of Martial Law declaration, and the restriction on Congress to question it, by making it weeks before they can even investigate it. Who is naïve to think that under military rule, in which the United States Constitution is trashed, that Congress will be around after twenty-four hours and much less, we will ever return to the Republic we once enjoyed? What does any president have to fear now? If there’s an impeachment hearing launched, all a president has to do is create the illusion of a risk and declare Martial Law? Perhaps this is farfetched, but historically, all of this has actually happened under a society that lived under the notion such fates could never occur to them. It doesn’t matter if it could happen or not, the power risk should never be evident in a free society, because the free society is no longer free if the switch on its life can be flicked with the simple wave of the word by a member of a single branch in a divided government. And this is the party that seeks the trust of the American people, because all of this is the “conservative” thing to do.

The income tax fraud has been perpetuated by both branches of the illusionary two-party system, who operate in complete agreement, while arguing that they are of separate ideologies and philosophies. How is this logic? The liberals have been open and straight forward about their intentions for the Democratic Party and its influence, by seeking a doctrine dictating that the government should nurse us from the cradle to the grave, in controlling every aspect of our lives, as well as either believing the United States Constitution is a “living document” or irrelevant all together. The Republicans look more shameful however, because they hide this fact, claiming to be of an opposing doctrine.

Worse off, is the defense of the Fiat System and the Federal Reserve Bank, created under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. This was the creation of Woodrow Wilson, a globalist liberal who handed the control of the entire monetary system to a series of bankers. For here, the truth is, the Federal Reserve is dominated by a group of top global bankers and are exempt from congressional and federal oversight, despite the fact they control our currency. Let’s cover two quotes however:

"Paper is poverty...it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." –Thomas Jefferson

"The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency. Creating and issuing money is the supreme prerogative of government its greatest creative opportunity. Adopting these principles will save the taxpayers immense sums of interest and money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity." –Abraham Lincoln.

Here, we have a Founding Father making a very obvious point about a piece of paper being the dominant factor in our monetary system. The second quote is one of the great heroes of the Republican Party, historically being heralded as the one who brought the party to prominence. Abraham Lincoln here was observing the need for the creation and circulation of currency needing to remain in government, where people can prevent destructive monetary policy. Of course, the latter observes a need for people to remain informed, not ignorant, and it is naïve to think that could be achieved in our current state.

This is a policy that while not created by the Republican Party, has been continuously endorsed and supported by the party, alongside the “enemy” Democratic Party and their “enemy” liberals. There have been a few instances where congressmen have spoken our against the Federal Reserve, typically Republicans, including current Texas representative Ron Paul; but these instances don’t come often and are generally ignored by both sides of the fence. The Republicans, who claim to be members of the conservative wing of the spectrum, a spectrum endorsing small government, are here ignoring legislation that could prevent bankers influencing easily-swayed politicians from controlling our futures through economic manipulation including monetary inflation and deflation, as well as artificial adjustments of interest rates. If money were still backed in gold, there would be a solid value that could never be decreased or increased, like the artificial values of our fiat currency. It is essentially a hidden tax, when money is printed for corporate and political interests, for the ones stuck with the rising prices resulting from decreasing monetary value, are the lower tax-paying middle classes. Also, our economy would benefit more from interest rates that are dependent on market conditions and not the opinions of men. This is preferable to a free and prosperous society, not one controlled by special interests. So why has the Republican Party denied the opportunities for a return to such logic?

We must remember. Ron Paul is a radical. At least, that is what they all say. A man of conservative principle and a clean, clear, consistent record is a crazy goon. Says the crazy goons who are sold to every special interest that lobbies on the Hill. Why are Republicans, the ones who claim to be conservative, so afraid of conservatism? It’s bitter irony, but the truth is sitting right here regarding the true nature and direction of the party, and its not towards the right.

People are absolutely ignorant to assume that the same evils behind the same factions will present change, because we are essentially exercising usage of the same tools and assuming different results. This is exactly what Albert Einstein called the definition of insanity.

Note to GOP “reformers”: the problem is not because the party is not “modernized” or playing around on social-networking sites, although that definitely helps greatly when communicating with the people. The problem is not solely because of the media bias, although that definitely did not help. The problem is not anywhere where you are looking presently. The problem’s true nature lies in a province where no one will look, because of what the answer implies.

Conservatism claims a level of responsibility in government, maintaining its minimal nature through creation and continued existence of operations and agencies only absolutely and undeniably required for the flow of activities to continue. Conservatism implies the power to lie in where we have always found it, our laws and United States Constitution, which invests the power in the people and not in the government. Our Founding Fathers, the ones who have been declared violent radical extremists by definition of Bush Administration legislation and quotes, rose up against tyranny for our freedoms we share now. If George W. Bush is truly correct in his logic, then we are a terrorist nation founded on terrorist principles, therefore declaring all philosophies originally invested in this country terrorist in nature. The United States Constitution is terrorist. The Declaration of Independence is terrorist. The defense against invading and oppressive British soldiers was terrorist. The secession from the British Empire was terrorist. Your ancestors are all terrorist. Does anyone really understand the magnitude of these precedents being set? This is all typical of liberals, who are generally opposed to the limits of the United States Constitution and all of the protections and powers it invests in the people against its governing body. But conservatives?

The politicians are afraid of conservatism, simply, because it would return government to a limited role, and not an all-controlling body purely built for total domination of the American people. This is why the Republican Party won’t have anything to do with true conservatism.

To the people who hold the power of the vote: Do not vote for a single soul who lacks the will to protect your future and your childrens’ futures. Do not vote for a single soul who believes in pushing the U.S. Constitution aside, requiring trust in the secrecy of men in high positions of power.

To the people who are pulling these tricks and charades: If you want the Republican Party to return to dominance in the political arena, if you want the trust of the American people, stop what the last two decades have given us. Cease all charades of federal centralization and cease absolutely all liberal maneuvers. The Republican Party cannot survive if it is liberal; we already have the Democrats for that wing.

The Blogspot Launch: WELCOME!

2008-12-20T00:13:00.000-05:00

Hello everybody, and let me say, welcome to my new blogspot page. I've launched this and uploaded past blogs from my MySpace page, so all blogs prior to this one were previously posted on MySpace and have been transfered for your reference.

For those of you who don't know who I am or have never read my blogs, my name is Chris. I'm a deeply opinionated individual, but I am one who seeks truth and all the benefits it provides. Speaking as once a youthful liberal and a former Republican loyalist, I have an understanding for all directions on the spectrum. As I matured, I found a niche in conservatism, because of its ideals and philosophies, which I believed to be most logic. And when I say conservatism, I speak specifically of true, traditional conservatism, and not the pseudo-conservatism that Republicans live by, otherwise known as neoconservatism.

I consider myself a conservative and libertarian at heart. When I hear someone claiming to be a conservative call a noninterventionalist an isolationist, it brings sham to the word conservative, considering the history of the conservative movement. I believe in the power of the United States Constitution to protect the civil liberties and various freedoms of the people in this country. I believe we should only wage war and intervene with foreign affairs when all prior options have been exhausted, and even then, only when it is absolutely necessary for our continued survival. I believe in economic responsibility, including sound monetary policy in the Gold Standard and not the Fiat System, and also oppose continuous deficit spending.

I have an obsession with history. I frequently have my nose stuck in a book and am just as fast purchasing new ones. I read from all eras in time, as I find anything as intriguing as it is important to our understanding of what I call, the cycles of history. I have stated this belief off and on throughout my political discussions, that history is repetitive and operates in cycles. It is from here that George Santayana's quote comes of importance: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". This is why I believe it is of the most important for us, as human beings in an evil world, to learn inorder to safeguard ourselves against the tyrannies that will become of us. As any thorough reading of history will suggest, these cycles do exist and it would be naive to think that they cannot happen again, if history is not altered by knowledgeable individuals and individuals seeking to be knowledgeable.

I believe in ideas, not individuals, for when we blindly follow an individual, we forfeit our reasoning in favor of an individual who is inherently imperfect and fallible, therefore making our foundation of belief without foundation. This is where I believe the Republican Party has gone wrong, in investing all its heart and soul in a select elite instead of a series of principles, as evidenced by the purging of conservatism in recent decades in favor of a few good men who claim to be conservative.

As a believer in ideas, I'm always willing to listen to new ones. I will not easily sway, but if it can be proven, I will observe. I am stubborn, but not ignorant. I seek to become a smarter mind and a greater heart. Politics' greatest foe is history, for the latter discredits all of the illogical rhetoric of the former.

Please come to read my thoughts, which are a combination of viewpoints and thoughts, as well as historical research and thorough digging in various mainstream and independent news outlets. I invite you to respond and I invite you to engage me in conversation, in a civil debate. I may be a speaker, but I am also a listener.

Thank you for reading up. I look forward to the future here.

-Chris

The Republican Irony

2008-12-17T12:30:00.000-05:00

It is well-noted that in recent memory, conservatism in its truest and most honestly traditional form is steadily departing from society and being replaced by an entity wrongly perceived as the same. Specifically, the great destruction to conservatism has come in the responsibility that has been abandoned by the Republican Party in favor of a more liberal, left-wing assault on the social and political structure, and in part because of the former two, the economic world. When there was once a day and age where reckless spending of money was not favorable, deficit spending has become as much a trend as the people they're supposed to represent, when at Christmas time they slid plastic at Wal-Mart empowering the negative funds on a rather frequent basis. But perhaps more astonishing to the traditional conservative is the Republican Party's complete radical shift in the foreign policy scene. When a party once believing of a responsible doctrine of limited intervention, only calling forth when absolutely required and all alternatives have been exhausted, has changed into a reckless notion that the world is incapable of self-control and therefore must be babysat by the American government, they have instantly forfeited their conservative beliefs. It is the great irony of the Republican Party however; it is the destruction it brought upon itself.

What is ironic is when the party claims to be exerting force in favor of peace, touting constitutional liberties while shoving justice at the end of a gun barrel down foreign throats, and claiming to be believing in the power of the individual while insisting that we live in a society of Orwellian parallels while running around the world playing a game for misdirected and unfounded hostility that'll know no end, for conclusion to ambition only results in death, and until intelligence becomes of us, ignorance will always supersede. The ones who are spitting words denouncing liberal big government policies and skinning the left-wing network, are also the ones who are seemingly in line with the identical doctrine. This is largely unnoticed, because of the great marketing trend known as the "neoconservative", which has launched the Republican Party into a state of denial that is as dangerous to its continued existence as it is to America, for the only thing worse than two butting heads on the same demon is only one head without any opposition to exert its demons upon the world. When did ambiguous wars without ends or defined objectives become the root of conservatism? It never did, yet, it has become the ultimate platform point for any modern Republican, because of its valiant and noble war of righteousness over the terrible demons that infest the eastern hemisphere. Yet, who ever notices that most of these attacking terrorists make some points which thoroughly disproves the great "they blindly hate America" misconception. For starters, the Bush Administration has done more to help the terrorist agenda than the terrorists have, for as Republicans point out without evening actually thinking about the words, terrorists are not fans of this free world we have. So the solution to fighting the freedom-hating terrorists comes to take away the freedoms and degrade this world of liberty. What are we saying if we take away freedoms for Americans? Does anyone in this world honestly think that this flat-out appeasement of the terrorist agenda will stop them from seeking us out? Of course, application of logic is one that is far removed from society and politics. All facts to death row and all opinions for grabs, our directions are up for sale.

John Quincy Adams, son of founding father John Adams, once spoke of America's foreign policy:

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit…"

This is eloquence, not favoring an overpowering government that seeks to destroy all in opposition to its path, even those who operate only in a verbal or philosophical opposition towards it. It lacks isolationism, for it is an acknowledgement of the world scene and any events that may weave through the progression of time, rather than a complete denial of anything outside the borders of America. It is humble, unlike our current foreign policy, which seeks arrogance in belief that our philosophies and doctrines, as well as our leaders perceived to be wholly righteous, are infallible. In this mindset, we have found ourselves lost and locked in an unshakable reason, or lack thereof, stating that our leaders and their directions should never be questioned. It is almost as if this government, one that has been swelling under the regimes of both major parties, is absent of all negativity. Yet, observe these wise words of our first President of the United States, who was also a general in the American Revolution, George Washington:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

Essentially, Washington observes we must always be aware of our leaders, for they are elected and therefore representative of the people, not self-appointed dictators who instead operate on a perceived notion, whether it be righteous and just or not. Of course, these reasons are purged of our minds and logic remains to this day, in exile. Is it sad that Adolf Hitler could best describe the current Republican mindset? Take these words, for example, said by the tyrant himself:

"A powerful national government may encroach considerably upon the liberty of individuals as well as of the different States, and assume the responsibility for it, without weakening the Empire Idea, if only every citizen recognizes such measures as means for making his nation greater."

Let's break down this point. First, it'll be stated that all wars inevitably lead to the shrinking of civil liberties domestically, for it would be ironic if we are disrespecting national sovereignties of other nations while seeking to respect our own dignity. History supports this notion thoroughly, hence a state of endless war being preferable to any leader. The Republican Party, once a party that spoke of conservative ideals and the U.S. Constitution, a document that is largely blacklisted in mainstream political conversations. Now, the Republicans believe that is justified completely in the rampant warmongering by a series of chickenhawks who know nothing of the scenes that haunt a battlefield. We have lost our rights here at home and the mainstream Republicans continuously insist on it being for the safety of a nation. With everything from the warrentless wiretapping of the National Security Agency to the corrupt National Security Letter program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, we have subscribed to a notion that Orwellian standards are integral to our continued success in existence. When did these things become subject to praise as opposed to fear? Let's observe some points of wisdom from Mr. Orwell:

"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting."

We find the most fiercest of defenders of the continued wars being those who are sitting comfortably in cushioned seats, provided for, like their funds, by the hardworking Americans who elected them to their positions where they could find corruption and invest in it. This is because of the Military-Industrial Complex, another point acknowledged by former war hero and President of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower. As World War 2 proved in curing our economic woes from a prolonged Great Depression, the industry will go round in a state of war and be profitable and beneficial to those who vote forward without reason.

"It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning."

How many dictators across the world in recent memory have claimed to be founders or proponents of democracy? How many presidents in recent memory have claimed to be the supporters of our democracy? Yet, the man who wrote this nation's Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson had this to say:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

This misconception has been dealt a defeat. At least in reason, the public eye has yet to be swayed.

The point at hand? There is a great danger to a society who has already sold its soul and integrity to a system that is without actual existence, but rather a myth that has been given solid form by lie and myth. In this, we have found the two-party system, a step away from complete single party rule. When one party subscribes to the belief of the opposing party, it is essentially worse, for there is a single party rule regime in effect, beneath the illusion of freedom among the people. Misconception can only be cured through logic and education, and the application of such.

Unfortunately, when observes these points and passes them on to a Republican who often claims to be a conservative, they are generally met with disgust and are instantly branded with the title "liberal", as in the Republican Party, the word has the same ability for profane application as that of the alternate word for the Democratic mascot, the Donkey. To offer some credit to these liberals however, they at least know who they are. Conservatives are being undermined thoroughly by the liberal Trojan Horse, the neoconservatives.

Noninterventionalists are isolationists. This logic will never be thoroughly explained by a Republican because there is no actual logic that could be applied. John McCain, the moderate-liberal and RINO (Republican In Name Only), attacked the Texas Representative Dr. Ron Paul at the Republican Debates by responding to his noninterventionalist points by stating it was that type of isolationism that got us into World War 2. I still have yet to uncover a single explanation for that phrase, for any unbiased reading of history will suggest the direct opposite. Isolationism is not claiming a neutral state with declarations signifying such, while regularly supply arms and ammunition to a side in a conflict, which we did in assisting the Allies. It was this type of contradiction that angered the forces involved in the Axis Powers, which would otherwise be preoccupied with Europe if it not be for those supplying their enemies while claiming to be neutral and not interested with the war. The word "neutral" was a lie, but a brilliant public relations and P.R. tool. It was this, and our ignorance, that led to the Pearl Harbor bombings by the Japanese. And many years later, John McCain believes this is isolationism.

Isolationism is reactionary and interventionalism is radical, with middle realms finding conservative and liberal bases, noninterventionalism for the former. But no traditional conservative claims to be reactionary, for reactionaries are even stubborn in their absolute refusal for any change whatsoever, whereas conservatives would change if it is principled and felt to be required for the will of society. It all comes down to whether one would subscribe to the thought that states, if it isn't broken, then don't break it.

All the while, our Central Intelligence Agency stands as the world's most notoriously covert drug-trafficking operation and ultimate regime-changing manipulation network of thieves and bandits with sniper rifles and propaganda tools. We gave to the Dominican Republic Rafael Trujillo who claimed democratic standards and processes while leading a regime directly opposite to any actual state of freedom, with regular election fraud and manipulation, and federal grips that became steadily tightened as he became slowly increased in his oppressive attitudes with time. They also gave us the current Iranian government, which most mainstream Republicans describe with the same loathing rhetoric that a devout Christian would of Satanism and evil. Adding to this tally can be Iraq, Cuba, and Venezuela, among many others. Typical of this trend is the purging of democratic governments in favor of more oppressive totalitarian regimes, simply because the latter, at least at first, tends to be more cooperative with our own interests. As Adams suggested in regards to our entangling of foreign affairs, it would become a game of ambition. Now, our ambitions have run wild.

When will we acknowledge this blow back and stop denouncing those bearers of these simple facts as isolationists? Simply when the hard-nosed arrogance and self-righteousness ceases. When we look at the current mindset, we see an irony that suggests this mindset will never end. For while the Republican Party claims to be in search of a new direction, it has yet to actually begin listening to any alternatives. The neoconservatism is still resting upon its pedestal and there is a continued refusal to acknowledge any of the relevant mistakes that led to the downfall that handed Barack Obama the election in a land slide manner. If the leadership is interested, it will again find conservatism as it has always been, ideologically, philosophically, and historically, not politically. For anything political is not and cannot be ideological or philosophical, for it is a shape shifter. Instead, in our politics, we must apply actual ideologies. Conservatism is an idea and a philosophy; neoconservatism is a brand marketed by political entities and individuals.

Change only works one way, and that is in a different direction. This is the irony of the situation.

2008-12-13T10:43:00.001-05:00

HJR 8: Changing The Constitution

2008-12-09T01:40:00.000-05:00

To any constitutionalist, one of educated background and reasonably thorough attention towards the political scene, the news that has slowly come to light, but quietly, is hardly surprising. To any conservative, it is disturbing, never the less. But the problem lies here, for in our country as we speak, there is a war raging in political circles. For decades amounting to over a century, the United States Constitution has endured abuse that has only accelerated upon entrance into the twentieth century. Liberals have always held the control in the Democratic Party and there lies the obvious worry in an ideological group that believes the Constitution is a “living document”, owning the houses of Congress and the Presidency, therefore controlling two of the three branches of government and holding the end of a political barrel towards the third branch, yet unaffected. Worse off lies the fact, little recognized in our society, that the Republican Party has strayed away from its conservative roots. So in a society that has succumbed to an inexistent two-party system, one whose power is derived from perpetuated mistruths and outright lying, how are conservatives supposed to stand with power?

Through my writings I have profiled both current and historical moments for the conservative movement and ideology, in its truest form, and the United States Constitution as it was intended to be used and interpreted. Despite all of the independent news outlets I’ve monitored, this issue didn’t arise. Instead, I have to thank a friend over on Facebook for the information that led my curiosity into yet another world of research.

The text of House Joint Resolution Number 8 begins as follows:

“
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

WHEREAS, With each passing year, this nation becomes more deeply in debt as its expenditures exceed available revenues; and

WHEREAS, Fiscal prudence requires that certain steps be taken to control the growth of the budget and eliminate excessive deficits; and

WHEREAS, Article V of the United States Constitution requires the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention upon the application of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution; now therefore be it.”

It really seems like a moment where common sense is departing from our collective human mindset when we require Federal Government empowering legislation to substitute for human responsibility. Why should our society continue to cover up our guilt due to a lack of responsibility by engaging in a lack of accountability through giving excessive powers to governing body that is, according the course our history has taken, guaranteed use it to their advantage in tyrannical fashion? After all, there is a hidden disgrace in the need for a civil rights movement, given the fact we’d taken strides decades before for equality that were largely ignored, despite their existence within our Constitution. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot over an issue that should have never needed to be fought, if only our society had taken up accountability for its passed actions and at point of constitutional corrections towards equality, engaged in moral thought.

Why do we need to take steps to balance the budget? The logic here is as if we are attempting to discover a corner inside of a circle. If only we could apply that word again, “accountability.” Through this, weed out of our jungle of a garden, all the unneeded shrubbery and weeds. If we have programs we thought could be beneficial, but are proving counterproductive and detrimental to our continued financial stability, why are we keeping them? Our society often plays a common responsibility card to cater to those individuals of society, by nationalizing charity, believing in a doctrine that states our government should cater us from the cradle to the grave. It was once Davy Crockett who stated: “Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” It’s this type of logic however, that more often than not, goes neglected. And instead of taking up responsibility for our fellow neighbors in our communities, by offering assistance when they may need it and helping our local charities, we banish these weakening pillars in our social balance to government, where we expect them to not use them against us.

Further, HJR No. 8 goes on to state the following:

“RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution, hereby applies to the Congress to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing to the states for ratification, an amendment to the United States Constitution containing the following provisions:

First, the amendment shall require the President to submit and the Congress to adopt only balanced budgets for all federal programs and agencies, except in times of war.

Second, the amendment shall grant the President the authority to disapprove any item or items in any bill presented by the Congress to the President in addition to the President's authority to disapprove entire bills pursuant to Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution.

Third, the amendment shall require the President to submit and the Congress to adopt budgets for all federal programs and agencies on a biennial rather than annual basis; and be it further.”

To begin, this entire amendment is technically ruled ineffective in our present state, for President George Walker Bush has engaged this country in a perpetual state of war known as the ambiguous and ill-defined “War On Terrorism.” Essentially, we’re giving powers to the President that will be ineffective for a period of time. Through this period of time, this power will either be utilized because it is declared necessary by the powers that deem it so, or it will be forgotten. With time, it will be forgotten over a period of time, only to be uncovered after fading from memory. Society shows us they are resistant enough of actual research into bills and legislation on current issues, but past bills and legislation are a story that is even sadder. This largely stems from the lack of emphasis upon the law in our educational institutions, beyond the absolute basics, like don’t murder or steal. We are easy to believe media stories at face value without an ounce of research, which will ultimately lead to our demise, for some readings of history will show that the fall of Republics and rise of dictatorships include a corporate or government control media that is appeasing to the agenda of the government, despite whatever that agenda will include. Is it now we should point out that our mainstream media has a bad habit of ignoring constitutionally relevant stories and certain other stories relevant to our continued freedom or liberty, or covering them just enough to spin them in a direction that would classify its supporters as tin-foil hat wearing crazies. What if this amendment were to come back and haunt us, when a future president claimed even more power through a twisted interpretation, and most do not question because of biased media outlet that just happens to be the one most of us turn to for our impartial news.

We have the Presidential Veto already and now this adds to the continued enlargement of the executive branch, as envisioned by various neoconservatives that control the Republican Party. According to the point this resolution makes, a president could not only reject a bill that he or she does not believe in for whatever reason, the president could chose to pass a bill but reject certain portions that conflict politically with various agendas that they could be opting to push forth. Giving the president powers such as this almost makes Congress irrelevant, for whatever they do, the president, at an elevated state of king, could dictate what moves and what stays, not as far as entire bills, but portions of bills. It would not only complicate law, but it would create a political and constitutional crisis in our nation.

And the last part of House Joint Resolution Number 8 states:

“RESOLVED, That this application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the United States Constitution until at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states have made application for a constitutional convention or the Congress has proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution equivalent to the amendment proposed in this resolution; and be it further

RESOLVED, That, if the convention called by the Congress is not limited in subject to the amendment proposed in this resolution, any delegates, representatives, or participants from the State of Ohio asked to participate in the convention are permitted to debate and vote only on the proposed amendment contained within this resolution or an equivalent amendment; and be it further

RESOLVED, That if two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states make application to the Congress to call a constitutional convention, the State of Ohio requests that such a convention be called not later than six months after the Congress receives the thirty-fourth application from a state legislature; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives transmit duly authenticated copies of this resolution to the Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore and Secretary of the United States Senate, the members of the Ohio Congressional delegation, the presiding officer of each house of each state legislature in the United States, and the news media of Ohio.”

It’ll certainly convince some people this effort is positive with the provision that states representatives of Ohio will not vote on any other amendments that could be brought up. But who is naïve enough to think that other states would follow suit. We are in a political arena where the majority of the politicians are self-serving and advance their agenda every second outside of open-lie season, or better known as election year. Ohio could back out of this one and they would be indeed standing by their promise, which would show some lines of integrity. But their efforts should not be to shield just themselves, but others from doing so. What will representatives of a liberal-dominant nation do to our Constitution without even considering public opinion? Why wait and see? It is common knowledge that the liberal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is extremely loose, commonly known as the “living document” interpretation.

Ohio can’t go through with this. It is illogical and it will be largely destructive to the continued stability of our constitutional liberties. For it was American Revolution and first President of the United States of America who once stated: “If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

What does this quote mean? It means that whatever be the means and reasoning for ignoring the Constitution, it will ultimately become the tool of tyranny down the road, even if at the time, its objective was for a positive short term goal. An example of this is the civil rights movement, which I mentioned previously. When we had to issue unconstitutional measures to reaffirm points already protected in law in regards to the rights of African Americans and equality among all human beings, we violated the scope of the Tenth Amendment. While indeed here it was for the best of interests to humanity, it in the long run, has damaged the power of the Tenth Amendment.

We cannot engage in destroying our Constitution, for whatever means. If we are truly a society who believes in itself, we will find ways to survive through means of selfless cooperation among ourselves, relying on government only for the purposes of maintaining order among the many states wherever it is justified and authorized by the Constitution, and handling foreign affairs also by the authorization of the Constitution.

This convention cannot happen, not when conservatism will have no true voice. It will a biased and controlled assault on our Constitution. It is a maneuver we cannot tolerate.

Please contact your State representatives and direct them to oppose whatever measures may come of this. It is important for the people to stand strong. And if again, our representatives fail us just as they did with the Wall Street bailouts, through ignoring our opinions, then we shall vote them out.

Whatever party you are registered to and whatever spot of the spectrum you reside on, it is important for us to stand for the most logical of ideals, and that is of liberty and freedom. Without it, we would not be able to have this discussion.

Defending My Conservatism

2008-12-03T10:00:00.000-05:00

Recently, it was suggested that I should cease to call myself a conservative. Now, why might you ask, was it suggested that I should no longer call myself such? Well, for those of you who have been following my writing for a considerable amount of time would be aware of the fact that last September I declared I would officially be going independent. This came after I had decided to depart from the Republican Party and avoid the Constitution Party, the former because of its radical shift to the left and the latter simply because I feel I should not be restrained by the platform of a leadership who is likely to contradict my viewpoints. But at what point do we call parties viewpoints and viewpoints of ownership to a group of human beings likely to manipulate at will to better suit their agenda? Well this is the question at hand, because I was told to cease my conservative title, in directly declaring I was not a conservative, simply because I had departed from the Republican Party. This isn't the first time its happened and I would put my life savings on the bet that it will most certainly not be the last, but I feel it needs to be addressed, because society is still succumbing to many social and political deceptions.

First, let's assert the basics, and that would be, historically, what is conservatism and what is liberalism. Now, shall we begin with the words themselves. It does not require an English major to understand that one means to be reserved and the other more willing to take action. Historically, we have seen the Democrats named the liberals, as the leadership has been primarily one of liberal origins and as a result, the party has directed itself in such a direction. For the Republicans, it is the conservatives, because of the same reason. But because of this, do we simply suggest that because of the beginnings that these facts will always be in existence? Let's cover some historical moments if we shall, and then make a decision.

Adolf Hitler, an aspiring politician who became a political mastermind with a tainted heart and a genocidal agenda. His rise to power was euphoric for a demoralized society, that being Germany, who became the ultimate scapegoat following World War 1, for reasons including, but not limited to, the actions relating to unrestricted submarine warfare. Out of nowhere came a man who offered change in radical format to a people desperate for answers to problems that seemed to be equations of impossible proportions. How would a society ever again regain its dignity if, under the rules of the treaties following the war, they were banned from various activities, including that of a military? We all know its an ironic thought now, considering the path that was taken by the society under Nazi rule, but let's allow ourselves to make one important separation. To this day, society is still unable to recognize Hitler the politician separate from Hitler the genocidal madman. As a politician, Chancellor Hitler was remarkable in the power he hoarded and in such amazing speeds. Now his message was undoubtedly one that was important to the German people. So now, let's revisit the question we are tackling. If beginnings define something that will be forever engraved in stone, never to change, then by that definition and ideology, Hitler was a prophet to Germany and he was indeed a truly incredible leader. Would you agree? After all the Jews, homosexuals, disabled individuals, elderly, and otherwise non-Aryan individuals, who were executed, could you adhere to such a mindset?

While Hitler was a socialist dictator, it is incredibly easily to dip into the communist wing of history and pull out someone who began sounding the trumpets of change and symphonies of equality, only to become horribly corrupt and a complete madman. Look at Russia, when it underwent several revolutions in the first quarter of the twentieth century, at the hands of leaders speaking of something that began with a man named Karl Marx. It preached hope for those less likely to succeed and excel in society. But what do we know, as well as those individuals, after the fact? Something went horribly wrong in the hearts of men and that turned an idea into a weapon.

The point here, is we cannot take an ideological firearm and stick it to the world, because eventually it'll back fire. People change and with it, all they influence will shift as well. Ronald Reagan, former actor and President of the United States. It is a simple fact known to all individuals with a decent amount of knowledge regarding to politics, that Reagan is the Republican Party's Franklin Delano Roosevelt. By this, I mean that they are of superstar status among the party, held to be a standard for all will of their activities and someone to aspire to be like. Now, here's where it starts to look bad for the Republicans, primarily the ones of this decade, the neoconservatives who hijacked the party.

We can establish a few facts regarding the Republicans' views as of this point in time. One fact is that, of course, Ronald Reagan is a true American hero. Whether or not you agree, he's held to be the pinnacle of conservatism in the Republican Party. The second fact is that you are not a conservative unless you are on par with the party's ideological viewpoint and platform points. Essentially, as some individuals will observe, it is impossible to hold a view point and not be in a designated party, because apparently parties are ideals. But as any party seems to do in this day and age, we find that they are very selective about the facts and comprehension of history, hence our jaded system of understanding in society and a common national incompetence of critical levels. Most Republicans will not tell you, or even dare to acknowledge it, that Reagan himself had once been a member of the Democratic Party, who had switched parties declaring that he did not leave his party, but rather his party left him. Now there are two reasons why this could never be acknowledged by the new-age Republicans. The first is, that in a world that has become disgustingly partisan and more party-obsessed, rather then accepting the bigger picture beyond party colors and animals, one party could never acknowledge their hero came from the other side. The Republicans' hero coming from the Democratic Party? Never. But this leads into the second point, which is that the Republican Party, as the Democrats are guilty of to an extent as well, is that ideologies are owned by parties, or even parties themselves. This is not true and it cannot be true. For if men can dictate the definition of views, far beyond simply switching them, then there will never be any comprehendible continuity to history. To an extent, there is already a fault in the system, as classical liberalism and the modern liberalism are two very different entities, but still, it is best for a society who wishes to understand itself, to maintain a difference between parties and views. The Republicans are more defensive about this latter fact however, because there is a crisis in the party.

As of lately, there has been question from mainstream Republicans regarding the more conservative types, commonly known as Ron Paul Republicans, because of their rallying behind Dr. Ron Paul, Representative from the State of Texas, and his conservative platform that appealed to those who felt otherwise alienated by the neoconservative movement. The crisis is the division, an internal civil war being waged in a bitter feud. The mainstream Republicans are angry because the conservative Republicans are not following the party's ideology that is shockingly left-leaning, and the conservative Republicans are angry because they feel that in an inexistent two-party system, a myth perpetuated by the media and the parties themselves, their only remaining outlet of hope, the party once of conservatism, has been stolen away from them. But of course, who is going to reign. The ones who rallied around Ron Paul, a former candidate who lacked any media coverage during the run for the Republican nomination, or those who rallied around the likes of Mitt Romney and settled with John McCain because they did not dare question leadership? The mainstream is the leadership, and as a result, they have come to dictate the party. Are we deviating from the original point of this article? Not at all.

Another point that many Republicans have all but purged from their memory is that President George W. Bush, the man who is otherwise infallible and justified in declaring the U.S. Constitution is just a damned piece of paper, ran on a conservative platform on the campaign trail in 1999 and 2000. The Republicans voted for him and the party leadership accepted him. But what was then-Governor Bush's platform. Primarily, it was the direct opposite of the then-current President William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton, who was infamous among Republicans and conservatives for his nation-building and interventionalism. Bush declared we must be humble with our powers, for as a super power, we must set an example. He preached an end to nation building and he boldly declared that we must not go around the world telling them how to live their lives.

Yet, let's look at this in retrospect. We are engaged in nation-building in two countries and we have participated in the conflict of Georgia and Russia, while contemplating India, and invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria with either all out invasions or simple strikes that in both cases, violate national sovereignty. This is not only a direct contradiction of conservatism itself, but of those conservative ideals that Bush sternly pledged to protect.

Now we know politicians are jaded. But Republicans hold George W. Bush to the same standard as Democrats do Barack Obama. What is this standard? He is infalliable.

This is something I refuse to accept. Not only as an American who believes in liberty and freedom, not only as a human being, but also as a conservative. I am not willing to succumb to an ideology, or lack of ideological free will, simply because the leadership of a political faction deems it be the right course. Conservatism and liberalism have homes on the spectrum. When we open a political spectrum in our research or our education courses, we don't see the titles Republicans and Democrats, with Libertarians and Constitutionalists, but rather we see views. We see liberals, statists, conservatives, and libertarians. But if they were truly synonymous, why would we go through the hassle of holding separate terms? Why not consolidate and simply write Republicans on the right side of the political spectrum and Democrats on the left? Because the answer is simple, things change.

As an informed individual, I refuse to blindly accept an individual because it is a trend of a faction or the movement of a majority. I refuse to declare that dissent is demonic or that questioning is unfounded. For as any individual knows, the day we cease to question those who will lead us into the future, is the day they take full advantage of us. Germany learned this lesson the hard way, when Hitler launched his war against the Jewish population, by turning a country into his tool and weapon in a personal ideological war against a group of people. But who would ever dream to question the man? He was after all, the one who would lead Germany to a dignified status, once again. And further, as these questions failed, the Nazis consolidated power by gaining control of the Reichstag and Adolf Hitler becoming Chancellor of Germany. The Reichstag was burned and this was utilized to become a dictator by definition, but only under the guise of fighting terrorists. People refused to question, because security is better than liberty. But this is an irony, for any whole understanding of history will teach us that in a sacrifice of liberty for security, we will find neither and the former will never again be acquired. For liberty is the contradiction and restraint of government, why would government ever wish to sacrifice this fact? It's naïve of individuals to assume we will again be given what was forfeited. But this is what the new-age Republicans, otherwise neoconservative individuals, have claimed. They have claimed Bush is in a war against terrorism and questions should not be asked.

Who ever asked if the attacks of September 11^th could have been prevented? You can't, because then you by that question are calling the integrity of government into question. Austrain economist Ludwig von Mises once remarked that government is essentially the negation of liberty. This is true. But we were told to not ask any questions and Republicans still shun those who will do so. Yet there was a Frenchman who was arrested by the French government for offering facts in an article that claimed his government's intelligence had prior knowledge of the attacks in America. Why was he arrested? The reason offered was that he was going public with government secrets. But it's a lie, correct? But then let's offer another question, and that would be, how can a lie be a government secret?

Let's not remind this country that Newsweek printed an article just weeks after the attacks, stating that several Pentagon officials cancelled flights on the 10^th of September for the next day, citing "security concerns." Let's not discuss those articles arising over time stating that the Central Intelligence Agency had warned individuals to stay away from New York City. They're all conspiracy theories, apparently. But even if they are, what is the hurt in questioning? Questions lead to answers, and even if the latter is not of your personal wishes and appeasing to your political agenda, at least you deviated from the norm of acceptance and let your voice prevail.

Republicans have adopted an entirely different platform that would disgust these heroes of their party. Barry Goldwater, long heralded as the ideal conservative and the one who molded modern conservatism, is of these men, and he had views that would otherwise be deemed Libertarian Conservative. Do any of these Republicans believe that Ronald Reagan would be proud of their status now? A leadership that owns the people and declares they are the view, not they follow the view. This is not only arrogant but it is absurd and ignorant. Then there's the unsung hero of conservatism, Robert Taft, who had stood for many conservative ideals as well. All three of these men would definitely not stand for it. But this is what it has become. And if you are against it, you simply cannot be conservative. It is impossible.

So what if Ronald Reagan were still with us, and had decided his party left him? We know he's willing to leave parties if they abandon his personal ideological and political philosophies. If he left, what would Republicans say? Would they tell him he is a traitor and he is not a conservative?

Liberalism has always been defined as tax-and-spend by the Republicans, accompanied by deficit spending and a reckless policy of interventionalism. As Dr. Paul noted in his presidential campaign, the Republicans were the ones elected historically to end wars, not start them. It was always the liberals who led us into intruding upon interests not directly relative to our own, but rather doing it for selfish political dealings. It was a liberal belief to invade and to build nations, molded in our image. But the Republicans are doing it now, but as part of an ambiguous term known as the "War on Terrorism", which is a psychological collar on society. For we have been pacified with the thought, that if you oppose this mission lacking a definition, you are a terrorist sympathizer and endorse the various terrorist attacks, such as the ones on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001, and those in Madrid soon after, among many others. But has anybody stopped to ask questions? How do we fight a war without a definition and without solid objectives?

Conservatives would never stand for this, not at least the true traditional conservatives. It's not conservative and it's not American. Thomas Jefferson once remarked that conquest is not in our principles. But pre-emptive strikes and wars have become as accepted as steroids in the National Football League.

After all of this, I rally back to my original point, which is conservatism is lost; conservatism is in exile. I left the Republican Party because it has lost its way. I have not left because of a few people I disagree with, because there is no such thing as complete agreement among peoples, because it implies perfection and it is something no human being could ever attain. But I left because the leadership decided to alter course and the people have accepted this without question and become the ideological foot soldiers of a new liberal Trojan horse, which is called neoconservatism.

Democrats have to be proud, because they have no enemies. They own the game. For in a society that is owned by a deception that there is a two-party system, despite there no word of it in our Constitution, U.S. Code, or any laws, they have control. Democrats are dominantly liberal and liberals are sneaking in the Republican Party. This is the real crisis and not one individual of the mainstream Republican faction of the party is willing to admit this. We hear the words conservative thrown around almost daily, but they are used to describe warmongering loyalists such as Bill O'Reilly, who have a lacking comprehension of history and earn a living praising George Bush like the Tories did the British in the Revolutionary War.

Conservatism is responsibility, because they are inactive when it is necessary and active also when it is necessary. Our irresponsible monetary policy that is the center of our destructive economic policy, is one that was instituted and powered by liberals. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was the first step in the eventual abolishing of the Gold Standard and full power of the Federal Reserve. Who really knows that the Federal Reserve is a private cartel of bankers exempt from federal and congressional oversight in most instances? Bankers own your currency and therefore, own your economy. Bankers can adjust interest rates, instead of letting them naturally adjust according to trends, and as a result, can tweak the economy to their own interests. And this is all in the name of a piece of paper with no inherent value, as opposed to a currency with its value backed in gold maintained in reserves, that can be actively exchanged for it retains a value at all times.

Conservatism is responsibility on the foreign scene. We cannot be parading around the world telling individuals how to live. What's a War on Terrrorism without a definition? Fighting the bad guys? Pakistan is a big facilitator of terrorism, with many operating out of the mountain tribal regions and have fed terrorist movements throughout the decade, yet Musharref was a close ally of Bush. Yet we're all worrying about Iran, a country with at most, a poke to their credit and over-active ambitions. This war is simply one that is on a word that is not defined, but only done so in temporary fashion, and that temporary definition is made for a specific action, and fades when the action is completed. This is a liberal policy, by actively invading countries and purging them of their governments, then remaining for nation building. When is someone going to point out that all of our enemies right now are our fault? We knocked our various democratic government who simply acted in their own interests, interests that just happened to contradict those of our own, and as a result, tyrannical and radical dictatorships were installed. Cuba, Iran, and Iraq are all examples of this policy.

I cannot endorse such a reckless policy. Who is going to point out that those accused of carrying out the September 11^th attacks were products of the mujihadeen, a radical Islamic movement bolstered by the administration of Jimmy Carter, under Operation Cyclone. This operation saw the usage of billions of tax payer dollars used to train radicals because we believed they would go after the Soviet Union. But we cannot make these points, because then we are terrorist sympathizers. Bill O'Reilly attacked and ignorantly disrespected the son of a 9/11 victim on his program, because this individual made the same point. He didn't say the U.S. attacked itself, but he simply observed what happened is something that the C.I.A. typically calls "blowback", or unexpected reactions to an action. So much for a "no spin zone."

Conservatism in the Republican Party is dead. The leadership killed it. Neoconservatism is liberalism and any reading of history will bring us to all the points described prior. This is why I went independent. I am a believer of philosophies, not platforms of men. I am one who believes in an ideal, that of being freedom and liberty, not an objective as defined by bureaucrats with influence over the psychologically and politically submissive.

Best served to the Republicans, as their hero said it best. I didn't leave my party. My party left me.

Restoring The Republican Party

2008-11-14T07:30:00.000-05:00

For a conservative, these are indeed the dark ages continued. For a constitutionalist, what we have is more of the same, which would be damnation to the liberty that once was the pinnacle of this nation's legacy. For a believer in limited government, the recent decades have been atrocious. For any of the above, conservative, constitutionalist, or limited government fan, these years have been horrific and scary. The Republican Party has abandoned its once prosperous foundation and followed the hijackers, the neoconservatives, into an abyss that is sending all signs of the ultimate downfall to the GOP. It would appear because of the disowning of the conservatives, the same fate that had befallen the Whigs will be picking its next target. This is not the total crisis, things are worse from here on out.

A party phasing out of the public eye would be considered, while monumental, not catastrophic in any other age, if it were not for the grand public illusion of the two-party system that has the entire American public submitting to a structure that is inexistent. Whereas early elections of this nation, just as they do now, had several presidential candidates, today, only two of them are accepted legitimately by the majority. So what would happen if this party phases out? Considering America believes there is no future outside of the two parties and is absolutely clueless and oblivious to the past that did indeed exist prior to the inception of these parties, all indications point to single-party rule. If half of America pins themselves to a sinking ship and goes down with it, then politically, we're left to the only left battle cruiser the majority feels is worth floating on. There are no starting a movement, because we have become a society that believes that revolutions are useless. What an irony, though, that in a society where we believe real change for the better, though a concept and ideal in the minority on the political scene, is too radical and unfeasible, we simultaneously engage in radical policy of socializing society.

The Republican Party once had heroes. There was a day and age when the party could be held high, because of individuals of principle such as Robert Taft or Barry Goldwater, but now there's a jaded pride in leader's not even worth consideration in terms of credibility and principle. The conservative wing of politics used to dominate heavily, on principle that the government works for the people and that society will prosper when the people can live freely without fear. But now the Republican Party paints a dystopic landscape with abstract colors, where the only way the grays and whites can be eradicated by sending more civil liberties to the end of their lives than President George W. Bush did individuals to death row as Governor of Texas. The fear mongering has led them to their downfall and the stunning thing about this is the fact that the party created this countdown clock and followed the hands all the way to zero second.

First advice for the Republican Party, whose leaders and rulers are acting scared and lost with a desperate need for direction, is to purge recent memory and banish those associated with it. John McCain needs to be left out of the major scene, he played the election to a miserable degree that essentially handed Barack Obama the presidency, because long after even right wing individuals began sounding their discontent with petty and trivial figures, he still continued. What were conservatives left to believe in? They always attacked Mr. Obama for his outright refusal to discuss policy and concentrate on empty rhetoric with muscles of eloquence, but now because of Mr. McCain, this entire argument was hypocritical, as Mr. McCain stopped talking policy and more about college professors. It should be noted however, that most true conservatives had been disillusioned by the party since President Bush began has war on the constitution by using his infamous catchphrase "terrorism" as a blank check defense for every maneuver. The current administration represents a new dominance in the Republican Party, one of radicalism that shares the interventionalist obsession of former President William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton, among other views that left conservatives feeling alienated. But regardless, whether or not you are conservative, you cannot deny that the pinnacle achievement of the Republican Party and its core defining movement was conservatism, not this liberal neoconservatism.

Other individuals that need to be forgotten are anyone involved with the run for the Republican ticket, minus Texas Representative Dr. Ron Paul. All the Rudy Giulianis and Mitt Romneys need to be forgotten. This is an age where the Democrats look like angels to most of America because they have a candidate that has been groomed to look like the savior. Much of those considered big in the Republican Party, like Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney, are surrounded in corruption and deception, with questionable records that leave multiple open wounds for an opposing politician to have too much fun with. It is not only wise, but simply common sense, when running to undermine a man crafted as uniquely above the demonized partisanship of American politics, to chose a candidate whose record has minimal wounds to be struck.

Another point to be observed, is that if the Republicans ever wish for any credibility in the eyes of the nation, they need to start restructuring their party's philosophies. Supporting the War on Terror, which is simply an ambiguous catch phrase like Cold War or War on Drugs, that has no specific objectives with defined terms. When you say you are fighting terrorists without clearly defining who the terrorists are, this leaves open translation and interpretation to mean anything from something bold and heroic to something dystopic and orwellian. Any individual would agree the revenge against an individual or group of individuals who have committed acts of violence against us should be brought to justice, but leaving an open ended war without foreseeable end is engaging in a conflict without victory. Ideally, who would wish to fight a war costing billions of dollars that is unwinnable? That is not even a question relating to partisan politics, it's just a simple process of logical application of reasoning.

While we're discussing views that need to go, perhaps the party should reconsider being the party of ideas and not of fears. One would think that if there really was a two party system, when one acts, the other would be opposed. Yet, when the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 passed and began the steady destruction of sound American economy by the liberals, the Republicans obviously didn't make enough splashes and to this day, lie in complete submission to a corrupt monetary system that revolves around paper as currency that carries no inherent value. The Federal Reserve is a private cartel of bankers exempt from congressional oversight, despite their total control over the U.S. dollar, and are free to print this currency whenever they wish. When this occurs, they destroy the value of the dollar at the expense of the people, which is essentially stealing, for the value once saved and held by Americans in savings accounts among other types of accounts, decreases as the dollar dies. Now in a party of ideas, seeing this continue by the policy perpetuated across the aisle, there would be an outcry. But as we've seen, the Republicans are opposed to any real action, at least one that is of logical foundations. But one most know that the only way this party will regain prominence is by igniting an internal revolution with fresh ideas, not stale old ones that have been destroying the party for over a decade at the very least.

An idea needs to define the party and it has to be a new, fresh idea, at least new and fresh to the mainstream. It doesn't even have to be as big as abolishing the Federal Reserve and seeking a more responsible monetary policy, but could be one such as abandoning the doctrine of wasteful spending in our interventionalist ways. Perhaps recalling at least a significant portion of those troops in the triple-digit amounts of countries we occupy, while only declaring war and acting in aggression when it is absolutely necessary, but when convenient to business benefits or power hoarding. Excessive interventions and frequent invasions gave Mr. Clinton a bad name among conservatives and that is why President Bush spoke against it, in terms more favorable to a humble, noninterventionalist policy, when campaigning for the presidency in 1999 and 2000. But when he abandoned this policy and the Republicans followed suit without question, in such an blind manner, they essentially contradicted their own complaints about the Clinton Administration. What did the party hope to accomplish with hypocrisy and contradiction, especially by abandoning the conservatives that helped establish their party as a political force?

The party needs to regain honesty with itself, as ironic as it sounds when spoken in regards to a political entity, but it needs to happen. The party cannot be changing spectrum corners and hoping those in the original position will just simply follow because of party registration, its naïve and its insulting to the intelligence of the members of the Republican Party. If it is going to remain liberal, then it must accept the fact it will probably tank as a dominant force. Actual liberals of the Democratic Party will not go to the Republican Party because of its history and despite its current liberal-leaning policies, it still has traces of opposition against their platform under the Democratic Party. So whereas the only logical reason for a party to dramatically switch its views would be to attract new members, the Republican Party has performed the action without the positive reaction, but instead with a negative reaction through the alienation of its conservative base, which happens to be its largest crowd.

This policy is even more ironic, considering all the liberal-bashing that occurs in the party, because if anything, the recent actions have helped the Democratic Party dramatically. By driving the hope out of many traditional conservatives, the Republican Party is left with neoconservatives and moderates that cannot carry the weight of the party without a majority to vote them into position. So while there is still staunch opposition to liberal policies, at least by the words that are fired off the tongue of a Republican, they are clearly engaging in the liberal policies and assisting the liberals through damaging their own party.

It is important to realize this, more than ever. Because the people are unwilling to consider third parties in any capacity beyond using Ralph Nader, unfairly, as a scapegoat, we are left with the two main parties. When one is rising, the other needs to be combating, not self-destructing. The Republicans will only regain their rise if they can abandon the neoconservative movement that is injecting Republican politics with a breath of liberal air.

Sarah Palin, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney; forget all of these individuals. If Republicans wish to regain credibility, they must abandon the failing machine. Perhaps, people should start researching what Ron Paul has to say, whose stunning popularity among young people would help the party where it fails to attract support. He has popularity among traditional conservatives, who the Republican is quickly losing ground with. It is time for the party leadership to start thinking selflessly in order to accomplish party supremacy again. It is the only way.

The Election: The Morning After

2008-11-05T21:30:00.000-05:00

It was just the night prior that the election process had concluded in a democratic manner with history being made. And for that history being made, perhaps pride can be found in a nation that just a hundred years later was having difficulties respecting a man of color as an equal, has now elected one to the office of the President of the United States. But the problem is, that while it is a stride, we cannot become entangled in the trend of electing our leaders based on superficial qualities such as skin color or sex. Because as a white man can perform evil and corruption, a black man can do the same equally, as can a woman just as men do. It must be to us, if we are to be responsible citizens, to make decisions based on policy as it will be that policy that make our reputation on the world stage either perceived with hostility or admiration. If we neglect policy then we have subjected ourselves to a fate that is essentially held in the roll of the dice, as we do not know our direction. And it is for the sake of policy in such a dangerous chapter of American history, that I feel the way I do.

The President-Elect was determined shortly after eleven and I wasn't surprised to see it. Every poll since the media's adoration for this man began has placed him in the top seat and with a significant lead. The negativity of the opposing candidate helped seal the deal, as when attempting to take shots, he failed to make legitimate points and instead targeted trivial issues. But that was just the problem; America has developed an obsession with the trivial issues of this country. Instead of focusing on the media-neglected facts of U.S. strikes in Syria and Pakistan, we worried about professors at universities and we worried about how many homes somebody owned. We declared one like Bush without actually knowing the fullest extent of Bush's constitutional damage and we declared the other socialist without even knowing just what socialism is. Bush has become but another piece of the list of profane words in our vocabulary and because of such, we feel we do not need to define it or offer explanation for a connection we make to this word. Likewise for socialism, as it like liberal or communism, has become a word that is like a javelin we simply use to strike the hearts of politicians and their supporters, without knowing how to hold it.

People have said to me, that they do not comprehend my level of disliking towards a certain candidate or his opponent. Perhaps my point became clear last night, at least to myself, when I finally realized what this nation has become and where it may be going. It's not the candidates that are the problem, it is the people; we would not need to be concerned about candidates if people exercised a level of knowledge regarding all of the facts, then the corrupt candidates would not get in.

Republicans obsessed over William "Bill" Ayers and Democrats over the Keating 5; the list could continue, but it feels almost pointless at this moment in time to detail it. America knows the list because it has been the only thing they've been able to discuss. We haven't been able to discuss the growing national deficit that is in double digit trillions, or the fiat system under the Federal Reserve that has been the wizard of trickery in our economy with artificial interest rates and monetary inflation for almost a century. Likewise, we have not discussed the fact that we have been intervening around the world for shadows in the dark using a road map that is written in invisible ink. We stormed into Afghanistan following the horrible attacks of September 11, 2001, and we did so in the name of bringing down Osama Bin Laden, a man notorious for his disliking of the United States of American and one who was instantly pinned as the one who organized these attacks. Yet, in 2006 on the Tony Snow Show, ran by the late Tony Snow himself, Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney had stated "We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming." Nobody noticed as the second in command in the United States of America confirmed that the only reason we had for striking Afghanistan was one that was illegitimate. But we took it to another location and struck Iraq, where we paraded around with different excuses such as the search for weapons of mass destruction, without actually defining the term (which as to be covered later, was a trend of the Bush Administration) and connections to the hijackers of September 11^th. Yet, as a former officer of the Central Intelligence Agency observed recently, the C.I.A. had received a letter from the White House demanding that a letter be forged that would create an undeniable connection between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the hijackers of September 11^th. This fact went neglected as well. Now recently, we've been quick to believe that Russia is an imperialistic demon, but we make such declarations in such irony. If any research on the part of a single American had been made, it would been discovered that South Ossetia had declared their independence and wished for a democratically-elected government. Georgia denied this declaration and invaded, slaughtering many. Russia came in to assist and then went into Georgia to ensure they learned their lesson. Now this is much like the story of September 11^th, as there were many Russians who perished as a result of Georgia's invasion and Russia first came to their rescue, then proceeded to invade in the great name of avenging those dead. But by the logic of Americans, we are the only ones allowed to be notorious for revenge and imperialism. America still hasn't even noticed the attacks on Pakistan and Syria that were unjustified invasions of foreign borders and violations of their national sovereignty to govern and police. But this has been a trend for America, to incite anger throughout with our actions, and equally, it has been a trend for the people to consent to these actions, while expecting that some people won't get mad and want to strike vengefully. It is ignorance that never ceases its hold.

It has become a sad day in America when people can no longer engage in a fruitful debate that involves intelligence and eloquence, but rather, we resort to throwing words that have become less positions on the political spectrum and types of government, and instead, have become more words resembling profanity. I know this, because every time this previous discussion relating to an interventionalist policy, and how besides these specific instances, we occupy over one hundred countries across the world, I am declared a liberal. But if anything, these positions are conservative and it is because of this neglected fact that the Republican Party has succumbed to its demise through its own denial of its identity and glory. As Dr. Ron Paul, congressman from Texas and former presidential candidate, once remarked, the Republican Party once were the ones called in to stop the endless wars and wars without just foundation, but now are the ones starting all these interventions. We already had the Democratic Party, as evidenced by President William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton that believed in an interventionalist policy. As evidenced by history, the Democratic Party has been the party of interventionalism. If the opposing party is supposed to be indeed the opposite, why is it in agreement with such a policy position?

This draws upon another flaw of this election, as in all elections of the recent, and the mind set of all of America: the inexistent two-party system. What I, rightfully, have difficulty understanding is the democratic justification of a two-party system. If we are to have a Republic safe from tyranny and built upon liberty and freedom, we must be reliant on the fact that there can be no majorities anywhere in our government. This was known as factions, and the Father of the United States Constitution James Madison wrote against this in the Federalist 10 of the Federalist Papers. Majorities do not operate for the will of the people, but will create that illusion come election time. Majorities prevent impeachment actions towards corruption, therefore nullifying this check against the government, but still hold the power to use it as a political maneuver against unfavorable candidates. Majorities can also operate for a selfish doctrine that benefits only themselves, as they have no incentive to help the greater whole of the nation. This fact was known to a group of men who fought for and founded this country who had lived under the tyranny of the Great Britain. This is why a two-party system was never created and is not found either in the United States Constitution or the United States Code. The language of the Twelve Amendment suggests that we knew this doctrine, as states "and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President." Yet, if we truly have a two-party system, why is it they said three and not two?

The media is not education, the media is madness; just as the government, as Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises once remarked, is the negation of freedom. Government is indeed required to maintain order, but as our founding fathers had intended and every believer in freedom since have insisted, the government finds their power from the consent of the governed. So why are we, as a civilization, refusing to ignite an act of peaceful revolution against an illusion? It's been acknowledged by many they vote Republican or Democrat because they are the lesser of two-evils, but why must it be confined to these two? The only reason the third parties do not get more votes, is because America is unwilling to change. And it is because we remain the same that the corruption will continue to breathe safely in our policies.

It was a frequent excuse in this election that we are in it to make history, by injecting either a female or an African American into the White House. Yes, the argument can be made that this would be a long stride from the demons that the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. had fought, but we are still succumbing to the same demons, just in a different light, if we are still making decisions based upon sex or skin color. We are as evil as the demons we create, but we are only as great as the demons we overcome. As far as I'm concerned, we jumped over a climax that turned out to be a cliff. People wished to deprive our society of segregation, but we have affirmative action that operates by means of racism and we have educational institutions and scholarship establishments that base their enrollment requirements and cast their decisions based on race and sex. We cannot, as a society, claim to be fighting demons when we are allowing them to only change costumes and continue to live among us. It just does not work that way.

With all of this said, it is where I come to this morning, the morning after November the fourth, when our election for the Office of the President of the United States of America had concluded. We had elected the candidate of the Democratic Party, Barack Hussein Obama Jr., to lead us forth over the course of the next four years. And I am ashamed. I am ashamed not because I am racist, because I am not; this issue, contrary to what the media claimed every waking moment of this election, is not about race. As I've always stated, I concern myself only with policy and further relevant conduct, whether it be personal or professional. Mr. Obama has run alongside the catch phrase of "change" and somehow ignited America with a sort of thought process that is both flawed and misdirected. Do not mistake me, I find it extremely wonderful that more were participating in the democratic process in such an energetic and enthusiastic manner. But we have elected based on rhetoric and catch phrases, refusing to observe policy in depth and acknowledge relevant influences.

And by relevant influences, I do not mean the likes of Mr. Ayers or Reverend Jeremiah Wright, even though they may or may not have influenced him. I mean the individuals who are directly involved with his campaign. His Top Foreign Policy Advisor was Zbigiew Brzezinski, a man who like Mr. Obama, is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations, which has helped perpetuate such a reckless interventionalist policy. Mr. Brzezinski was also National Security Advisor under President Jimmy Carter, and headed Operation Cyclone, which was the infamous spending of billions of taxpayer dollars to arm mujahideen and ignite the Islamic extremist movement. Like everything else done during the Cold War, which was another period like the War On Terror that is defined by fearful rhetoric, it was justified as for fighting the Soviet Union and everyone who questioned it was therefore a Soviet sympathizer. Under Operation Cyclone, we armed what would become the Taliban and even armed Osama bin Laden, who the United States Government and the mainstream media would come to blame for the attacks of September 11, 2001. Instead of striking the Soviet Union however, they went everywhere but there, and we had created a demon that would come back to haunt us. And it has haunted us not because they attacked us, because as Vice President Cheney observed, there isn't evidence to suggest that, but rather, this has haunted us because it offers a blank check for action by making scapegoats and patsies out of these individuals.

Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with the likes of Mr. Brzezinski, Steve Flynn, and Joe Biden, who are all men who have been apart of the same scene for years. I've never been able to comprehend how America believes that change can occur with an entire administration built with the same pillars and bricks that have constructed the foundation for Washington D.C. for decades. Much less, Mr. Obama has voted "Present" instead of "Yea" or "Nay" over a hundred times in his political career and if he is unable to make a decision and stand his ground on controversial issues in the Senate, how is he expected to raise an iron fist against all the demons of Capital Hill, that involve everything from corporate entanglement to lobbyists and neglect of the United States Constitution and deficit spending.

Do not mistake me, for I am not a supporter of the Republican Candidate John McCain. I believe Mr. McCain has shared the same flawed logic, despite the fact he stands his ground a little bit more and discussed policy up until he resorted to negativity and smearing. Both of these senators have been apart of the Washington machine for enough time to make change, but Mr. McCain has instead stood by as the past administrations have exploited the American people and Mr. Obama has voted "Present" more times in his only term than most politicians do in a career. What we've been forced with in the lie of the two-party system, is that these men were our best decisions. I do not believe that and I will never believe that. We are the United States of America and we have always had the land of opportunity. But what is opportunity, if a man cannot attain an office in the political arena without being certified by the policies of the mainstream. It would be all but rigged and decided by a few good men. These individuals who would wish to acquire attention from a concentrated corporate-funded media would have to be acknowledged and rubber-stamped by the elite of either party, and they literally have to appease them. Dr. Ron Paul evidenced this by running on the principles of conservatism, which was always the legacy of the Republican Party. Dr. Paul has a consistent record and has nothing incriminating on his record. But because of this genuine record for the people of his constituency and the rest of the people of America, as well as the U.S. Constitution and conservatism, he was shun by the Republican Party. They refused to let Dr. Paul speak at the Republican National Convention unless he conformed and the media was alongside in refusing him coverage until he finally suspended his campaign.

We live in a flawed world. If people are going to save their country and its future, for not only them but their children, then they must inform themselves. Books and the internet are two valuable tools and they must be utilized. In books and on the internet you find information, and on the internet, you can also find independent news sources that will report on things that slip by the mainstream media. It is through this, that we find knowledge.

America has failed itself this election, by believing in a two-party system that doesn't exist and therefore opting for evil, through the "lesser of two evils" excuse. Such an excuse made by atheists and Christians alike, the latter one against evil. I am not meaning to attack Christians who voted two-party, I am simply remarking that it is unfortunate that I have heard many Christians and members of other religions who claim to be principled against evil, vote for whatever candidate because they are the lesser of two evils. Evil is evil. If you believe it is evil, you should not vote for it. Would these people not vote for Jesus Christ because he's in the minority of the opinions of America, but rather most of America despises this figure in religion because of his moral ground and the religion itself, or for whatever other reasons.

We can make excuses and we will always make them. They will be made along the way and there won't be a ray of light to be offered upon us by any angels in the near future. We have succumbed to our own demise as Americans. Not once did the politicians discuss in detail fixing the federal deficit, reinstating the power of the United States Constitution or even the rule of law for that matter, as well as our failing monetary policy through the Federal Reserve. To an even further extent, most individuals who voted for either Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain are unable to cite the exact numbers upon the federal deficit and significant events, programs, or legislation that contributed to this. They are unable to refer to specifics referring the U.S. Constitution and that is why they refer to this country as Democracy, despite the fact that this document states the United States is to ensure a Republican form of government and Thomas Jefferson, president and founding father, had stated Democracy was nothing more than mob rule where fifty-one percent of the people can take away the rights of the other forty-nine. We are a Republic, as we believe in the rule of law, and we kept the democratic process involved in order to ensure the public would keep things in line. But to another extent, most people don't know barely anything, if it all, regarding the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Fiat Monetary System, or its effects on the economy through manipulation of the money supply that is dependent on pieces of paper with no inherent value, and manipulation of deceitful artificial interest rates. These candidates refused to talk about these issues. Why? Because it is real change and the real change would put the corruption out of business.

All of this sounds radical, but it is indeed conservative. It has become a sad day in our nation when to be conservative and reinstate conservative principle, it is a radical action against the wave of the social status quo to do so. We have strayed that far away from our principles, and not in a positive manner.

I still can't believe America. I can't. This was my first presidential election and I felt proud to vote in it, and when I looked around the Internet, the enthusiasm was encouraging. I saw many who pledged their support to third party candidates. But then I felt annihilated deep within my heart, to see that turn out was less as many sold out the neglected third parties for the corruption that has haunted the halls of Washington and all of its institutions for decades. I felt crushed, grinded, beaten, and torn. I couldn't write this at all last night because I felt nothing. I was indeed upset because of the course we have chosen, but it was like it wasn't there. I couldn't feel pride because people had such a whole hearted intent by becoming so involved in the political process. I couldn't feel at all. I felt as if everything had been ripped from me.

And perhaps it could be called sad to feel such a way over politics. But people must realize that politics are not irrelevant to existence. Politics are the future of you, they are the future of myself, and they are the future of our children. Every single precedent we establish now and every single precedent that our politicians set, will affect our futures and our children's futures. This is why we must be careful, to ensure that the freedom and the liberty of the Republic and its United States Constitution is still in existence for our children and their children to cherish.

But the problem is, we won't start changing until we start learning. And in order to start learning, we have to cease partisan bickering. Problems in this world are not inherently red or blue, they are only converted into matters either modified and bolstered by such colors of the respective parties that have only attained and held power based on a lie society refuses to reject. We must apply logic and realize that change cannot come from these two parties. These two parties have both had majorities at many points in their history and we still stand on a foundation of lies and corruption, with tyranny weeding the garden of growth extensively. All of those individuals who realize that our problems will not be solved without sacrifice and a reinstatement of monetary responsibility and the U.S. Constitution, have left these two parties. Even then, those who have chosen to remain in the party for such relevant change, have been shun by the leadership and will never be allowed to surface because of the fact they will fix the corruption that has made these men sleep in a bed of money and power. This is why Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel did not when the Democratic nomination and this is why Dr. Ron Paul did not win the Republican nomination. Kucinich fought fiercely for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney, two people who most Democrats agree has hurt this country. But fellow Democrat Nancy Pelosi, among others, have refused to hear it. Mr. Gravel has had a history of fighting the opposition and realizing that concepts such as the Military Draft are not justified constitutionally and should not be forced upon individuals, as it was a founding principle that we should not be forced to support something we do not believe in. Dr. Paul has a history of the same, while fighting to restore the Gold Standard, which has a history of monetary success, while wishing to restore the power of the law and the U.S. Constitution. All of these men proven fighters against the status quo and yet received little coverage and were refused by their elites.

People will have four more years to learn about this mistake. By acknowledging only two parties exist, we have set ourselves up for failure, as the two party system is nothing more than one step away from single party rule. What we have created this election is less than Democratic, but giving the presidency and the majority in all of Congress to a single party, therefore granting them the whole power to decide our fate. As previously stated, parties do not and will not act for the good of the people, and history is evidence of this.

We must realize our mistakes. Because if we do not, we have only pushed the fast forward button to our demise.

Question 1: Fed Up With Augusta

2008-10-27T09:30:00.000-04:00

One of the hottest issues facing the citizens of Maine is the referendum that resulted as part of a People's Veto campaign to overturn the extremely undemocratic tax increase for beverages and health insurance claims to benefit the failing Dirigo Health program. It was undemocratic purely because of the circumstances in which it passed. To highlight the mindset of the politicians on the left wing, the Maine Democratic Party, it apparently will benefit the people by ignoring them in a process involving the fruits of their labor and proceeding to tell them how their futures will be better regarding a program that they were told would be doing more than it is. The midnight assault floated by and with just the Democratic majority, the tax was passed under the guise of helping out the health insurance reform program that was first introduced by Governor John Baldacci a few years prior. While the state swaps steam over the issue of whether the Dirigo Health program is still needed and whether our already absurdly high taxes should be jacked again, the real question at hand is left in the dark. The real question is this: When will the people again become part of the process?

There has been a Fed Up With Taxes campaign that championed the democrat process by allowing people to vote on this measure. While yes, the purpose this group brought forth this People's Veto petition was to rid us of it, we must not lose sight of the benefit this group has brought, whether or not you support it or not, and that is the right of the people to vote again being returned to them. Where do the Maine politicians get off doing this to the citizens who elected them?

Now let's make one point absolutely clear, this article is not dedicated to denouncing Dirigo Health, as it is also not in favor of it; Dirigo Health is not the question at hand, but it will be discussed. The real topic that needs light shed upon it is the dangerous precedent being laid before us and how the state has either become pacifistic or oblivious in light of this development. This is by no means an insult to them, as most of us lead heavy lives and keeping up with the cost of living, aside from the burden of every failed program that is more like a revolving door of disappointment, it is difficult to keep up in this state. And the proposed cure for the cancer is always tax. People are fed up with taxes, obviously, but they continuously support the measures that'll cost money and taxes will be a given to support them. So from here, we should sort out our thoughts.

The efficiency of the Maine government is something that is lacking the logic one might expect from high level officials who had previously spent election season boasting how much closer to saving the world they were, or were appointed or hired by those individuals. And as all Mainers are by now more than well aware of, Governor Baldacci's idea of fixing the problem was with more complications, with the school district consolidation that was basically lacking any instruction or initiative by the Maine government besides a firm warning to get it done and fast. So it is safe to assess that our government has been engaged in a vicious cycle of complication and taxation, which has apparently served us well. Here's a new concept for the books: slash the faulty programs and make our wages for state employees be more logical. If we don't have as much social welfare programs, we eliminate the requirement for taxes. It's a simple mathematical equation. There are two ways to get to four, either from "2+2" or "(1+5)÷2+1." Wouldn't it make more sense to get straight to the point and not dance around an answer more than a politician does with a traditional simple policy question?

Essentially, this is what we are doing. But at least, this mistake was once ours to claim; now this mistake is made by our politicians on our part. And the mistake is not so much to fund a failing health program but rather to do so through with undemocratic means. If we simply allow our politicians to pass taxes for programs they freely create, without even inquiring as to what our feelings and opinions might be, we are setting the precedent of ignorance towards the democratic process. Politicians have nothing to lose here, as they make enough of our money to create more failing programs and then complain that we are facing deficits of immense proportions and that the only alternative is to raise taxes. Where were the people at the preceding step? We don't need taxes if we stop the needless spending in the first place.

People simply need to vote no on these types of initiatives and if they are either not even asked to begin with or are even overridden or ignored, the politicians who are showing a lack of concern for anyone other than themselves should be removed from office. Unfortunately, we as Mainers are not blessed with the power of recall and will have to wait until the next election; the bad thing is, most people allow these events to fade into memory and come election day will vote for these identical politicians.

This question, little do we realize it or not, is about more than simply whether we wish to have our taxes again go up.

And it's unfortunate there is still a question. Yes, there are many uninsured individuals who require health insurance and there should be available and affordable health care for them. But ultimately, the people cannot afford to be having taxes be raised on them in the largest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. Instead of simply applying a political trend of tax and spend without worrying about how bad this'll sting down the road, we should be seeking a policy of reform. This attitude towards the system would be more beneficial.

Returning to a previous point, this question involves much more. This question allows for either the confirmation or the rejection of the policy that our politicians may chose to seize more of the fruits of our labor without our consent. Where has been Maine's elite through all of this? The ones up for election right now who claim to be concerned about citizens, who have taken no iron fist against this point and even voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, also known as simply the bailout, despite being decried by the many citizens who clogged the congressional switchboards and bombarded inboxes. So despite the people in such masses proclaiming that they wished for something not to pass, the politicians with an ego crisis, claimed to know better than the people on what to do with their money.

Our politicians have done nothing but betray us. They've cheated and they've lied; the people must again become the speakers of their money, of their government, and of that government's employees.

If there is support for the integrity of the republic and its democratic process, then people must vote yes on Question 1. This is not because of the Dirigo Health program, as previously discussed; there are more efficient ways to support it. This is simply because it was forced on us without our approval. There was no vote or public hearing, but rather a majority of Democrats who believed in violating our trust and the democratic process by satisfying the shortfalls of their failing program. We must stand by accountability. Vote to shoot down the tax, because it is undemocratic.

And furthermore, each and every individual involved in deflecting our opinion and advancing this tax, needs to be voted out. This is the next step in returning to a state of accountability.

Is Maine ready?

Baldacci's War On The Constitution

2008-10-25T01:00:00.000-04:00

As a Mainer, as a strong supporter of the United States Constitution, and a strong supporter of the free world, the deception of the record of Mr. John Baldacci has been as almost as disgusting as his record itself. Like any other politician playing a simple game of take up arms against the United States Constitution, he turns around with a series of like-minded politicians behind the scenes who are willing to cover these tracks with matters that seem trivial in comparison. Sure, some of these matters that Maine tackles are of the utmost importance to Mainers, but people must also realize we cannot erode our one source for freedom in the process, or everything we fought for could be taken away and the federal government would be well in their rights to do so. Americans frequently enjoy the rights of speech, among others, and will remind anyone who attempts to obstruct them. But much of them are unaware or unwilling to know, where these rights are derived from. This document is the United States Constitution and that specific right is found in the First Amendment, along with the right to assemble, free practice of religion, press, and petition the government for redress. His record shows a willingness to violate this document, all the while, the mainstream will proclaim his willingness to assist the well-being of Mainers. How is this statement of any logic whatsoever? How is it possible to assist any body of people within the United States of America while eroding their rights? It is an illusion and the people have sat sleeping at the wheel for much too long. And John Baldacci, former member of the United States Congress and current Governor of the state of Maine, is as guilty of such an offense, and exploiting this fact of a people unwilling to protect their rights.

Voting alongside fellow Representative of the state of Maine to the United States Congress, in 2001, Mr. Baldacci appeased the Bush Administration's beginnings of tyrannical revolt against the American principle of freedom and liberty. Yes, it was right after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and America was rightfully living in a state of fear. But why must people forget the fact that fear has been the greatest weapon of tyranny in the history of humanity? Adolf Hitler utilized it as a politician in Germany, a country that had been stripped of all integrity after being demonized to an extent where they carried all blame for World War 1, and from this he led Germany to an era of brutal and unthinkable oppression and inhumane tyranny. Although it is arguable we have not reached such an extent, we have created the possibility and the possibility should never exist. Because whether or not you believe that this current administration is subject to tyranny, all future leaders we are unaware of now, could exploit this hole in the law by perpetuating a game of fear and lead us to a fire. The only difference is, you and I, and our friends and family, could never emerge.

Returning to the topic, this vote I speak of is regarding the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, or the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Believe that this has kept us in a secure state of protection and security? Consider these wise words by founding fathers who faced tyranny of their own and an uphill battle for the freedom we've enjoyed for two centuries. The first is of George Washington, a general in the American Revolution and the first President of the United States of America, "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Now the popular retort is they lived in different times and therefore, their views are obsolete. Well, providing a retort to that claim, if anything, we are living in worse ages where governments now have powers of sophisticated crowd control weaponry and a military far beyond that of what any imagination could think of. If anything, Mr. Washington's ring of a stronger truth. And it reiterates the point previously made, that any usurpation of the United States Constitution, even if for the immediate good of the people, will always become the tool utilized by tyranny to overthrow the power of the people. It was also Mr. Benjamin Franklin who declared that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a temporary state of security deserve neither. Now this statement was not out of spite, but out of a truth protected and reinforced by precedents in history that suggest people never regain this liberty that was sacrificed for what they were told would be a temporary period in time.

But let's make one more point to: Mr. Baldacci's assault on the United States Constitution was not just a betrayal committed alone. Representative Tom Allen, who is currently running for the United States Senate, also voted alongside Mr. Baldacci for the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Furthermore, both Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe believed in voting for the Bush Administration's hoarding of power and centralization of power, which was not only a violation of the United States Constitution, but President George W. Bush's campaign promises to return to conservative ideals of noninterventionalism and decentralization of government.

What's worse about this is the title of the act is propaganda at its best, by implying it's a patriotic act. Since when is it patriotic to abuse our rights and allow them to usurp their position as servants of the people?

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 has allowed the federal government to hoard a wide array of powers. Among these is the National Security Letter, which can be issued in order to obtain any of a wide array of information and records regarding an individual. The catch is that whoever may obtain this NSL is unable to speak to anyone about this, even their lawyer, or they are punishable under federal law. They are essentially forced to comply with the federal government's demand and are left defenseless and powerless. Now before America should fire back with another retort claiming this is for the good of security of the United States of America and its citizens, consider this: In 2007, the Associated Press had reported regarding a federal judges order that the Justice Department release thousands of papers relating to the papers recovered under the NSL program and the Electronic Frontier Foundation had reported at least a thousand possible abuses by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, this information recovered using the Freedom Of Information Act. This is aside from the illegal wiretapping program that even goes further than former President Jimmy Carter's unconstitutional basement judicial posse created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Essentially, Mr. Baldacci, alongside Mr. Allen and Mrs. Collins and Snowe, endorsed the destruction of the Fourth Amendment and our constitutional rights, because they proved weak and easy to succumb to fear when fear is a time to call for strength. The people require it for their futures to not be in the hands of a consolidated power.

This infamous four also voted to outlaw the Tenth Amendment, with this act and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The Tenth Amendment specifically states that all powers not specifically granted by the United States Constitution to the federal government, or prohibited by it to the states, are therefore left to the states. If you were to tell me this is for the future of the children, I would tell you to scroll up just a little bit further and reread the quote from Mr. Washington. I can tell you as an individual who recently departed from the school system, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was a nightmare and raised standards illogically. This was a collective opinion among students and educators alike. I would never name the educators who have confided opposing opinions however, because as I also observed, the school is an institution and runs like a bureaucracy of officials who are loyalists to interests and are not interested in the voices of their employed educators or the students who are being fed the education. This is just the society we have created. The school system is important because it indulges us with history, which is of the greatest tools we must utilize, because it provides precedents of knowledge that we could use in our opposition to measures that could otherwise harmful to the futures of us or our children. Setting aside what the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 did or didn't do, it is still an unconstitutional measure that violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and gives more power to the federal government and continues to endorse the existence of an equally unconstitutional existence of the Department of Education. The federal government should not centralize anything that is not absolutely required to maintain our stability as a nation and our educations are jeopardized if the federal government can tell us what we should or shouldn't know and how we learn it. It is an issue that should be left to the educators, or at most, the states. But clearly, these four individuals are unwilling to acknowledge this or think far enough to comprehend it. As governor, Mr. Baldacci is still further lacking the will power, as he has appeased its existence and continued to lie down and play dead for the federal government.

What about when the Real I.D. program was introduced by the federal government? The illogical existence of the Department of Homeland Security, an agency that is largely unneeded as we already have the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, among other federal institutions, is worse enough. But the fact that DHS, behind Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, have introduced legislation that would centralize the records of every American in a federal database is going to an extreme extent that is much too far. Not only is it unconstitutional at the very least, it is dangerous and unthinkable, at best Orwellian, as it will allow our federal government and all of its officials to have access all records in their own private database and be able to track all of our happenings and travels though it. This is also under the guise of fighting terrorism as part of the ambiguous War on Terror, which is a sham with no end, just like the War on Drugs. It is also under the guise of fighting illegal immigration, something our government has shown absolutely no initiative in fighting thus far. Terrorism fighting itself is ambiguous because Mr. Richard "Dick" Cheney, the Vice President, had specifically indicated on the Tony Snow Show in 2006, that there was no real evidence implicating Osama Bin Laden of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. There are videos, right? But yet, Mr. Cheney stated that there was no real evidence. Furthermore, there was never presented evidence justifying the invasion of Iraq, at least evidence that was legitimate. Then there were revelations that the White House had specifically requested of the C.I.A., a forgery letter creating a connection between the airplane hijackers of the attacks to Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government. Why would we need this if there was already evidence? This suggests we are fighting a false war against an enemy that is merely a shadow in the dark, a shadow created by nothing more than a puppet of men with interests. And we are forfeiting our rights for this?

Much credit has to be given to the Maine State Legislature, as both houses opposed the legislation and passed a resolution denouncing the legislation because of the high costs that would be left for the Maine public to pay for, which would essentially be paying to have their rights removed at the hand of a federal government wishing to centralize its powers. Unfortunately they made no mention of the United States Constitution or even specifically, the Tenth Amendment of that document; but nevertheless, they made an admirable attempt to oppose the legislation.

Only if Mr. Baldacci felt the same.

Instead, he issued a letter declaring he would seek to alter the Maine driver's licenses to appease the federal government and its Real I.D. law. Now look back at what was just mentioned regarding the legislation and consider the fact that this questionable administration would have full control of your records in a central database. And consider further that it would make criminals have easier time in obtaining these records, as all they would have to do is hack on single database instead of fifty different state ones. This is a criminal's dream, both for the rogue outlaws and the ones on the federal level. And Mr. Baldacci has endorsed this position.

The Real ID Act of 2005 had never taken vote in the United States Senate, but instead was attached to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005. And instead of fighting this horrid attempt to hide tyranny and demand it be removed from the bill, Mr. Allen and Mrs. Collins and Snowe voted for this act that hid, and were joined by the U.S. Representative who replaced Mr. Baldacci who took the Governor's seat in 2003, Mr. Michael Michaud.

What are we doing as Mainers by allowing this destruction to our rights to continue? What are we doing as Americans in allowing these precedents to be set, as they will be utilized by other governments in other states to further appease the federal government in their acts of tyranny?

As Mainers and as Americans, or most importantly, as human beings endowed with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is important to stand strong and oppose these acts. If they are willing to do this to us, we must vote them out, then seek alternatives through other politicians, even if they are members of the third party or of no party at all. We cannot stand by the status quo expecting change, for it was Albert Einstein, one of the most knowledgeable men of the twentieth century, who observed that insanity is the act of expecting change through the repeating of the same process.

Are we insane?

Well, we still have John Baldacci, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Tom Allen among us.

The Ignored Issues Of Importance

2008-10-18T08:00:00.000-04:00

It has become increasingly apparent that our country and their people, alongside the media who has held us upon a tamed leash, have developed a dangerous obsession with issues of the most trivial of nature. While there is a great crisis surrounding our country in our economic and political policies, the structure of our law and the continued existence of our Constitution has become one of broken nature because of such an obsession. When we should be posing questions regarding a restoration of the traditional policies of this Republic, the ones that served us well in our strongest of times throughout history, we are holding the scope of focus upon the irrelevant fact that Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant. When we should be worrying about the fact that there are whispers of Russia teaming up again with Cuba in a dangerous alliance while Russia is joining forces with Hugo Chavez, one of the most anti-American leaders in this age, we are really worrying about how many houses Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain owns. When we really should be worrying about the fact the Federal Reserve is every reason why inflation occurs and worsens, we are involving ourselves with a pastime terrorist now employed by the liberal college system and a twenty-year old scandal in William "Bill" Ayers and the Keating 5, respectively. We are forming a reputation, as citizens and registered voters, that we are tamable creatures who can be pacified through simplistic logic and even simpler understanding. Instead of firing with the most difficult of questions, we are instead greeting this individuals who one day may be directing day-to-day operations in the United States of America, with questions of incidents of decades past that hold little sway in the policies of the current and immature remarks such as "lipstick on a pig", while comparing people to segregationists. So when people actually begin to do this, although it is a rare art form, people like Mrs. Palin will complain because they are faced with difficult questions and some candidates even cancel future appearances because of these types of questions. What are we doing as Americans?

First issue is related to the economy, which everybody is rightfully concerned about. There are issues involving the Stock Market being more like a roller coaster with more nosedives and the up-hill moves are like attempting to climb up a steep eighty-five degree angle mountain. How come nobody has asked any of these candidates about the Federal Reserve and the dangerous complications of the Fiat System that our monetary system is based around? Our monetary policy has been dying off since the American Civil War; when we began slipping on our reliance upon the Gold Standard up until President Richard Nixon finally cut away the last traces of it from it. But the one point in history that stands out is when the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was passed, and since that day forth, our entire monetary system ahs been run by a union of private bankers who can freely print off money with no real value. Our paper money is dependent upon its scarcity, like a baseball card, it will carry more value with its numbered existence, but as we continuously print it, slowly the value will degrade. But does this bother our bankers? Shame is not a quality they know, as they know when they print off the currency and loan it, it will return with interest. Because the Gold Standard is no longer in existence, we no longer require our money to have any solid backing, and we can print money as freely as possible. Through this, the Federal Reserve has sole control upon the inflation and deflation of the economy through contraction and expansion of the currency circulation. It was through this, the economy collapsed and led us forth into the Great Depression, as we grew too large for reality to cope with and eventually the weight of an economy that could no longer be sustainable fell in on us. It is in this day and age, we don't think twice regarding the consequences of every news report that reads "Fed pumps millions into the economy" or "Fed pumps X amount of money into X." Do people realize that this money the Federal Reserve will pump is printed off and therefore degrading the value of the dollar? So essentially, when we lessen the dollar value, the prices of our products, such as food, will rise to sustain the dollar increase. It does not happen right away however, for it takes time for this new money to circulate. Generally when the Federal Reserve injects money into the economy, it is handed to large corporations and to banks. They will be able to enjoy the money because it is fresh and since it has not yet circulated, there will be no inflation yet. But as they spend and this new money will circulate throughout our economy, the prices will rise because of the weakened value of the dollar. This is the reason that Congress will never investigate these trends of the Federal Reserve, as most of them take significant donations from firms and banks that receive this money. Because of this, it would be a brilliant point to bring up to either of the two mainstream candidates, as both of them are members of the United States Senate. But again, it is these questions we neglect to ask and as a result, the topics go ignored in our society.

Another topic of interest regarding the economy is the infamous bailout package. It entered the hands of the House of Representatives as a three-page document from the Bush Administration and soon had so much pork added to it that it would put a slaughterhouse to shame. Not only that, there were much provisions that were overlooked that were deemed as power-grabbing by those few who did observe this. Of these various provisions were moves that would give unprecedented and unjustified powers to Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson. Does it seem strange to some people that they need our tax payer money, alongside our willful submission to more power hoarding on the part of the Executive Branch? Perhaps, you could consider this fact: if the economy was really in desperate need of money, it would have freshly printed money from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the rest of his bankers of the private cartel. Now it is hardly a justified assumption to think we may be growing more responsible with our monetary policy, by instead of printing it off, we went to use money that is already in existence, because several times since the passing of the bailout, the Federal Reserve has indeed printed money off to inject into the economy. Much less, on a more moral ground, why did the bailout even pass if there was an unprecedented negative response from the people, as evidenced by the overloading switchboards and inboxes? Why aren't people observing that this could be a power-grabbing technique and questioning our candidates about their opinions regarding this? Why aren't people asking why both of these men, who both claim to be of significant distance to President George Walker Bush, have again sided with this man in his policies?

Another topic is freedom and liberty, which you hear both candidates declare with such empty rhetoric and most of their supporters cheer without a second thought. But what really are we cheering for? Let's consider something of recent memory, the Bush Administration. Once the brutal attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred, the administration wasted no time waging a war on our Constitutional rights. Just weeks later, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was shoved through the throats of Congress, as they were not allowed to view a copy of the actual document until just before voting, and prior were allowed only a summary provided by the Bush Administration. McCain voted for this act with Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, and they also voted alongside Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama in the subsequent authorizations in 2005 and 2006 that saw some sunset provisions extended into 2009. Many people live under the misconception that we are being protected by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the amendments made to it by the reauthorization acts of 2005 and 2006, but it is much of the opposite. People do not realize it, but because of these acts, we are handing the terrorists a victory. The terrorists despise our freedom, the government says, but they also hate us occupying most of the planet, as just a simple application of common sense would also suggest. So if they don't like our freedom, why are we helping their cause by taking it away? The USA PATRIOT Act of 2002 saw the destruction of the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, with the Due Process clause of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, alongside the further centralization of the Federal Government in violation of the Tenth Amendment, and the Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 1 Section 9, among some other erosions of constitutional rights. Now I'm sure that much of America can agree on the fact that American Civil War general and first President of the United States of America George Washington was a principled leader and a wise man, so it would be an intelligent maneuver to adhere to his wise words of warning regarding the usurpation of the United States Constitution: "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." So even it were for a purpose of good nature, it would eventually become a tool for tyranny. But still, we allow ourselves to use security as an excuse to feed power to the Executive Branch and all of its agencies. What oversight does the National Security Agency get? They say they do, but it's passive, at best. But also listen to the wise words of crusader against the Central Intelligence Agency and NSA Frank Church, who back in the seventies, warned us with these words: "I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return." But what is the significance of all of this? The fact is we are giving our Federal Government every Orwellian power they ask for and all three of these Senators have consistently voted for it.

Want to stretch the scope of this one? Perhaps what is ugly about this situation is the fact that McCain quietly distances himself from President Bush while Obama and Biden openly declare their opposition to this man. But as evidenced thus far, they've been more than willing to give him more power. Let us discuss the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 that gave President Bush even more reasons to launch a Martial Law declaration along with further powers. Now why on Earth would we want to give President Bush more reasons for a declaration of a scenario for which free governments never return from, than the absolute worst of moments in security such as a planetary catastrophe? Regardless of the thought, again, even if it is for a good cause, it will eventually become the tool for tyranny at some point down the road. It was with this, that Senators Obama, Biden, and McCain pledged their support. We should continue forth onto the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which amended the unconstitutional Foreign Intelligence Security Act of 1978 to give the Foreign Intelligence Security Courts power to apply some of the principles of this unconstitutional court that operates off-the-record in a basement, to United States citizens. And again, it was upon this act that all three men sided with Bush.

But in all truth, why is any of this relevant to our coming elections? It is important because we must apply common knowledge and principle to actual records and of history itself. History will teach us great lessons in our travels throughout our present day problems, and if we do not learn these lessons, it will be an inevitable catastrophe. For once George Santyana once provided us with the wise words: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." We must comprehend the relevant and purge our strongest of attention from the most of trivial topics, for if we fail at this, we fail our country and fail its freedoms that the patriots that are our Founding Fathers strived and fought so hard to secure. We cannot destroy our United States Constitution and disobey our Laws, for if we do, we compromise our principles as a Republican government built on Democratic principles. We will effectively rid ourselves of our freedoms and liberties. This election is vital and America must create new channels of thought, and through this, real change can occur. This change will come either through electing third parties or directing the currents of the main two parties, the Democratic and Republican Parties, to begin appointing leaders of principled integrity who stand upon foundations of secured consistency and sound reasoning. It has been agreed upon by a majority of the American public, as evidenced by the extremely low approval rating, that our current administration is failing us in such a point. So why are we electing leaders who agree with the principle of this administration in expecting a rise to prominence, a prominence that we have so miserably deprived ourselves of, and furthermore, a hope that currents of change will occur. Change does not occur in the status quo, in voting up legislation that will annihilate our freedom and leave our Constitution in peril and turmoil.

For it was one of the most brilliant minded men in the field of science in the twentieth century, Albert Einstein, that once remarked "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Why are electing men who agree with just the same? Why are we investing faith in change with leaders that are agreeing with the norm and insisting in continuing the policies of the status quo, while only altering positions when it assists a negative effect in brilliant camouflage of change and danger, guaranteeing us security if we forfeit? Why must we forfeit? The government is the public servant and we must elect leaders who will be faithful to us. Do the above politicians sound faithful?

All revolutions start with small beginnings, as unpopular movements that people will be hesitant to join because there is the illusion that it will be ineffective. But as numbers accumulate, others will join the currents of change and the waves of such will disrupt the moments that haunt us with tyranny and brutality. If it be in our interests to sway the swing of our civilization's course, then our government must be in obedience. It was after all, the great minded writer of Mark Twain who once said "The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them." We are the power. Our vote is the greatest tool that has been given to us. This election will be important for principle. And it is with these two quotes you shall be left with:

"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."
-Eugene V. Debs

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
-John Quincy Adams

The Obama Crisis

2008-10-15T09:57:00.000-04:00

Little does much of America know, there is a battle being waged right now in America that could play a larger role on American politics and the coming election than any of us realize. Just after Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was officially declared the Democratic Nominee for the Office of the President of the United States, Phillip J. Berg filed a lawsuit against Mr. Obama claiming he is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America. Thus far, there have been motions to delay the release of evidence and protect Obama's citizenship records.

Mr. Berg is a member of the Democratic Party. He has stated his reasoning for targeting his own party's ticket is in protection of the United States Constitution. This is geniune, as he is not a member of the opposing Republican Party playing mind games with dirty politics, but rather a member of the identical party with legitimate ground regarding the issue on Constitutional grounds.

The claim that Mr. Obama is not a legal United States Citizen. Various pieces of evidence have been brought to light thus far in this election. As some of you may know, Obama's mother, Ms. Ann Dunham was a U.S. Citizen where as his father, Barack Obama Sr., was of Kenya. Now the claim at hand states that contrary to what Obama's birth certificate states, the one made public through his website, he was actually born in Kenya. This controversy was apparently started even before Mr. Berg's lawsuit, as Obama's Kenyan Grandmother had indicated that Obama was born in Kenya and received his citizenship on false grounds when returning to Hawaii. Regardless of birth facts, Obama Jr. and Dunham had left for Indonesia where they met Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro. The claim further states that Obama had gained Indonesian citizenship and according to law, Indonesia does not allow for dual citizenship. So even if Obama had been a U.S. citizen prior, he would not be at this point in time, therefore forfeiting it.

This isn't even the crisis though, this is just the trigger.

While Mr. Berg has brought forth an interesting case with very harmful implications either way, our political process will be damaged either by the revelations of Obama's lack of natural born citizenship or by the tactics of dirty politics if Berg is proven to be false. This is a constitutional issue. If it is found that Obama is not a natural born citizen, there will be a long string of politicians who could be implicated in connection to the cover up and this could crack upon several cans of worms that would be disaster.

But suppose Obama is found ineligible for office and is purged from the ballot? What happens to the Obama supporters now?

They could vote for John McCain, their arch nemesis, as they believe there is only a second party with a chance and therefore, only one answer. Or they could not vote at all, and as the polls show, that is the majority of the voters currently, therefore creating a low rate of voters who are mostly McCain supporters, also handing the election to McCain.

Why the hypotheticals? Because it is extremely important for America to realize. It is the business of the American people to understand this issue. Not because of partisan politics, because one person despises the man or another adores him. Berg himself stated he is a Democrat and has not cited political issues in this case, but rather constitutional. It is important more than ever to attempt to return ground to the power of the U.S. Constitution, as if it is diminished any further, we find no more hope for the future of our liberty and freedom. What if we establish a precedent where an individual who is not a natural born citizen is elected to the Presidency? Who might walk in now?

Let it be made clear. This is not an attack upon Obama, nor his supporters. This is not even to make a judgment relating to the case of Phillip J. Berg v. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. This is to highlight the backlash we could feel if Obama is purged. Because if he is, that leaves a huge range of voters left. Over half of the American people left undecided just weeks before the election is dangerous.

It places more upon the voters who were going to cast their vote for Obama, because they are in the spotlight. Do they violate their integrity and vote for John McCain? Do they, in a different way, violate their integrity, and not vote at all? Do they lose their vote still casting for Obama who would be proven ineligible? Or do they roll the dice and seek the third parties?

It becomes a question of politics versus principle. If they opt for McCain, then they will live with the consequences of a leader who they believe directly opposes their principles as members of the Democratic Party. If they opt for the third party, they must quickly research the notable individuals such as Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin, as well as Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr.

We stand now, less than a month away from the election. And if Berg v. Obama is decided anytime between now and November 4th, there is a greater crisis in our voting system where voters will opt for the only party standing in a two-party duopoly or will they search further for a candidate that best suits their tastes?

Or, if you would like to talk even uglier hypothetical scenarios. What if Obama is found to be ineligable, after he is elected, and prior to his taking of office in January?

A Change Of Affiliation

2008-10-14T03:30:00.000-04:00

There comes a moment in the lives of every human being when decisions must be made, regarding integrity and regarding principle. For the course of my duration of time upon this Earth, thus far, I've combated contradiction with the best of heart a human being could attempt to provide. It has been in recent years, I've found myself undergoing a serious reawakening of principle and integrity. Once a liberal-leaning Republican, I was in question because of contradiction and took blind-uppercuts at George Walker Bush, blind only because they were the wrong reasons provided for an ill-informed mainstream that channels only the convenient truths that are, in all truth, ironically, diluted and therefore a mistruth and even a lie. As I discovered fault in my youthful tendencies to oppose the establishment for unfounded reasons, I found sanctuary in the belief that the administration was in providing for the greatest of securities and faith for our nation. We had a chance to believe and if we could take out the terrorists such as al Qaeda, we would sleep peacefully at night without a worry, for we were strong. But then, I had the awakening. Opening my eyes to the harsh truths of the two-party duopoly, I learned that any security in anything will be achieved through traditional conservatism, which has been our only true basis for securing freedom and prosperity, and that I could no longer depend on a party that had committed its best efforts to abandon the policies of Barry Goldwater. And so I devoted my energy to the Constitution Party, because I believed in the United States Constitution, a document that is the ultimate timeless tool that will give us reason to call upon our patriots to defend the name of freedom and liberty. But in securing this philosophy further, I have found further fault in contradiction. Come forth, a new awakening; my reawakening.

To reaffirm for the record, I shall acknowledge the contradictions regarding some of the political parties we are faced with, in relation to my philosophies and beliefs.

The core of both mainstream political parties, the Republicans and Democrats, are essentially in agreement. Being in disagreement with the Democrats for the entire course of my existence, it is almost repulsive of me to assume the Republican Party could provide any grounds for suitable and efficient solutions from this point forth. There is an acknowledgement of the infamous War On Terror, a term coined by the administration of the current commander-in-chief, George Walker Bush. It was a term that knows little boundaries and has become a blank check reasoning thrown in the void of justification for every maneuver as equally ambiguous and illogical as the term itself. Not since the as equally infamous War On Drugs, have we seen a term with no clarified boundaries or objectives in a logical sense, become the forefront of our national ideology and as such, become the grounds for our policies both foreign and domestic. While the Democrats slander the Republicans in aggressive chastising in regards to operations such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which triggered respective wars and subsequent occupations, they still proclaim that there is a desperate need to address the topic of terrorism throughout the world. But where are we to begin in clarifying this, if Iraq and Afghanistan are not the answers to the question? Perhaps the question we should be asking is the fact, that a question with no foundation has no actual answer beyond a subsequent question of legitimacy.

This is only the beginning however, as starting with the violent attacks of September 11^th, 2001, we have witnessed an unprecedented centralization of the Federal Government, which is to much of the dismay of those who actually observe the fallacy in these maneuvers, a direct contradiction of policy and rhetoric that served as basis for Bush's election in 2000. We needed to purge ourselves of the policies that served as pillars to that of the administration of William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton through the nineties. This meant a steady decentralization of the Federal Government and ceasing in our interventionalist attitudes around the globe, which would be, a true conservative movement. But it never arrived and since, we've witnessed damnation of our liberties in the guise of defending freedom. Why so fast, did we attempt to erode our rights without attempting to pursue global terrorists on legal grounds? Just weeks after the attacks in 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was shoved down the throats of our United States Congress who didn't think twice about how damaging this was or how suspicious it was that they were not allowed to actually read the document when it was first introduced (assuming they still actually read documents, which recent history seems to suggest a strong no).

I could go on forever, but these grounds are covered in previous pieces and are clarified through everyday ramblings that haunt the halls of my domain. But in regards to the Libertarian Party, I find myself in agreement with much of their doctrine, except for some areas. I believe that abortion should be not left up to the individual. Not only do I see this as a social and moral issue, I see it as an issue regarding life. I believe life begins at conception, for as even in the womb, at the earliest of stages, it is life that is blooming and life that should be given rights as it is unable to defend itself. A fetus, being a life still in development stages, is unable to protest the inhumane practices of traditional, but still inhumane procedures or even the more cruel and unusual procedures such as that of partial-birth abortions. But given this belief, I do not believe in giving such a power to the Federal Government, as the powers granted it as by the various articles of the United States Constitution and the Tenth Amendment of the identical document, do not include such a matter. I do believe States have every right to step in regarding this matter and should be able to regulate these areas. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, not only because it did overturn countless State laws regarding the topic of abortion, it prevents them from passing any subsequent laws regarding an opposing doctrine, despite the fact they are allowed to do so under the powers granted by the Tenth Amendment.

So when it came time to choose, I opted for the Constitution Party, believing in a policy of limited government and society abiding by moral principle and the United States Constitution. And I still agree with their philosophies to a strong degree, as I do with that of the Libertarian Party. But like in regards to the Libertarian Party, I find fallacy in various areas and even if they were minor in comparison to the pressing issues facing us socially, economically, and politically, they are still areas of contradiction never the less.

I'm making a bold move at this point in time. I'm not sure how it will affect me, more so to the future of my political ambitions. It is reassuring that I come from the same State that had elected Angus King years ago, who found himself with the affiliation status that I will be embarking upon. What is this new political party affiliation?

That affiliation is no affiliation. I feel I'll work best not be constrained to any political party's doctrine and answering to contradictions between myself and those of establishments. I'll be an Independent.

Citizen's Impeachment

2008-10-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

The process of our government relates to that of Democratic functions beneath the principles of a Republican government. We have a standard of law laid forth by the supreme law of the nation known as the United States Constitution, which has stood for the freedom and liberty instituted at its time in unprecedented levels and still to this day, has yet to be matched. But the unfortunate truth facing our society now is the fact that the modern state of the United States of America is even unable to match it, as we've diminished our stance on freedom by steadily banishing our principles in favor of an illusionary state of safety, one that is damaged more by our internal corruption rather than the global opposition. This goes unnoticed by the mass population because of the simple fact that it gets cleverly covered by a willing mainstream media.

But there is a certain power that is invested in our leaders, known as Impeachment. This was inserted in our U.S. Constitution for the sole purpose of accountability against tyranny and abuse, for as human beings, we can be easy susceptible to evil and corruption. So we have genuine reason to trust our leaders are working in a positive manner, because of this check, right? Incorrect, as in fact, this check only works when there is a balance. If the inner workings of the devious and the corrupt must be banished from the places of power, it is the responsibility of the opposition to undermine their efforts to purge us of our principles. For if we fail at this, we have failed our nation and created a state of fear that will hold us hostage for the rest of eternity. And failure only amounts from imbalance and inactivity, the former being a result of the latter.

As observed countlessly over the years, the U.S. Constitution is more of an instrument than a fort. We cannot depend on the U.S. Constitution solely for our protections, for it is a dependent relationship we have on it and vice versa. It is not a fort that will protect us, for it has no physical aggression mechanism or defense one, yet, it provides the weapons for such actions to occur. It is up to us, as United States citizens, to utilize the instrument of freedom and liberty as a protection against the tyranny that wishes it be removed from existence and power. Nothing is guaranteed as the insurance is not in existence. This is why the U.S. Constitution's continued existence in a place of legal power is dependent on the patriots who, in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers, act in compliance with our U.S. Constitution to protect it from the powers of corruption that wish to manipulate it and even abort it's continued power.

Something more is required however, and what we have is proving increasingly insufficient. As human beings, there is the "right to revolution", which is first identified in association with the United States of America in the Declaration Of Independence, and has been inserted in various State Constitutions including that of New Hampshire. It is a fact, that if a government of democratic and republican principles is to thrive and survive, it must be subservient to the people, for if it usurps that position and enlarges its scope over the people as opposed to under, what we have created is if not the possibility for one, an actual totalitarian government. A Federal Government cannot be expected to act for the goodwill of the people when it has the power to burden the people with its mistakes and remove from the people, their power to keep them in check. What obligation does a government have to its people if it can push them around and expect no whiplash? It's a simple question that with the application of even simpler logic, is met with a conclusion that, for every citizen of this nation, keeping in mind our roots, should be common sense. For this, we have the power of Impeachment.

It is a stunning paradox on the part of the citizens who ridicule politicians as part of some social cliché on a near daily basis, yet when it comes down to holding accountability, they turn their heads away or simply issue a basis for defense declaring they have done no wrong. Is ill will not punishable enough? It's just a feeling with some small actions and without any significant swing of events that give us the apocalypse; they should be left to their own devices, right? There is another issue that needs to be addressed and that is to offer attention and scrutiny to the problem prior to its peak of power rather than after that peak is attained. Why? Because in most cases, especially in a modern era where technology enables evil men to do the unthinkable by bringing to life science fiction's darkest secrets, when the powers that be acquire the power, they generally have a sufficient plan to maintain that power. In other words, we can indeed light the fire on the rope to leave them at risk of burning on their own actions, but in all reality, we are really pushing them higher out of reach. We must cut the rope rather than pushing them to the top, by exercising our power to maintain accountability through peaceful and democratic means as invested in us by the power of Impeachment.

But what can we as citizens do? The leaders do not listen, most claim. This is a true accusation, as most of the politicians refuse to acknowledge the fact that the voters have opinions unless there is a camera in their face or they are kissing that voter's baby or shaking their hand. We offer votes to the most devious of individuals wishing for forward results from individuals who serve the contrary. Our only positive reinforcement is the fact that the media explains to us, in a very manipulated manner, issue "news" that is really well crafted propaganda, that proves all our fears false. But it is for us to make the judgment, through the power of education. As citizens, we have an obligation to become knowledgeable and oppose the great plague of ignorance that is haunting our very existence to this day. For our only safety in thought is ignorance and for the moment it may serve us as a cure for our apathy, but it is anything but a cure, and rather simple appeasement. We appease our apathy towards our neighbors and their well-being by indulging myths that our politicians will always step up to the plate for us, so on our part, we have no obligation to step forward and keep in check our leaders. This poison will come back to choke us in the end, when the power is finally acquired to turn our world upside down.

Impeachment is a powerful thing and it is my belief it should be used at a much higher rate. But most individuals proclaim it a tedious task and therefore should be avoided. I hold a contrary observation, as if we exercise this in a manner that is as frequent as it may be required, than it will instill the fear in our elected officials, that if they do wrong, it shall be brought to light and we will hold them accountable. Not only is this sacred in the principle of justice, it is also our constitutional right to impeach a leader for any wrong doing that is harmful to you, I, our neighbors, or our U.S. Constitution. Protection is necessary, but it all begins with the requirement of intelligence and education in a constructive and productive manner.

This continues to my point, that I believe, a power should be invested within the people to petition for a civil proceeding to occur for the impeachment of an elected official, known as a "Citizen's Impeachment." We can no longer expect Congress to fulfill its duty, as they have proven to be individuals of self-serving interests. We do have officials who act for the integrity of our nation and its laws, and the U.S. Constitution, but they are in a small minority. Impeachment relies upon the dignity and goodwill of the men and women in our Congress, even when the people will it. But this situation with the bailout of the corporations reveals that Congress will refuse to listen to the people, despite a very apparent public outrage towards such a large sum of taxpayer money going towards the higher class. When the people speak, they are ignored.

The structure for such an idea would begin with a petition that with a sufficient amount of signatures could bring forth a proceeding similar to that of a lawsuit, towards an elected official. It would not be an actual lawsuit however, as it would not seek to inflict any criminal penalties or gain damage compensation, but rather to remove the elected official from a place of power. Any further lawsuits seeking penalties to be inflicted of compensation be collected could move forth however, as able to happen after an official has been removed from office under a normal impeachment proceeding.

If the people had this power, whenever wrongdoing is engaged in by any elected official, we would not have to rely on their friends to act against them. It is in the vein of revolution, a right of any oppressed individual and as observed in the Declaration of Independence. We must be allowed to act in protection of our republican government, for even though a revolution is the last resort and a guaranteed one, it would also equally wreck our form of government and take much time to resurrect. Such disarray should be prevented prior to its peak of power rather than removed after the prominence has been attained. For if this could be done, then it would be a great safeguard for us, the people, and our rights and freedoms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Our continued liberty depends on it.

The 2008 Presidential Election; perspectives, my endorsement

2008-09-10T21:30:00.000-04:00

My endorsement for president, who I'd be voting for if he wasn't booted from the Maine Ballot, is Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.

The reason being that if we are to come forth for real change, we cannot operate under the status quo. Insanity is defined as repeatedly doing the same actions in hopes of different results, which is what we've been doing voting for the same two parties for years. Parties can be purged, altered, and destroyed. Where are the Whigs?

Baldwin has voiced his opposition to the globalist movement which will slowly claim U.S. national sovereignty under the United Nations, NAFTA, NATO, and the proposed League of Democracies by John McCain. We are a nation that was founded on the principles of noninterventionalism not for the purpose of what McCain calls isolationism, but for the purpose of avoiding unneeded wars and conflicts. As Thomas Jefferson once said "commerce with all, alliance with none."

Being a member of the Constitution Party, Baldwin is a strong supporter of the U.S. Constitution, a document that has for a hundred years been trampled underfoot. A common claim, popular on the left, is that the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" or that it was written two hundred years ago and is unneeded in this day and age. This is wrong; if anything, it is needed more than ever. Baldwin would help restore it, just as Dr. Ron Paul would if he were still in the running. We need our rights because without it, we're doomed away from our Republican foundation of government and it's Democratic qualities.

Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, and Cynthia McKinney are all on the same wavelength and Ralph Nader especially, has proved to be very knowledgable in the area of government abuses. But I support Baldwin.

John McCain is a neoconservative and as a result, we will continue to see the doctrine of interventionalism and world policing that has been popularized by the Bush/Clinton dynasty. We will continue to see the Federal Reserve breathe and destroy our monetary policy and hinder our economic security. Even more dangerous is McCain's tendency to be an appeaser and a moderate for all the wrong reasons.

Barack Obama is no agent for change and he proved that by chosing a man who has been apart of the Washington D.C. machine for a few decades. He's operating on lies as part of what David Axelrod described as a campaign of "personality over policy." Axelrod is his campaign advisor. Obama has roots in radicalism and has associations with members of the Weathermen who hold no remorse for the bombings and murders of innocent Americans just for the purpose of waging wars of relentless and pointless anger. Obama also ignored the Cook County machine under both John and Todd Stroger, refused to act against the corrupt Mayor Daley, and has associated with convicted felon Tony Rezko. As a Senator, Obama refused to act on all these and even made the Senate by participating in dirty, old politics to purge all the others.

The latter two candidates, the ones of the main parties, are no agents for change and are of the status quo.

Please, vote for third party. It is not a wasted vote; the wasted vote is voting for someone because they are a little less evil than the other, while knowing that he'll bring out just as much destruction to our domestic, financial, and foreign policies as well as our liberties, as every other member of the two party system in recent memory.

If you want to return to a limited government United States of America, under the U.S. Constitution, then vote for those who want it. If there's ever a time to start a Revolution, NOW, is the time for that Revolution to begin.

---

My current ranking of the candidates is as stands:

1. Chuck Baldwin [Constitution Party]
2. Ralph Nader [Independent]
3. Bob Barr [Libertarian Party]
4. Cynthia McKinney [Green Party]
5. John McCain [Republican Party]
6. Barack Obama [Democratic Party]

Inheriting The American Legacy

2008-09-07T07:09:00.000-04:00

Perhaps in theory, we have always inherited the legacy of our forefathers, through the freedoms we all have enjoyed as guarenteed by the forgotten document in the United States Constitution and it's Bill Of Rights, whch compromises of the groundbreaking first ten amendments. And while these freedoms have come at a price, we have never truly felt the price that was paid in the beginning. We have had soldiers carry their hearts out to wars against the enemy, with images painted inside their heads of families they may never see again, and often, an enemy with a threat level that is greatly and falsely misperceived. This is not to dimish their accomplishments and their courageous ability, for it is a true act of patriotism to raise your arms when your country calls you to her defense.

But the fact still remains, that the greatest threat to our liberties has never come from outside our borders. Vietnam, Korea, Russia, Iraq, and just about anyone else we've picked a fight with, have never posed a threat against the actions of our Federal Government, as it is a corrupt machine at its mechanical excuse of a heart. If anything, it is a consequence of being a foreign police force and in knowing this, our Founding Fathers had relied precisely on a vision of noninterventionalism, because it would preserve ourselves.

President Abraham Lincoln, ironically, said it best himself: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be
because we destroyed ourselves." And furthermore, it's always come in a time of need, a crisis that has held us in a deep hole with such desperation to escape it's cruel and vile clutches. In endorsing amendments and the process of enhancing the law, George Washington also warned us about its potential dangers, in stating: "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

Our Founding Fathers were faced with decisions, life changing for not only themselves, but all the colonists around them and the future of foreign policy and foreign relations would be changed drastically forever. Although the specifics of the offenses ultimately hinged on excessive taxes by a far away place, it was in the nature of the offenses where the true reason for revolution rested, and that was in the concept of taxation without represenation. In holding the power to tax without a peoples' representative, a clear path is made for corruption to breathe and allow its weeds grow into such treacherous overgrowth. This was realized. And while it was only taxes, when the corruption settles with a firm choke hold, who is to say that more wouldn't amount from it?

And dissidence was born on an active level. Conventions were convined and petitions were drawn up, holding signatures of future believers of a new world that was truly new at heart and in soul. And as this continued, the king dispatched soldiers to raid the colonies and remain at people's homes despite their wishes, and occupation amounted to much more than it had before.

Fear is a powerful thing and perhaps of the most damning and dangerous tools of a tyrannical person or power. Adolf Hitler, infamous for his mass murder and genocide in the Holocaust under his reign of Nazi Germany, rose to absolute power playing the game of fear. With acts such as that of Operation Himmler, attacks were carried out by Hitler's henchmen and disguised as enemy forces. This was inching towards justification for agression. Then came the burning of the Reichstag, the equivalent of an American Congress, by Hitler and the Nazis, but with the blame laid upon the wrong head as justification for invasion. And all the while, rights were being hoarded and as this act of terrorism occured, the case was placed forth: if we must fight this terrorism, then liberties must be sacrificed.

Listen closely to the words of Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, when he states: "Those who give up essential liberties for the temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." This is not said to be cruel however, but it is common knowledge when history is analyzed in an unbiased manner from an uncorrupted standpoint, that more often than not, these liberties are never returned and the only safety we gain is from that of a democratic society and our Republican system of law.

Under the eight years of the Dictatorship That Bush Built, we have seen a great hoarding of powers. And while it still is remained to be seen just what happened on the day of September 11, 2001, as an unbiased and all-encompassing independent investigation has yet to come, one fact still remains despite whatever perspectives on the origin of the attacks one may hold: we are losing our Constitution.

We had already begun to lose it slowly in the Supreme Court of John Marshall who had foreshadowed the absolutely corrupt and all-out war on the U.S. Constitution the Supreme Court would wage in the twenieth century, as well as under Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War and Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the Great Depression and World War 2. But now, we have driven the last spike.

We once lived in a society where the arrests were made for people who worked for the Kremlin, perhaps a rogue member of the KGB, or people who carried firearms and fired upon fellow human beings without just cause, in violation of the true purpose of the rights ensured by the Second Amendment. Now we live in a society where interrogation can be intense and unjust, if one brings a bottle of hand lotion to an airport or someone voices their dissent against the United States Federal Government.

War is an evil thing and it often gives birth to fear at hand of beneficial results for the military-industrical complex that World War 2 general and President of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower would later warn us against in his Farewell Address. To ensure "safety", President George Walker Bush, in association with Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney and his cabinet of equally corrupt associates, began hoarding powers in the form of protections in wartime at the cost of a little of our liberties. A little of the liberties became a lot as time drew on and we led from one war to another.

We walked into Afghanistan determined to avenge those lost in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Then on false pretenses, later defeneded by an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency who saw a letter from the White House demanding that false links between 9/11 and Iraq be made, we stepped into Iraq and overthrew a man, that while corrupt, was more worried about the man next door than the man halfway across the planet. A miniature enactment of the Cold War would break out between the U.S. and Iran, suggesting invasions would occur if Iran cease its nuclear enrichment operations. Then that miniature enactment came to include Russia, when South Ossetia was invaded by communist Georgia upon its wish for democratic indepdence and Russia came to their aid. Pakistan was then invaded.

And with all of this, we stand on the eve of an event that was supposed to end with the "Great War", or the "War Of All Wars", and this event happened once more than the then-perceived conclusion of aggression. As sparks fly and Russia threatens all-out war, World War 3 stands among us.

While at home, we watch in fear. Americans shake when the words resembling nuclear warfare and world war fire off the tongues of anchormen and women like well-sharpened sparks sent for the heart. But they are only angry with us because our Federal Government angered them. Likewise, they are not against the people, but the government.

But this is not the object of the point, but rather a defense of it. As a government of great insecurity and power hunger, the United States of America has transformed itself from a Land of Freedom to a Prison. Thanks to the United States Congress, a Democratic one at that, that was elected to end the Bush tyranny, we are now no longer allowed to leave the United States without specific permission from Uncle Sam and then a little offering of thanks to him after.

This insecure government has hoarded powers because of all these events. While the instigation is cleverly cloaked, the repercussions are in plain sight and upon the screens of televisions everywhere. This is the basis of the defense justifying the erosion of liberty. We were given the USA PATRIOT Act, wrongly portrayed as that of a true patriot and advertised as a requirement for a productive process of government and a more increased speed of efficiency. But yet, our Congress was not allowed to read that actual document and passed it.

The Military Commissions Act was passed to allow military trials to be brought against those who violate the rules of war, enemy combatants as they were called. Enemy combatants that were later expanded in definition to include domestic individuals and American citizens. And then two years, President Bush and his Administration in secrecy present a proposal to remain at a state of war with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and "associated groups" as long as they remain a threat, or essentially, a continuous state of war, with all of these constitutional violations in action for a state of war scenario only.

We live in a country that was intended to be free, but now only to an extent. Phones can be wiretapped at will and computers hacked whenever, just with the flick of a switch in some Federal official's head. We live in a country where houses can be raided and searches can be made in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, without a judge's permission.

This is all in the grand name of freedom.

And now, it is upon us on this day and age, we have become the true inheritors of the legacy of the United States of America and her Founding Fathers. We are facing a siege of liberty. We are facing an erosion of liberty. And the time is running thin, as each day we lose a little bit more.

Why America Would Never Vote For Me

2008-09-04T08:04:00.000-04:00

I've been juggling many thoughts on my mind, as those of you know from my announcement last night regarding a possible run for the school board in my hometown of Lisbon Falls. Those of you close who I have personally conversed with and have mostly offered warm reception of the idea, know that a possible run for the Maine House of Representatives in a few years is also on my mind. But would I ever get far? Would I make it to the top? Would I make it forward at all?

Congressman Dr. Ron Paul has run as probably the only remaining true conservative in the Republican Party and the only honest and consistent member of Congress, yet he receives no warm reception from the media or his party. He has been shun by both. It's amazing he won elections, but note they were also won before his serious and underreported campaign for the Presidency and then upon the suspension of his campaign, the launch of the Campaign For Liberty which so far has spawned the rEVOLution March two months ago in Washington D.C. and the Rally For The Republic which saw attendence come near 10,000. But still no love for the doctor. So is it any wonder he isn't anywhere near being our president?

In all reality, my mind is one dangerous to the status quo of society. And that alone, reveals the conflict. Society shuns true reformers, while allowing the false prophets to steal the show. Barack Obama has a record of consistant dirty politics but he's running as the ultimate change candidate. Ron Paul has a consistant record of voting for the U.S. Constitution and holding moral ground, but he's been shun by the common population of America, the Republican Party, and the mainstream media.

But what is the relevance of this information regarding Congressman Dr. Ron Paul? I share common views. My self-description as a Christian Constitutionalist Conservative is along a triple threat to society as we know it. Christianity has been gradually purged from our society for a half a century at least, and seemingly dragging all ground for morality with it. Constitutionalism is fading, with the Constitution itself, and greats involving this brilliant document observe that Constitutional Law in this day and age has nothing to do with the Constitution. Conservatism alone opposes the liberal doctrine of society, which is to tax and carelessly spend, world intervention for we are the police of the world, and Big Brother is your friend, so let him become bigger.

I believe in limited government, for a bigger one imposes fear and a people should never fear their government. I also believe in the Gold Standard and the abolishment of the Federal Reserve. I oppose homosexual marriage because marriage is a religious institution and there comes the liberal's favorite phrase "separation of church and state," but also oppose a constitutional amendment banning it because that is an unconstitutional usurping of Federal powers. I oppose Row v. Wade because I oppose abortion, but more so, because it is an unconstitutional usurping of Federal powers that saw the complete and total disregard for the state laws across the nation, despite the Tenth Amendment being at their defense.

The U.S. Constitution itself states Congress has the right to coin money, but not the power to outsource it. And then when the concept of a central bank arose in the nineteenth century, it was opposed for it could prove fatal to a nation of liberty. So the economy tanked and we panicked to a point where we created the Federal Reserve, a private organization of bankers who control the money, the money that would no longer have any gold or silver backing. No backing required for printing money, in the hands of bankers. What kind of recipe for disaster is this and how come America has been so slow to figure this equation out?

Our country enjoyed a moment of economic prosperity until we went Intervention-happy in the world, proclaiming ourselves the police nation of the world, and effectively demoralizing the Monroe Doctrine as hypocrisy in the face of America at it's supreme greatest. While we said the east had no place in the west, we also thought that we should be everywhere. It's a bitter irony when you consider the fact that the country seems to launch into economic depression and strain in a time of war, yet the government always has a plan for itself. That is called the beauty of the Military-Industrial Complex, which the World War 2 General and U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower spoke of.

War itself has never given us any positive results after we shelled the British in the American Revolution. Another bitter irony in the face of America is the fact we think we are perfectly justified in our insurrection against the British Crown, but when South Ossetia wishes for their independence under a Democratic Government, the U.S. defends George in opposition. We even oppose the topic of real patriotism in defending liberty, by stating that those who act for political interests are terrorists, and arrests are underway for protesters at the Republican National Convention, and charging them as terrorists for protesting. Yet, have we forgotten the Right To Revolution stated in the Declaration Of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

The people have the right to alter it. But when we rise up to protest it, we are deemed terrorists. Protest groups enacting their First Amendment rights are placed on Terrorist Watch lists under some random institution in the Federal Government created to prevent such a revolution. But the Founding Fathers apparently knew something could happen in the years to come, and as they had also thought, gave us the right.

But hey, it's wrong to assume a government in this day and age is a pile of tyrants who should be removed, because they've murdered people, tortured prisoners, waged relentless war, and wasted billions in tax payer money. Yet, the Founding Fathers were by identical standards apparently justified, and they were angered by unfair taxes and lack of representation involving just that. What logic is this?

Now from here, one would think it is logical to save ourselves in a democratic and peaceful fashion by using our rights to alter it. We're obviously thinking wrong, people aren't educated anymore. The American School System, a fun and loving liberal doctrine, has purged the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution from its mind. As students progressively prolong their educational career and learn nothing of the most important document relevant to their freedom and continuation and protection of liberty, new generations of ignorance are bred.

Luckily, people are beginning to wake up, in some regions. Much of the youth is being mislead by the false prophet in Barack Obama, who anyone who really knows his record, is well aware that his entire "personality over policy" image is a complete illusion and total lie. Yet the Ron Paul crowd is a youth-dominate movement of Constitutionalism and education, learning that something is very wrong.

I believe in the principles of the Constitution. As a state politician, I would fight to make it a requirement that the U.S. Constitution be taught in schools. Our country is suffering as people fall deeper into the hole of ignorance and plunge the stability of our nation. Soon our country will have lost its identity and power to a point where we must run to our neighbors in a desperate effort to form a North American Union, just to save ourselves. The NATO and NAFTA, with the NAFTA Superhighway are bitter realities steering us in such a direction. The United Nations and the fallen League Of Nations before it, are pulling us in the direction of globalism.

An erosion of national sovereignty sounds ugly. But a peaceful union with our brothers and sisters to eliminate rivalries and to eliminate our differences, sounds brilliant. But as Ayn Rand warned with the implications behind the concepts brought forth in her chilling novel "Anthem," a condensed government simply means no opposition and therefore, a need for morality is simply obsolete against the concept of infinite wealth and power.

It's not conspiracy theory. And if you think so, keep watching.

The prospects of our soveriengty must be maintained. And this involves the restoration of our Constitution, which is the only safe legal document guarenteeing the survival of our liberties and freedoms.

It is an absolute disgrace that the only way this country could recognize the rights for our fellow humans of different skin color, who were officially guareneteed it after the Civil War under the Fourteenth Amendment, was by violating our country a century later. In that period of time, violent racism and white supremacy on a radical scale prevailed. Our governments in all states couldn't simply observe a moral ground and an unconstitutional act at hand, and correct themselves; as a result, the Supreme Court had to affirm the rights of African Americans by creating an unconstitutional usurping of Federal power. The idea wasn't wrong, but the act was. And this is how our liberty is destroyed, but allowing morals to remain in the dark and relying on degrading our legal system to save ourselves.

Again, our Founding Fathers were not in the dark on this one, as George Washington once observed:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

I observed this. Our usurping of Federal powers was an instrument meant to be good, and by all means, it is beautiful that we finally gave people who are no different than any other human being beyond skin color, but this precedent gives rise to further corruption on the grounds that the Tenth Amendment is obsolete.

Judicial Activism and the liberal ideology that states the U.S. Constitution is a "Living Document" has helped destroy the Tenth Amendment. It all became evident when the Supreme Court that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt immorally and egotistically stacked to back his unconstitutional New Deal plans, declared that the Tenth Amendment was nothing more than a truism, merely restating what was already implied. The Tenth Amendment was then rendered powerless. Our Bill Of Rights, by definition of the Supreme Court, is nine amendments and a simple and pointless truism.

But this is serving a purpose, as by eliminating the Tenth Amendment, it confirms President Roosevelt's actions justified. He who is declared a national hero is merely a tyrant and a dictator, who again, was acting at face value for the greater good of the nation, but was creating the ultimate instrument of future tyranny with an assembly line of dangerous precidents.

And again, it all comes straight down to the U.S. Constitution.

But both parties ignore it. So why are we still insisting the third parties are pointless and simply there to annoy us? Are we insane? After all, insanity is the act of continuously repeating our actions while expecting different results. We've been doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting new results out of the same demons. Insanity, by definition.

There was a greater difference before the Republican Party was hijacked by the Neoconservatives and the Democratic Party was forever reshaped and redefined by the New Left. Somehow, both parties stand in a common agreement. Both believe we are the world police and intervention is necessary in spreading democracy, because we are apparently a democracy.

We are a Democracy? How? Our Founding Fathers despised it, as Thomas Jefferson once stated:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

After all, we don't need the fifty-one percent to do it, we already have the Twentieth Century Supreme Court to the favor.

Our country was founded as Constitutional Republic, with rights and processes of government specifically shaped by a Constitution. We act democratically, but are not a pure democracy, for it would be madness, especially in this day and age, considering the mass disinformation issue facing our country, on this topic as well as others.

And it is here I will conclude, at least for now, in stating that our nation is facing an extremely dangerous situation. Our history is being cleaned up and slowly covered up; our society conditioned to ignore or accept it, or even both.

I believe this must be stopped. I believe in combating in the name of the liberty and freedom we were given by those who shed blood for us during the American Revolution and all the brave-hearted United States soldiers since. But this combating must not be in an offensive violence or aggression, for that provides a sinking to the level the tyrants are slowly steering towards. If we act democratically, by electing those who will stand for the principles I've discussed; if we act in a republican fashion, by reaffirming the U.S. Constitution. Of course, this a complicated series of "What-ifs"

Of course, this would imply an action process of change. And this would imply a radical paradigm shift against the establishment in opting for conservatism and a return to what once proved prosperous for the mass population, not the minority elite. And while it would seem logical, for the mass population, to seek this shift, it is not happening.

And this is why I would never be able to get voted into a political position.

Deriving The Lie

2008-08-22T09:30:00.000-04:00

Society itself is one of conditioned thought. People are unable to separate an outrageous truth from a reasonable lie, simply because the truth is too severe to be accepted and the lie is too inferior in it's face value to compel the individual to apply any sort of work to reality. This is how the process of information is violated, as lie is like a common metal in fine gloss paint versus a faded silver, one is the illusion and one is the true existence of the imitation object. More often than not in our society, much less in all walks of reality itself, truth is a complex being that with the growing depth of society, becomes greater in itself. Be not confused, for the truth is not the source of life's complications, but it is the lie. A truth is a simple value that is only as overwhelming as the lies that protect us against it. So it would seem logical to seek the truth, would it not?

This implies that our society has not made itself a web of deception, which is not the case, as we are greatly lost in our own tools for demise and blueprints for destruction. The purpose of a lie is not simply a short term cloak of folly, although it could be of the mind's only intention at any given moment, but to create a breeding cancer that will multiply its tentacles that will consume the shards of truth that have been broken and spread by the violator.

What are these tentacles? Of these vile beings include products of apathy and anger, as well as ignorance and arrogance, accompanied by deception and submission by thereof. We sacrifice our liberty of thought and freedom to resistance without any aggressive strength required when we forfeit our ability to think in the absence of boundaries. For no truth is absurd, as long as it is not losing sight of its heart in the shadow of corruption.

Apathy is of that greatest benefits to a liar, as his misrepresentations of existence can continue its manipulation of the processes of time without question. What is the need of action if there is already the illusion of a comfortable pace at present time? Even if there is a present threat against our future, we do not act, because it may present itself as too great of a chance of progression because of its absurd nature, or its perceived nature of being such a nature. Yet, in a hundred years, we have learned how to drop bombs that destroy cities and their surroundings while annihilating the prospect of life for years to come in a radius far more expanded than the scope of instant destruction and how to persuade a country's people into turning the other way as their government hoards individuals into camps of torture and death based on facts determined by birth and their genetic heritage, not a chosen identity trait. We have learned how to develop a dependency upon technology and then turn around and disrupt the very technology in which we depend on, compromising the security and integrity of institutions created in the image of a ill-fated short term sense of protection.

But the purpose here at hand is not for simple cynicism, but to acknowledge that there are giant strides in evil. So when the question of integrity regarding a truth is brought to light based on its believability in the sense of its complexity or outlandish implications, it is essentially void. The human mind however, has been conditioned to ignore these notions. Society's mainstream histories have ignored the Humidor and denied the fact that the Gulf Of Tonkin incident was staged and of False Flag nature. We live in a society where the politician we know is lead by the serpent by a tongue of barb is more informed and believable than the expert of whatever field who has become soaked in the knowledge of the desirable category in which to become informed. Enlightenment has become nationalized to become a political entity.

Yet, it all is grounded in the art of the lie. The lie has an agenda, whereas the truth is simply an aspect of society, that knows no side of the spectrum nor any bias towards a special interest group. A lie is created whereas the truth is understood, for the truth cannot be created, as it always is. And it is like electricity, for if you properly apply truth, it will serve you in many ways with many more possibilities; but if you abuse it for purposes unintended for application, it will serve in a vile and damaging, possibly even deadly, manner.

Then why are we so easy to believe the lie? The lie is like a politician, who makes promises that ensures inaction among the people can continue if they invest their vote of trust and consent in them for the purpose of a greater tomorrow. Of course, in perspective, a lie like a common politician is devious in its intentions, but opposing such in instilling a third party which is commonly the truth or lacking the elevated amount of lies, requires much work that fellow members of society are unwilling to involve themselves in. The truth being a member of reality does not require action to be, but rather action to protect; whereas the lie requires action to be and not action to protect. So when the lie offers it's appeal, it is on the basis that the action for its creation has already been done through the individual bearing such words and to protect its progression requires a lack of inaction through simple consent and probably an accompanying ignorance.

So why is there a lack of initiative? The lack of initiative is simple to derive as well, but not so much simple in the work to defeat, hence it not happening on a greater scale. Society will always carry minority groups of action and truth, who bear the revelations of deceptions and corruptions, but the fact of the matter is they will always be a minority. There is a common myth that education is inadequate unless it is through an institution and institutions are human operated and human created, therefore based upon representations of the individual and not the truth itself. But the institution, like the lie, offers an appeal where the individual will not have to seek itself. It is offered on a plate where all the individual has to do is consume, but in all reality, it is like the concept of food and health. You can indulge yourself with all the fast and easy to cook foods, but they are more often than not detrimental to your health and will degrade the ability to stand in strength, but if preparation of a whole meal occurs, it will prove healthy to the heart and body. But as stated, the institution has an appeal, as it is a short cut, yet the short cut is also damning, for it excludes certain areas that could prove vital to one's comprehension of the truth. But as the common theme observes, there is a lack of initiative involving work and therefore creating the appeal to a shortcut, hence the dependence upon an institution over a self-motivated journey of discovery.

Is there a pattern in this cancer? What is the proper procedure of treatment? Is it revolution? Before observing the answers to these questions, it is important to define revolution not as society commonly perceive it, as an aggressive and violent insurrection, but rather a radical shift in our reality. Revolution can be both destructive as it can be beneficial, for like a sword, it can be used for defense or murder. But it is important to involve one's self in revolution if only the principles of such are correct. And the revolution the truth endorses is that of one the rids itself of the burden of lie. Lies must be purged for they are but a mere bacteria in the streams of life and will soon sicken ourselves to a point where the oxygen of truth will be far removed from our environment of existence.

It is important, not to operate under a status quo whose failures have been extravagant in their significance and strengthened in it's power and will in disarming the truth. A paradigm shift is required in the mind of beings for their understanding of a variable created by existence and not being, is only achieved through themselves and not by that of men with egos and agendas. The truth is a proven process, whereas a lie is a misleading theory. If security in thought and stability in succession is to be achieved, society must change its ways.

When will this real change towards truth occur? Perhaps when society realizes that the truth has been subject to a mass genocide that leads to its extinction; can we allow for this to be inflicted upon what is so vital to our freedom of existence and liberty in being?

America: Bushwacked

2008-07-11T08:30:00.000-04:00

Merriman-Webster's definition of the word "bushwhack" is as follows: "to clear a path through thick woods especially by chopping down bushes and low branches." How fitting, for the law is one of many vines and weeds and trees, among other wonderous wanderings with twisted turns. The law was created to maintain a certain level of integrity while protecting the rights of citizens against men with black hearts and inflated craniums and as time has drawn forth, the law itself has become much more expansive, and as a direct result, much more complex. This complexity has its bittersweet effects, as uncovered loopholes are discovered, but at the same time, the complexity makes it more difficult to overcome. Or at least it should.

From the moment George Walker Bush stepped forth into office, he was carrying the campaign promises from the trail that he would steer away from the interventionist policy of William Jefferson Clinton and he always had declared, we shall be humble in our power and not become a world police nation. Well. That's one hell of a promise, Mr. Bush. Because ever since, we've become worse on the world than the Brits have been on their people with there Super Big Government.

So we went into Afghanistan, we knocked over the guys who took out three towers in New York City, a portion of the Pentagon, and costed us another plane that was downed in Pennsylvania (one might ask as well, how does four planes knock out four buildings and still have another that is downed in a field. Intriguing, perhaps?). That's all fine and dandy that we're avenging the deaths, but ever since, we walked next door and crashed Saddam Hussein's treacherous regime and are planning on undermining Iran.

About the law though, really. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution declares, among others on the list of powers, that the United States Congress has the power to declare war. The president can only command the military under Article 2, as he is the Commander-In-Chief. So what's wrong with this picture? He's taken these powers upon himself and the subservient Congress has verified these usurpations of power through inaction or unconstitutional legislation.

Continuing on the law, Bush's favorite amendment to break, the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." What does this state in particular? You require warrants, from a Judge, in order to break down the doors and search the premises. But ever since FISA kicked in under Jimmy Carter, there's been a loophole just as long as you're involved with foreign individuals. Under Bush, you can be just about anyone; everybody who isn't ignorant is a criminal.

And it's one thing to note, Jimmy Carter is the same president that through Operation Cyclone, with then National Security Advisor Zbigiew Brzezinski (and now top foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama), financed the muhjadeen with billions and helped launch the radical Islamic extremist movement in the Middle East to help, apparently, undermine the Soviet Union. This disaster operation gave us the Taliban who according to Bush, are the ones who punched out three buildings, scraped another, while a failed attempt crashed before destination...all on four planes (that's bad math, but that's the truth for you...or so it is portrayed to be).

And it's another to note, that under Bush, it has been the general rule that if you are not ignorant, than you are a criminal. In the past, if a political vendetta had been raised against you, you had a shot at court. But in this new McCarthy witchhunt era, all that has to happen is the Department of Homeland Security or another wing of the Bush Empire just has to say you're linked to Al Qaeda, without even any proof, and you're cooked. Don't believe me? Ask Saddam Hussein, who was undermined under false pretenses. And if you don't believe that, watch the footage of Representative Dennis Kucinich bringing his thirty-five articles of impeachment to the floor (Jim Trakus has the nerve to criticize Kucinich for these repeated maneuvers however, calling it waste of tax payer money. But remember...Congress just made history by letting its approval rating fall to single digit for the first time in our nation's history with as of now, a very ugly ending. So it's all really a waste of money, so singling out Kucinich, is just politics).

Why is it all of a sudden Bush is on board for global warming? His administration has stood by the idea that it poses no imminent threat for the longest time, until recently, when they conformed to the lie. But perhaps it rests in the idea that global warming is merely just another scheme to bolster support for fascist Big Government policies that this country has been embracing since the cruel and ugly (but misrepresented by mainstream history books, likeso with Columbus and Lincoln). As been noted by various scientists, perhaps the many of thousands signed on behind John Coleman, that for the longest time, it was held as just a theory among the scientific field. When did it become an apparent reality? Thank your friendly neighborhood politicians and their mainstream media on a leash for that one.

The ugly thing about Bush is he composes himself as a completely illiterate and incompetent leader, often saying things that could beat out the children and make Bill Cosby crap his pants laughing on Kids Say The Darnest Things. But as evidenced by his "stop throwing that thing at me, it's just a damn piece of paper" lines in regards to the U.S. Constitution, he may be brilliantly bipolar or a genius actor. Either way, he looks stupid to most, but is apart of an administration that is pulling a Hitler fastone without anyone but the revolutionary minority of truthers and constitutionalists noticing. Our rights have been eroded in the name of fighting terrorism, much like Germany's was in the name of fighting the Jews or the Poles or whatever moment it may have been...Hitler had enemies galore through his cowardly wanderings that corrupted his political genius. Adolf Hitler even went as far as to set fire to the Reichstag and then place the blame from there to satisfy his warmongering agenda.

We're living in the Dark Ages. We're stuck with McCain, who himself is not a neocon, but he is a moderate appeaser and a pawn of the neocon gameplan of bolstering the North American Union agenda and crippling the nation for their own interests. Or on the flipside, we're stuck with Barack Obama, who has been endorsed for president by both Iran and a couple terrorist groups (what does that tell you, America?). And the good folks like Ron Paul got pushed out by a collective media collusion and our third party heroes such as Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr are losing out because society has been raised on the thought that the third parties are worthless and no-namers, so therefore rallying a movement against them would be useless and a waste of the vote.

Our United States Constitution is standing on its last crutch. What does America think they will do after its gone? Will we even be America then? Perhaps we may be speaking of a collective with Canada and Mexico...there is one hell of a good reason why President Bush doesn't want to build a permenant, physical fence across any borders. And don't let finances fool you, because he's had no problem through this entire presidency, jacking up our deficit by another trillion or two.

America, you have been bushwhacked. Now the question rests, where do you wish to turn from here?

Truth In Exile

2008-07-09T09:08:00.000-04:00

We live in a society where there is a commonly accepted truth, whether forced or not, that has integrated itself into the thoughts of the population without a single question being brought forth. We may think the thoughts, but thoughts are inaction and we can mentally analyze all we wish, but words must be spoken for the effect to emerge. What if September 11th was an attack that can be prevented? No, our government being that demonic and hateful. We only staged Gulf of Tonkin to rally support around Vietnam. We only financed the people we now call terrorists throughout the Middle East. We only set up Rex-84, a plan that called for the creation of concentration camps in the United States of America. We only had put all Japanese-Americans in concentration camps in World War 2 in a moment of fear. We only let Pearl Harbor get attacked to give us a good reason to enter World War 2. We only are financing terrorists in Iran. We only are preparing defense systems in the eastern hemisphere, a known spark to ignite a war with Russia...ignorantly. We only violated every point of integrity we ever had as a nation in the last eight years by annihilating the U.S. Constitution. SO WHAT. We aren't that bad, are we?

The truth is, we are as a nation, collapsing to the mercy of evil. We have had concentration camps in response to an attack that could have been prevented. We almost brought them back five years ago after another attack that could have been prevented. Both times, the attacks were allowed to occur because it would easily help promote a fascist agenda in the free world by escalating fear. Fear is truth's greatest enemy and it is undermining society as a whole.

In the school systems, children are taught that we are a democratic nation, but indeed we are not; we were never intended to be and this nation was never envisioned as a purely democratic society, but rather a constitutional republic incorporating democratic principles. So in truth, we spent the greater part of the twentieth century playing world police in the name of a form of government that we don't even have and our entire sacrifice of our original policy of noninterventionalism, while wrong in any way, was still done in vein. You are taught as a child that the great American fascist and socialist Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a savior to the country and that sacrificing our integrity and principles were necessary in a time of disaster.

Let's cover Roosevelt, shall we? He drop kicked the Constitution by furthering Federal Reserve agendas, centralizing federal power, depriving state powers, creating a war on the Tenth Amendment, ignoring the threat of Pearl Harbor, putting the Japanese Americans in concentration camps, and creating a Thomas Jefferson Memorial that selectively includes only parts of the Declaration of Independence, but ignores the Right To Revolution that is included. Perhaps another Constitution Dictator, what a savior.

And now conservatives have lost their identity, because like they did to the country, neoconservatives have furthered their hellish agenda to turn the U.S. into a crashing establishment that will force itself into running into a North American Union for safety. This is more evil than hijacking the system itself. Real conservatives believe in noninterventionalism, like our Founding Fathers, not because they were pacifists, but because war destroys the free world. What war creates is an atmosphere where fear supersedes all and in return, we lose our rights. But losing your rights is just ok, because we'll get them back after, right? Anybody who believes that is grealty mistaken, as evidenced in the right to secede the Union, as the Founding Fathers declared and some spoke of, as ultimately the check against the Federal Government. We have never regained this right after the first constitutional dictator Abraham Lincoln tore it away from us.

But this is the truth we ignore. We don't want to hear the truth. We accept it as untouchable reality, or fate, or whatever reason. But why, I ask, why?

Neoconservatives and modern liberals are two heads on the same beast. This is clearly evidenced by the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Both presidents believed in the policy of interventionalism and being an international police body, as shown in the Clinton crusades in Bosnia and Kosovo and Bush's in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is also shown in their assaults on the U.S. Constitution, with Clinton's war on the Second Amendment and Big Government policies against the Tenth Amendment, while Bush has been known for attacking the First and Fourth Amendment among others. They are both the same thing and we are still unable to realize this, much less, accept third parties as a new source for liberty.

The truth is in exile. Why can't the United States launch a fair and unbiased independent investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001? The same reason why they couldn't with the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy; those men in high places would have everything to lose from it. We take the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission at face value, shrug, and continue with our lives. There is no motivation to look further, because a sign has been posted saying "pass here, and you are an antipatriotic rogue conspiracy theorist terrorist who supports Al Qaeda."

Why is it that the United States Congress, a body responsible for keeping an eye on our government, refused to look into Rex-84 when it surfaced at the hearings into Iran-Contra? What do they have to hide? Sensitive information? Of course, but all truths are sensitive because they infringe upon the lies of the few with accumulating power over the population.

We are a nation of sheep. We preach about how we want change. So we jump upon the Barack Obama bandwagon, which preaches "change we can believe in." So change is refusing to drill for oil domestically, give immunity to telephone companies who illegally assisted the Federal Government in its illegal spying upon the American citizens it portrays as terrorists, and learning faith from a racist. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is nothing more than all the same we've had before, but a brilliant speechwriter who masks his inability to speak fluently and with strength on his own.

What is a greater violation of the truth? Try John McCain being a conservative. He's not even a tyrant enough to be a wannabe conservative, the neoconservative. He's a skunk on the fence, a demon moderate who is an anticonstitutional tyrant and world police believer from the false right and a gun-grabbing Big Government supporter from the modern left.

Why are these truths being ignored? Why are we allowing evil to supersede over us all? Are we truly sheep?

But let me ask you this, in this great moment of uncertainty, when the U.S. Constitution and the truth itself, is in exile, is this all occuring because we are unable to do anything, or are we just unwilling?

Identity, Integrity, and Accountability

2008-07-05T10:30:00.000-04:00

Perhaps the largest issue facing this country is the lack of integrity it faces in the foreign scene. Once a Nation triumphant in its overcoming of the British Crown and its establishment of a successful free nation, has become anything but. When in the eighteenth century, we left the British rule for our own because the king was a tyrant; now we as a nation refuse to remove by impeachment the second Constitutional Dictator who has surpassed any powers the king had ever even dreamed of having. Even the king had integrity though, he didn't let terrorists take out numbers of lives in high ranges for the sole purpose of having a free pass card, forever renewable, when it comes to the actions, constitutional and moral or not, of the Federal Government. What has become of a nation that declared the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitional? We now allow the horror of the USA PATRIOT Act to pass under the excuse that terrorism is everywhere. The witch hunts in this country, along with the fear tactics, has become so blindly ignorant and outrageous that it is enough to make Joseph McCarthy turn over in his grave.

The Alien and Sedition Acts contained four different documents that provided for illegal and unconstitutional discrimination agaisnt aliens, as well as provided for "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" towards the government, state or federal, being illegal. It was not renewed and denounced by many founding fathers, most prominently Thomas Jefferson, as being unconstitutional. We reinforced the right of those foreigners in this country legally being protected by the United States Constitution, as well as being exempt from the discrimination that would later come to haunt the Japanese Americans in World War 2. The Alien Friends Act of the Alien and Sedition Acts provided for the president to hold the ability to deport any alien solely on the suspicion of their involvement with opposition in a time of war, based purely on race. Although this was not overturned, it was not renewed upon expiration, because it was unconstitutional. While we showed a moment of lacking integrity in the infant days of our nation, we rebounded to reinforce the concept that we sought to become apart of: freedom.

Fear leads to moments such as this, and fear is a very dangerous weapon. Perhaps more damning than any weapon of mass destruction, fear can be used as a tool by the government of the people to become a government over the people and capture powers that not even the most vague interpretations of any statutes or laws could provide for. It leads to ultimate submission by the people to their rulers, and as Lord Acton once observed, while power corrupts the mind of man, absolute power corrupts absolutely. As a human being, we are an entity subject to the evil and temptation of power and greed, therefore, in allowing a government to hoard all unnecessarily excessive rights to power, we are ensuring our own demise. It's simple understanding of the human mind and it's simple in the understanding of both history and politics.

After all, if we do not understand our history, then as a problematic and imperfect species, we are forever doomed to repeat the failures of our past. What does our past reflect? Failures in both democracies and republics at the hand of the government. The Roman Empire went through everything from conquests to spreading of the military much too thin, but also a decline of the civil body. This is an empire that was once prosperous and mighty in its ways and its reputation, but it fell.

Are we doomed to fall?

Well let's put it this way. We are at a moral decline that is a slope turning more into a vertical straight line down to Hell more and more every day. We have music litered with sex and suicide with profanity and obscene terms, while our television and film hits are based on or around murder and death. Such a morbid epidemic has contributed to a downward curve, but accompanied by such, is the lack of accountability on the public. We have such an outrage in our social destruction, but we do not act. What is the point in anger and discontent if it is not acted upon in a positively productive manner?

My point? We have a society that is bitter and angry. George W. Bush is a bad guy, much of the population understands this. They understand it under the belief that he committed war crimes or he is a constitutional dictator or he allowed 9/11 to occur or even assisted in its set up. But what is the product of our discontent? Nothing. America has been fed the lie that impeachment would be a pointless process at this point in time, with the election right around the corner. Who spoon feeds the population this ignorance? The same people who feed the same population the "wasted vote" lie: the corporate media.

Furthermore, we express our discontent with our Congress. In all truth, Congress is no longer full with representatives representative of their constituents and the people of the United States of America, but merely representatives representative of their own self-serving interests. Their attitudes toward the United States Constitution is disgusting and repulsive, and some Americans realize this, but at the same time, they do nothing. They mutter and grumble, cast a vote for them, and move on with their lives. Again, what is discontent if we do not seek to cure such anger with positive change?

Change is change, right? Wrong. And Barack Obama is every bit of proof ever required to reinforce the notion that not all change is positive. Whereas he claims to be a patriot, he's a patriot who doesn't believe in placing his hand over his heart, wearing a patriotic pin, or in the National Anthem, as well as being married to a woman who for the first time in her entire life, is proud of her country. He also believes that telephone companies who violated the U.S. Constitution in helping the Federal Government continue its Orwellian ways of illegal spying deserve immunity.

Read these words and recite them over and over again: If change is only in backwards motion, then it is worse than the current status quo. Meaning, a drone of more experienced and deceptive men who boasts beautiful catch phrases and eloquent speeches written by writers who steal quotes.

And he doesn't believe in impeachment of George Walker Bush for his fabrication of various evidence and obstruction of justice, as well as his negative and ignorant, even often arrogant, attitudes towards the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land. If we allow a leader to abolish our freedoms and the only document that stands as a safeguard towards such, then what hope do we have for a future unfortunately, already looks prepared to be built upon a foundation of doom. In the wake of a growing globalist agenda involving the erasing of national lines and elimination of sovereignty, we require action to secure ourselves before we sacrifice the integrity for a cause that is either non-existent or blown completely out of proportion.

Terrorism is terrorism. Terror is built upon fear, which has become of the United States. For several years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been circulating pamphlets among various law enforcement bodies detailing domestic terrorism and lists everything from animal rights activists to constitutionalists as being domestic terorrists. That is right, the domestic investigative body of the Untied States Federal Government declares that the people who seek to reinforce the basic principles and ideals of this nation as being terrorists. This has been further embodied through the just barely failed Operation TIPS, which would have brought about the East German Stasi reminiscent presence in the United States of America. Unfortunately, this has resurfaced in confirmed operations of the same actions in Colorado, California, and Arizona.

What is the bottom line? The message here at hand? We must seek to restore integrity to restablish our forgotten and forsaken identity, through the accepted accountability for our actions or lack thereof; as from here, we can reconstruct the base of this great constitutional republic that has long since eroded in the vicious socialist Big Government storms of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and most regimes to follow since. We need not sacrifice ourselves in time of war or unrest, but stand stronger without the removal of our liberties; for we look strong in winning, but we look strongest in our victories while maintaining our liberties.

The Grand Scheme Of Things

2008-07-03T10:32:00.000-04:00

Isn't it quite the coincidence, that after September 11th, 2001, the Federal Government claimed levels of sweeping power not seen since Abraham Lincoln claimed the first unofficial title of first Constitutional Dictator of the United States of America. We didn't know ahead of time, of course not. But we do know, that the fourth plane shot down was on a crash course for the big men upstairs. So if our president was in immediate danger, we should've rushed him to shelter. But we didn't. He sat reading a book to kids. But why? We must have known the danger and we must have known exactly what was at hand. It's a clever trick...President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, infamous for his destruction of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution and stacking the Supreme Court to back his unconstitutional policies and giving more power to a government turning socialist, did it when he wished for entry into World War 2. What better way to see it to the American people than to allow the Japanese to come in and start knocking the fort down.

Hey...we even put people in concentration camps after.

In the land of the free.

The Stasi is upon us with the recent reincarnation of Operation TIPS in Colorado, California, and Arizona, where the Federal Government is currently training utility workers, as well as police officers, firefighters, and paramedics to be trained spies in the great name of fighting those pesky terrorists. Yes, it's all about fighting the bad guy. So sacrifice your freedom in the process.

Isn't that how Adolf Hitler came to power? Yes, he burned the Reichstag and claimed it was the Polish. Those damn Poles! And so they moved in. And he spread such dirty tricks with Operation Himmler, a series of false flag maneuvers that convinced the people that bad men were upon them and they must make sacrifices to survive.

LOOK WHERE SACRIFICES GOT NAZI GERMANY!

Now in this country, we have a lousy United States Congress who screwed us all over by approving the USA PATROIT Act, a direct violation of the fourth amendment (among other constitutional rights), without even bothering to read it. That's right, a country of lawmakers that pass Orwellian bills without even reading it...they're too good for that.

Then we had the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act of 2007 which would've created a national board with sweeping powers to dictate what is and what isn't domestic terorrists or even a trigger for potential domestic terrorism. No judicial or congressional checks...so what prevents them from acting in political interests. And only SIX members of over four-hundred in the House of Representatives voted against it. Six. Out of four-hundred.

And I am further ashamed to say that Senator Susan Collins of my homestate Maine, officially sold her soul to the devil by sponsoring the bill in the Senate. Such a tyrannical and antipatriotic thing to do.

All of this has been done in the brilliant line of fighting terrorism. Yes, those damned terrorists. We haven't run into a hole this deep over a vaguely defined enemy since the era of Joseph McCarthy who declared everybody who gave him an ugly look a communist and there started a mass paranoia accompanied by a series of witchhunts. But the only difference between then and now, is that the country halted it then. But what is it doing now? Allowing to happen and on a larger scale.

Now the head hancho of Al Queda, Osama Bin Laden, according to a recently leaked C.I.A. report, has only approximately six months left to live, as he is dying of kidney failure. You know what happens in six months, right? Bush says goodbye to the presidency and departs. How convinient that his favorite card for power is set to suddenly die.

What are my implications? Things are not as they seem.

And the terrorism is a well-sold lie. Just like global warming. And peak oil.

It's all a corporate agenda. Like our monetary system, privatized through the Federal Reserve, a union of corrupt bankers hellbent on their own agenda.

It's being covered up by a mainstream media that covers the tracks of these dirty tricks.

We are steering in the direction of a North American Union, which is one step closer to a one world government. And if there's anything a one world government guarentees, it's no choices left. You're left to listen to whatever corrupt dictator takes the seat declares shall occur.

Let's establish some things however. I have always been in full endorsement of eliminating evil and villanous threats. Terrorism...yes, let's eliminate it. But elimination, at what cost? At whose expense? Much less...when the threat is either overblown or even inexistent.

The lines are being blurred. But the information is all in front of you. Operation Garden Plot, Rex-84, Operation TIPS, Project Blue Beam, Operation Paper Clip, FEMA, Mount Weather, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, the Thirteen Bloodlines, New World Order. It is all in the World Wide Web.

It is time to be informed. Before the grand scheme of things, the treachery upon us, overcomes the world we know and become the world we only imagine through the most horrifying of nightmares.

Because in a world of violence and hostility, we can win through peace and democratic process, in assisting and by assistance of our Republican Government and her law. The time to stand your ground and grant yourself the treasure of knowledge is upon us. It is time to endure it, because it is quickly passing by.

Restoring Liberty: Returning From The Fall From Grace

2008-06-27T08:41:00.000-04:00

The question of restoring liberty is the question posed often within the circles of revolutionaries, constitutionalists, and patriotic Americans alike, along with anyone else who favors a return to an honest government, and one not dominated by self-serving politicians, bankers, and the privatized dollar itself. In the last hundred years, the country has seen a collective downfall of every branch of the United States Government, whether in concert or just mere coincidence, it is happening. The Supreme Court shifted to a law-making stance in overturning longstanding laws, creating new laws out of rulings, violating the tenth amendment, and like Congress, exceeding the scope of their power. Through the Executive Order, we've seen everything from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt legalize socialism while annihilating the tenth amendment in the process, to President George Walker Bush's dropkicking of the Constitution. Congress is the body that is given the sword of justice with impeachment, but it helps very little when the members of Congress are in on the game. And the media is cooperating in concert, whether directly or loosely, again by the dollar, in promoting not the intelligent candidates but the fake rhetoric of horrible candidates who are just self-serving and are known to be capable and willing to cooperate with the scam. What is the scam you say? A vile globalist conspiracy? The institution of a police state? A communist regime? A dictatorship? While all are a possibility, it begins at the very root of what is needed before any of these dark possibilities can occur: the brutal murder of the United States Constitution.

The Union is in turmoil. We live in a country where the balance of society is greatly tipped. Only in our nation can we see a presidential candidate violate Federal Law by manipulating the image of the Great Seal and use the likes of such for shameless self-promotion, while the media crucifies one who simply wants to signify the Union is in distress by flying his flag Union Down. But what is the problem here? It goes much deeper than simply the game of playing with images and symbolic representations of our country and how they may be depicted. It instead revolves around the disinformation plot. What would a Union Down movement present? By people participating in such and then informing the masses their motives for doing just that, it would spread the notice of the corruption in our society. Thankfully for the powers that be, the society we live in has been brainwashed to deem anything remotely resembling the cruel truth a "conspiracy theory." By labeling something a conspiracy theory, it scares people away from believing it because it has become socially welded that believing in a "conspiracy theory" is outrageous and quite frankly, it looks outlandish. This is how we outlaw intelligence and information.

How do we override this? The Internet has provided for the movement unprecedented in human history, of information and the bypassing of the manipulation by the powers that be. Alternate media sites who report the things that people could think to see in the movies, present an unfiltered history that unravels the trickery of the media, who is in all reality, a corporate body who, in being a corporate establishment, are binded to the dollar which in itself, is dominated by a private establishment in the Federal Reserve. Assisted by the likes of activists such as Alex Jones and his Infowarrior movement, along with those on the Hill who are fully aware of corruption like constitutionalist Republican Ron Paul, the people are learning to be educated again. The decloaking of dirty tricks and black budgets and devious games such as MK-ULTRA has become popularity purely because of the Internet. The theorists behind events such as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the September 11th attacks, assassinations from President John Fitzgerald Kennedy to his brother Robert Kennedy, have been able to collectively and effectively communicate evidence and theories in concert in their quest for the truth. And whether or not they are true or not, the point is that there is an unfiltered exchange of information. That is the glory of democracy. If you want to think that the world is out to get you and its beyond just some random blows to the Constitution, then you can do so; it's your Constitutional right. But stuff like this riles up the public and makes the circles who oppose the government think, then whether or not they've reached the truth, there's the threat they're getting close. And of course, that cannot happen.

So what's going on in response? The internet companies are already cooperating to, at relatively the same time, turn the internet back with the wayback machine and begin charging people dial-up style: by time used. Employees within several companies have already admitted to this idea. What will make this possible? Like the oil industry, congressmen, and speculators have all claimed in concert with their own industry and the Peak Oil scam...bandwidth issues. Bandwidth is being used at unsustainable levels. The cure for such an apparent cancer? Limit it. There's even talk by deeper circles of theorists and thinkers that it will turn into a television like format, where you'll be forced to purchase subscriptions to certain sites and pay for visiting additional. What purpose would this serve? Destroy the traffic to those sites who inform and compete with the mainstream news, and in effect, force them to shut down.

As evidenced, liberty is at war with society. September 11th was, while a day of mourning for the people of the United States of America, a day of victory for its government as it gave an infinite amount of "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards and a valuable tool for stealing everything that the Constitution gives us. The USA PATRIOT Act was horrifying to those who know just what it does and how it has since affected our freedoms. What's shocking about the passage of this act? Congress passed it without even reading the act itself, but merely a summary provided by the cronies from the powers that be. Since then, some provisions have been repealed, but the act still largely stands as a specter against freedom.

But why is there no fight? Because you'd be liberal if you did, and liberal has become a derogatory term in society. This is the psychological aspect of the game. What would a Republican be if he were called a liberal? Not everyone can get away with it like John McCain has. So by the two-party system become so personalized and the circles being so closely guarded against each other, it prevents action from going forth in unison. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives, for only the fourth time in our nation's history, held a secret meeting. This was over the decline of the country and great fear that something is going terribly wrong here. But many, such as liberty fighter Dennis Kucinich did not attend. Why would one ask, a liberty man not attend a secret meeting of the dangerous potential collapse of the country? Because the other side could use things said against them in public. The partisan threat all over again. Partisan politics is ruining liberty. But the solution is not to rid of partisan politics, but make it so there are more than two mainstream parties. The Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, etc.; they all deserve equal attention. This is, after all, a free country. But interestingly enough, the media doesn't think so. That's why again, constitutionalist Republican Ron Paul received little support from the media, because he is not apart of the mainstream sect of the Republican Party who serve corporate interests and play the "terrorists are bad" card just as bad as Senator Joseph McCarthy did "communists are bad" card in making every scam he did perceived to be right.

What can the people do? Stand up before its too late. Do not vote for politicians who are known liars and do not believe in the "wasted vote" lie; if enough people pull for the minority, than the minority swings his position of minority to majority. Do not vote for someone because they are the apparent "lesser of two evils." Evil is evil. Saddam Hussein may be the lesser of evils in a group involving the likes of Adolf Hitler, but he is still evil; evil is always going to be evil. The people need to install supporters of the United States Constitution into government. In the process, people need to inform themselves.

What can supporters of liberty do in positions of power? Congress has the power to impeach. Impeachment, in all reality, is the only weapon against a tyrannical president. When Bush overstepped his boundaries with the many Executive Orders and National Security Presidential Directives and bypassing laws and Supreme Court decisions, the Congress could've brought impeachment to the table. Representative Kucinich has done so several times, but been stopped in his tracks. If so many people are disliking of Bush, then why do they also oppose his removal? A waste of time? The waste of time excuse has been thrown around often, but in all reality, it isn't. One possibility that can happen, and according to rumored reports out of inside sources, is if Senator Barack Obama appears to be the winner of the candidacy for President of the United States, President Bush has a window thereafter to leave the country in worse of a wreck than it already is, by say, waging war against Iran on a full scale. What does he have to lose? All those troops scattered and a multi-trillion dollar deficit forever deepening? So what, he's out a month or two thereafter. This is why everything matters. Congress doesn't think so though and they don't think liberty matters.

What has ultimately assisted in the advancement of such a tyranny agenda is the further abolishment of the United States Constitution. What kind of Republican is President Bush if he believes the Second Amendment is a collective right of the state and not of the individual? Isn't it fishy considering the purpose of the ownership of arms was not only for self-defense, but because the Founding Fathers realized its requirement when protecting themselves when the tyranny of the powers that be come knocking to take them away. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters in Dick Heller v. District Of Columbia in stating that it was an individual right. But this battle for liberty doesn't halt there.

The Tenth Amendment has suffered greatly over the years and it all began with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when the downfall of the current policy of laissez-faire economics was met with the integration of socialism. The Supreme Court did their part in shooting down the extremes in overstepping of power, up until President Roosevelt stacked SCOTUS in his favor, then the games stopped. The Roosevelt SCOTUS went as far as to attempt to reduce the one amendment that threatened the Roosevelt legacy, the Tenth Amendment, to nothing but a "truism" that provides no further power. The Tenth Amendment is the amendment ultimately responsible for protecting the power and sovereignty of the States, as it provides that Congress' power is limited to that of what is described within the United States Constitution. All other power not specifically given to Congress is therefore left to the States. Roe v. Wade, national regulation of marijuana and abortion (among many other controversial topics), the Real I.D. Act, No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, are all unconstitutional, because the power is not provided for the in the United States Constitution and are unconstitutional regulation of the national body which impairs the ability of the States to properly and effectively work as an independent, while still legally obedient, member of the government system.

The United States Constitution is a well-forgotten aspect of society and has been shoved into the long-forgotten corners of society. What people forget is it is the supreme law of the land and it is made so to protect the liberty for the people and simultaneously safeguard the integrity of the democratic processes of government. People wish to either portray this as a living and ever-evolving document or an outdated document that should be scrapped altogether. So the Founding Fathers lived years ago and the document was written centuries ago? If we cycle out society entirely every hundred years then we eliminate the safety in security of our liberties and freedoms. We can't sleep with peace in knowing that our children and their children will be able to prosper without Big Brother telling them how they're going to live, where they're going to work, and how they're going to think. William Shakespeare's writing has been around for centuries and he's still heralded as a supreme example in literature. Shouldn't we not idolize him, because he is long outdated? Shouldn't we update our favorites? No, because certain aspects of society are timeless. And our freedom and the concepts behind it are so too. It is vital to realize this now and not before it's too late; because when it is too late, we will have not an opportunity to turn around and reverse the course of history. History will, like the unprecedented amounts of advances in today's society, have an unprecedented damning of the members of society for their ignorance, unlike ever seen before, because our government and the people in the powers that be, have exceeded the scope of their power and have collected their power so they can consume the world.

A movement of liberty and love, in support of freedom, in a democratic and peaceful manner is required. By acting democratically, we preserve democracy itself by protecting it with the tools it provides, as protecting democracy in non-democratic methods would be a cruel contradiction and a victory, if won, won only in vein and such as seen in many failed revolutions in history, would install a non-democratic regime with time that will seek to utilize fear tactics relating to the previous rulers in removing all freedom. Likewise, acting in a non-violent, peaceful manner claims a level of integrity and humanity not seen in today's society, or often in history. If people truly believe in peace, than defend it in a democratic manner with calm measures and strides to out vote the tyrants and overturn their legislation that threatens the well-being of the United States Constitution, which is the last standing safeguard for our liberties and freedoms.

Heller v. D.C.: A Dangerous Fire

2008-06-05T03:43:00.001-04:00

Heller v. D.C., the upcoming Supreme Court case regarding the gun ban in Washington D.C., is another of those cases that comes up periodically in history that will dramatically change the landscape of politics for the future. Like Chief Justice John Marshall did in Marbury v. Madison and providing judicial review, or in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee with the Supreme Court's power over state matters, or even in McCulloch v. Maryland in the expansion of Congressional powers, Heller v. D.C. will result in another Earth-shattering decision that will rock the political landscape in several different ways. The first and most obvious effect will be in regards to the second amendment, which will be addressed once again by the Supreme Court and due to the nature of the D.C. ban, will have to finally address in specific, the right to bear arms and whether it is an individual right or not. Furthermore, it will again address the states rights. Many state constitutions provide similar measures to the second amendment providing for a right to bear arms and thus in the Supreme Court deciding, would again overthrow the States. This was not brought into light until Montana politicians presented a joint resolution stating that a ruling against the individual right would violate the compact between the state and the Union when Montana entered the union. This, in theory, if violates such a compact, would leave Montana will within their rights to secede from the Union. Although extreme and arguably unlikely, it leaves the door dramatically wide open. The Compact with the United States was approved in 1889 without argument of the second amendment concerning the States as opposed to the individual, therefore providing a conflict. Instead, it was approved and the state entered the Union. As lawmakers have observed and emphasized, a violation of such a contract could lead to dangerous consequences.

One valuable point: If the states begin jumping into the fight, it could and will get very ugly. The first point, the second amendment, is another focal point, and to understand it, it is important to understand the history of it. The roots of America concerned a rebellion against the tyranny of a leader and government that had continuously abused its power and its people, aside from neglecting various civil requests and petitions and imposing unnecessary taxes. A war, of bloodshed and violence, the American Revolution is the positive effect of revolution that European countries would struggle for (and often fail at) for the coming century. But would this insurrection against the British have been possible without the possession of firearms? More than likely, not so, as the British armies themselves had been in possession of such weapons, as well as more advanced and dangerous weapons. There's a certain level of credit that has to be given to weapons in the founding of our country, as it enabled the revolutionaries to match the strength of their overseas government and the armies from which that occupied the colonies. Furthermore, there is also a credit given to the citizen-driven militias that were not drafted by the State, but were created and run by normal people who were aware of the presence of tyranny and oppression. This is the birth of the second amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The text of the second amendment, incorporating the two very principles discussed prior, stands as one of the major results of the revolution itself. It is not meant to be read as a whole, with implications affecting each other, but rather two separate rights featured in the identical amendment due to their source being identical: The American Revolution. There is a stunning violation of the rights at hand because of misinterpretation, intentional in a majority of the cases, regarding the true nature of the amendment. Some perceptions claim that due to the rights being featured together, the ownership of the right to bear arms is only a right of the militia, which is further described as being drafted by the State, because that is what it is meant to be serving in defense.

This is not the case. If one were to view amendments as a whole, single right with everything on relating to each other, the Constitution would be a worse entanglement of legal and political proportions than it already is. Suppose this is the case, that if rights are listed in the same amendment, that they only relate to each other. This school of thought involving interpretation would result in the reshaping of your rights to this effect:

1st Amendment: Your right to speech, press, petition, or peaceably assemble is only acceptable in religious matters, as the rights are mentioned only after Congress is denied the right to recognize an established religion as an official national religion or establish such.

The first amendment, the most guarded amendment among many members of the left and Americans in general. But as described above, the interpretation of all portions of an amendment being interrelated would also have negative effects for the person delivering such an argument, because then in theory, they would not have the right to argue against the second amendment, because it is not a religious matter.

The militia concept itself, despite certain significant legal clarifications, is still argued. The earliest of which, came on the pair of Militia Acts issued just six days apart in 1792 by the Second United States Congress. The first of the two, passed on May 2, basically gave certain rights to the President. These rights include calling militias during situations such as invasions by foreign nations and violent civil disobedience. This, in theory, designates the militia as a military body, given the call by the Commander-In-Chief, the President of the United States. Six days later, the citizen eligibility for an organized militia would be defined in the second Militia Act, as any able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. The Untied States Code, ratified in 1926, would later eliminate the racial aspect to include all males and lower the minimum enlistment age by a year, to seventeen. These provisions, featured in Section 311 under Title 10, would later be modified to include women. Furthermore, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution compiled a report in 1982, known as Senate Document 2807, regarding the subject of militias. It concluded that Congress had given the right to "raise and support armies" to the National Guard, but not "Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." This concludes the argument over militias by defining a militia as a body separate from the National Guard, therefore designating it as its own entity.

Despite Madison's deliberate exclusion of legalities, the second amendment still comes under fire. This brings forth one of the major debates of the second amendment that is critical to both itself and the entire Constitution. It is the debate over the implications of the phrase "of the people". Some say that it relates to the State, and specifically refers to the rights described in the second amendment as rights of the State, and not of the individual citizens. Now, if this is to be held true, then it is to be assumed that application of the first and fourth amendments as citizen rights is false, as both declare the rights described as rights "of the people". This belief would revoke our rights, in theory, to free speech, free press, assembly, petition, and protecting from unlawful searches and seizures. But the Supreme Court itself has even specifically cited the Bill Of Rights as referring to individual rights, such as in the case of Adamson v. California. Although this case relates to the Fifth Amendment and the right to not incriminate one's self, it is a landmark case in the Bill Of Rights and its implications. The court says this, "The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government." The dissent then goes on to agree, with reference to the anti-federalist movement, by stating, "The first ten amendments were proposed and adopted largely because of fear that Government might unduly interfere with prized individual liberties." Prized INDIVIDUAL liberties. Read that and read it again; twice and three times over. Photocopy it and send it to the American Civil Liberties Union and any other extreme left wing body with a grudge against the law-abiding American citizen.

Firearms itself however, are a critical debate. Where is the line between self-defense and reckless violence? Or even suppression of dangerous oppression and elimination of opposition without justification? Either way, it is a belief, that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the individual citizens. But one question still remains. It was a question that vexed Thomas Jefferson during the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, as well as Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and was a centerpiece in the debate between ex-federalist Daniel Webster and Robert Hayne of South Carolina in 1830. The question is this: With who or where did the final authority in interpretation of the Constitution lie?

Despite any controversy involving any of these aspects of the rights described within the second amendment, there is an obligation to defend them. The second amendment is apart of certain provisions made as result of the American Revolution, the very beginning of this country. This amendment is the result of its success, to ensure we will not fail as a united force against opposition. Captain Daniel Shays, a Revolutionary War veteran, even proved the significance of the militia. When he believed the government was out of line and to some extent, tyrannical for the ignoring of his pleas following disagreements between the farmers and the government on immediate property foreclosures and tax delinquencies, he banned with local farmers from Western Massachusetts to challenge authority. Despite his failure to overpower, the objective of effect was achieved, as it struck a cord. It displayed civil power. The integrity of the firearms was sought to be defended by Ambrose Burnside, a Union Civil War General, as well as a three-time governor and a two-time senator. He took his experience and belief, with already creating one of the most significant Civil War weapons, the Burnside Carbine, to create the National Rifle Association. This organization he and several others formed was aimed at defending the right to own firearms as well as training people to proper usage.

Now given all these various provisions, the Montana argument must be reintroduced. Along with a ruling against individual rights being negligent of all the factors listed above, there is a significant risk involving the states and Montana itself. Could Montana leave the Union? Yes. Would Montana leave the Union? Possibly. It has been suggested that it could occur, although extreme, it is not impossible and it is not unforeseeable. Such an action however, would send a ripple effect throughout the country that could lead states to question the ruling in a similar manner.

The point? The Supreme Court has more on its plate then most realize. And its time for the Court to stop being like Congress and being negligent, and to come through in the clutch for the United States Constitution, which is the very foundation of this free nation.

History The Cruel

2008-06-05T03:43:00.000-04:00

Inspired by simple and interesting question, the concept of denying history and censorship of that was brought forth. The question, "Should The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn be taught in school?" Now for those who are not familiar with the nineteenth century Mark Twain novel, it is about the story of a young boy in the American slave-owning society , who befriends a slave named Jim. Huck, has been raised in a society the permits the inhumane detainment of African Americans and the mistreatment of them. As a result, Huck blends into the society standard that "nigger" is a suitable term in describing the African-American. He does not view Jim as being inferior in a purposely spiteful and degrading manner as the adult society does, but has been raised to view the African-American as an inferior being. The question of whether the book is appropriate is the fact that Huck constantly refers to and calls African-Americans "niggers." Now in today's society, is known to be wrong and is scorned upon. In this period of history however, it was generally accepted. There is then a question of whether it is appropriate in this age to be taught, given its content that is now viewed as wrong. But there is a certain point where you also have to acknowledge history as whole. Literature parallels history to the effect that standards of society and the trends are reflected. So should literature have to be removed due to a fault on the part of history and the standards set at any given period of time? Should literary pinnacles be wiped away because of questionable content? At what point do you begin to acknowledge something as inappropriate?

First, it must be acknowledged that history itself is not kind. As Thomas Hobbes viewed humanity, the history it created is inherently cruel. Why? Humanity is not perfect and therefore is prone to prejudices and discrimination. Perhaps the greatest fault in the beginnings of the educational career of a student is the purposeful neglect of various facts in order to reestablish a historical character in order to create a hero. Christopher Columbus is a prime example of the abuse of history. The question stems further from this point. Should we be teaching our children misinformation that is known to be wrong? No. Columbus shouldn't even be taught in kindergarten, period. Columbus' cruel and inhumane treatment of the indigenous peoples to the North American content was disgusting and horrifying. But more importantly, it is history. Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, it is our history. Our entire history is like a human body riddled and overrun with plague and disease. Picture the skin of a child overridden with chicken pox. Dark points cover our entire history from head to toe. Adolf Hitler subjected everybody from homosexuals to African-Americans to the Jews to concentration camps, which was the worst of evils. The United States of America had Japanese-Americans rounded up and relocated to such camps, just under a different name, in World War 2. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft under President George Walker Bush wished to put anybody viewed as an "enemy combatant" in a concentration camp. Atomic bombs were dropped in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring a bitter end to World War 2. Saddam Hussein tested chemical agents on his own people during his reign as president of Iraq. The point? History is bitter and it is ugly; it is also cruel, negligent, and inhumane.

Returning to the point of Huck Finn itself, the mistreatment of African-Americans itself is something that occurred and cannot be denied. Furthermore, it will not become just another event of the past, barely pondered, anytime soon. Why? Because it was only a half a decade ago that we actually finally gave freedoms to those human beings who were horribly oppressed simply because of the pigment of their skin. Society itself however, always enters a state of denial that will further flush the thought from its collective mind. Whenever harm is done, it acts as if it was the fault of the person next to them, but in all truth, the fault is everybody's as a whole. If you were not opposing, then you were supporting. The same school of thought involving denial and ignorance is what brought Adolf Hitler to power and left him there for all the years he oppressed individuals who he saw is inferior, simply because of superficial features.

Do we neglect all of this at the risk of offending another? What if a student is offended by Darwinism because he has been raised as a devout Christian, does this student get a free ticket out of Biology class for whatever span of classes covers the contradicting theory of humanity? History is offensive. The present is offensive. The time is not to turn a blind eye. We live in a society that permits the abortion of unborn children, right or wrong, the methods of doing such is inhumane in itself. Abuse is rampant as far as both children and elderly go, as well as each other in society as a whole. There is still mass genocide that occurs in Africa and poverty haunts much of the world still. Society allows for these things to happen. You condone such acts by refusing to do something about the future. Negligence is a problem because it involves turning a head when things go straight to hell. The U.S. did it conveniently when Hitler was raging across Europe and rounding up people viewed as inferior to be thrown in concentration camps and did it under Saddam Hussein for years. The problem of history is the problem of the future, as one must change the future, as the future eventually becomes history and that history is just another growth in the progression of such offensive events.

We learn from these events. Through teaching our children at an appropriate and mature age that the use of the words "nigger" and "chink" are wrong, as well as the cruel taunting and torture of others, we show them what outcomes it has. Outcomes in history include the extended length of harbored slavery and racism in a supposedly free world, as well as in other portions of the world. We show them that while war is at times necessary, violence is not always the alternative. First shots at violence and lead to immeasurable amounts of unnecessary violence, most of which is preventable. Books like Huck Finn were written for the purpose of not being some random derogatory white supremacist book in the obscure end of a book shop, but to illustrate the hate that haunted specific groups of individuals for years. Just as Schindler's List wasn't created to advocate the holocaust, concentration camps, or the cruel racism involved with such, but rather to illustrate the negative reality and how an act of severely wrongful and inhumane act on the part of the Nazi regime of Germany.

Slashing books that have been long held as apart of the highpoints in literature is also degrading the integrity of history, as it reflects a certain negligence of our heritage, negative or not. When the wiping of various historical events occurs, the censorship that leads to the weakening of democracy and the freedom it permits that results. Countries such as Cuba and China have strict laws of censorship, which for various reasons are created because they view it as a way of protecting the nation. But humanity must be allowed to act as a whole. If we fail as a whole, we shall learn as a whole. And where from and what we learn as a nation is derived from our past, in history. The very basis of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself was based off of various usurpations of power and certain abuses they had been subjected to. If, instead of neglecting our past, we could learn as our founding fathers did from history that has already arrived, we can change the future in order to ensure that the eventual history and past shall be cleansed of such repetitive disasters in human rights.