Showing posts with label Declaration of Independence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Declaration of Independence. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Hey King George Obama...This Declaration's for You


A lot of people have been reading the Constitution lately, and that's a good thing. For a change read the Declaration of Independence. It will sober you up. I can imagine that if its writers were here today they would march up Pennsylvania Avenue and nail the Declaration onto the gate of the White House for King George Obama!
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Just Wave for Help

I believe that the time may have passed for waving the Constitution in front of our elected public servants and start waving the Declaration of Independence. Some of the circumstances are different, but the underlying principles are timeless. "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." --Benjamin Franklin/Thomas Jefferson.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

A Fixed Point of Reference

Can morality exist without God? Can there be absolute truths, good and bad, right and wrong without edicts from an Almighty? If not, who is to say which Almighty and which religious books we believe and follow? Hmmm, good questions. The answers should be even more interesting. Let’s think this through. For the sake of argument let’s stipulate that there is no God and no body of heavenly directives. When a group of people come to live in close proximity and form a society, human nature being what it is; there will be crime. Some people will take property from others and do bodily harm upon them. The victim will say to the aggressor that I don’t like that, it hurts me and it is wrong for you to do this. Yes, we can all agree that the victim doesn’t like it. We can also agree that it harms the victim. But, how do we say that it is wrong. Maybe the aggressor likes it, he gets a perverse satisfaction from the act and he is not harmed but rather rewarded with the stuff that he has stolen. He might say that what he did was not wrong, but very right for him. So how do we resolve this clash of right vs. wrong? Remember, there is no God or Bible and there are no laws yet. It’s just one person’s word and preference against another’s. So, the victim goes to his neighbors and exhorts them to band together to pass laws proscribing such behavior and punishing those who violate the laws. But, they ask; upon what basis do we make our decisions about which activities shall be deemed illegal and which shall not? Well, those activities which harm others should be illegal he responds. But the aggressor says that he was not harmed, but improved but his activities against you. So if we simply put to a vote of the people (pure democracy) it comes down to how many victims vs. aggressors happen to live in the society at the time of the vote. The determination of what is to be defined as right and wrong is merely left to the number of people lined up on either side. Too many aggressors and right is wrong and wrong is right, sort of. This is the tyranny of the majority over the minority in a pure democracy (devoid of a constitution or overarching set of guiding principles, e.g. The Holy Bible). Morality thus becomes relative and potentially ever-changing. A fixed point of reference that it always moving.
OK, we could say that only encounters and activities that harm neither party are allowed. If either or both parties are harmed the activity is illegal. We are now faced with defining harm. And we are now right back where we started from. How do we define harm? Remember, the aggressor in our scenario argues that he was not harmed. His concern for his victim is nil. If there are enough of these aggressors in the society, when the vote on the definition of harm comes, how do we think they will vote? We have made no progress.
Well, let’s look to our history and traditions for guidance. Oops, this is a new society with no historical tradition. Well some things are just so heinous that they are obviously wrong. Based upon your opinion that may be the case. And it may be the opinion of most members of society, but probably not all. And I would agree that some things are so bad that it just seems to make sense that they should be disallowed. But we are still relying upon the vote of the majority. It’s that tyranny of democracy thing again and such decisions don’t have real lasting power. They are relative and change over generations. It’s hard to order society when the targets keep getting moved around.
It’s beginning to look like we need some sort of outside supreme force to set some absolute truths and guardrails to guide our lawmaking process. These would be non-changing non-negotiable tenets. The only rules which meet those requirements that I know of come from God. But now we must decide whose God and which spiritual writings we accept. The good news here is that most of the recognized religions of the world have many similar absolute teachings on the basics of human life. That’s not to say that people and people groups over the years have not distorted and misapplied these teachings and caused harm to come to people. However, that is not a failing of the teachings but rather of human nature. That we sometimes abuse the doctrine does not indict or nullify the usefulness of the doctrine.
So I say that the only and best solution is for our society to select (yes by popular vote understanding the whole democratic tyranny thing but realizing that there really is no bad choice here for the reason stated in the last paragraph, whew) one of the religious doctrines, base their constitution and laws upon it and stick with it. Period. There really is no other rational choice. It’s the best path available to imperfect human beings in my opinion.
For the United States of America that choice is the Christian religion, derived from Judaism. These are the principles codified in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Now is the Time for All Good Men

I have written extensively about the federal government’s drift away from its constitutional moorings over the last forty years, culminating with President Bush signing the patently unconstitutional mortgage take-over bill several weeks ago. Now the prospect of a President Obama (God forbid) yoked up with Pelosi and Reid looms large on the Republic’s horizon. Such an unholy troika would devastate what remains of our constitutional liberties and protections. He would pack the federal judiciary and Supreme Court with far-left radical activist judges who would change the legal and cultural landscape for generations for the worse. Barry has even voiced his support for a long-touted second Bill of Rights which would include a federal constitutional right to a job, a home and health care. Not to mention the backdoor disarming of the citizenry and a no-holds-barred abortion juggernaut. On top of these abominations he would gut the military, one of the few legitimate and critical federal functions thereby ceding our vital positions around the globe to those who would cut off our oil and our heads.

This anti-constitutional orientation infects all three branches of the federal government and sadly both political parties, though I would judge that there is a much greater dose of it in the Democrat party. Lord Acton was quite right when he observed that, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the federal district court in Philadelphia stated in his dismissal of Democrat Philip Berg’s suit questioning the birth certificate of Barack that we mere people have no standing to raise constitutional issues about our candidates running for President. His belief is that only the Congress has such standing. Are you kidding?! So our only recourse against constitutional infractions is to wait for Congress to bring the issue forth? They are as guilty and complicit or more of such heinous constitutional infractions as Obama. That’s tantamount to me handing a pistol to a thief breaking into my home in the dead of night and begging him to arrest himself! We the people through our states own the Constitution. We do indeed have standing. The federal government does not own and is not a party to the constitution. The states wrote it and created the federal government to serve the needs of the states and at their pleasure, not vice versa. The states are not mere governmental subdivisions of the federal government. The federal government is charged to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of the states and the people through the very specific enumerated powers and restrictions within Article I, Section 8 and the various amendments. And that’s it! It is NOT carte blanche for the federal government to tax, spend, regulate and run every minute aspect of American life.

Now is the time for the people acting through their states to rise up and enforce the absolute tenets of the constitution upon the federal government. We must not be intimidated. The states can amend the constitution and call a constitutional convention. I hope it does not come to a convention. Let me say that I am not an advocate of state secession, but I do think that states should consider ways that they can reign in a rogue federal government and perhaps operate as more sovereign, independent states while remaining within the republic. States choosing not to participate in unconstitutional federal programs would become laboratories of liberty which would attract or repel people and industry based upon their success or failure. As a parting thought I pray that we do not take up arms over these issues as we did in 1775 and 1860. That course of action though is the final recourse of a people oppressed by tyranny. It is for this reason that the Second Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights. History teaches that one of the first actions taken by a despot is to confiscate the people’s arms. What better way to protect himself from forced removal? The American people must never cede that right. Let’s look back to our very own Declaration of Independence for guidance from our Founding Fathers:

…”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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”…

And a few final thoughts from Thomas Jefferson, the liberal’s favorite Founding Father:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

God save the Republic!

October 29, 2008