Liberalism/Progressivism is a world of unicorns, fairies, and the religion of humanism, all wrapped in a ball of fantasy and unreality, so it is in that vein I write this, though with hope and therefore a conservative and pro-American approach to the Syrian Refugee Crisis.
Here’s an idea for GITMO, the President's big thorn of agitation he plays with over the course of his Presidency, using it to make the public restless and pressurize political oppositions... What if we made GITMO the new Ellis Island for Syrian Refugees (By my plan the “GITMO Multi-cultural Humanitarian Refugee Crisis Relief Center”)? Now if you're thinking I want them detained and held in cells, if they are muslim/islamic terrorists, jihadists, then of course I do, but let's face the way this can work otherwise.
This is how it would go: Airline lands in GITMO loaded with Syrian Refugees. These mostly muslim men disembark the plane and are given clothing, a cot and a tent, with directions to the facilities (showering, restrooms, etc.) and where not to go, along with knowing there is an imam on the premises to discuss whatever they wish to discuss with them. The women are given the same for themselves and each of their children. Medical and dental exams are performed to assure the safety of all of the Syrian Refugees.
Of course there are more overt methods that will be available, but by merely taking these people to GITMO there will be subtle, nuanced methods taking place in merely providing food, clothing, and shelter, with medical exams that establish for certain those with explosives on their person (or not), and providing the opportunity throughout the vetting process for the refugee(s) to show their allegiances (whether actually a refugee seeking asylum, or an islamic terrorist seeking to act for whatever group they are a part of in Syria, or elsewhere, for that matter) and all without ever setting foot in the United States. Congress must establish set targets of numbers of people to be vetted at GITMO, for each of them will provide information that will be forwarded to everyone who would be involved in vetting a person applying for a visa because that's what will be the end result, a grant of asylum by giving them a six-month visa to stay in America.
Mind you, this entire vetting process could take years, and though that's an expense, I believe it's far less expensive than losing another life, another drop of blood to islamic terror. Of course, during this process we regularly speak to nations in the area of the Syrian Refugee's origin, those more culturally inclined to accept them and see if the refugee would rather go there than stay in GITMO, again at American expense, to assure our safety, the number one priority and purpose in having the National Government in Washington, D.C.
As for the Governors, there is little Constitutional Authority to reject Syrian Refugees and that is because you weak and no backbone States have accepted the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution for the United States of America as dictated by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) and not as intended by Our Founders. This situation results from national government using administrative processes to bypass Constitutional limits imposed on every branch of the National Government, administrative-governed national government and quasi-government agency interpretations of the Constitution and laws of the United States – And this is why the States have little if any influence, let alone authority, to say “H*ll No!” to the National Government, the States have allowed themselves to be superseded by administrative law.
To remedy this situation, Governors and State Legislators need to do for public safety what California did for the “enjoyment of religion,” as a guarantee to their citizens:
“Amendment ## to the Constitution for the State of __[Fill in the blank]__, known as the State Guarantee of Public Safety Amendment, to wit:
“The State of __[Fill in the blank]__ guarantees to defend the Right of every Citizen of this State to safely live their lives, to pursue and enjoy their Life, Liberty and Happiness, without fear of terrorism, and hereby Amends the State Constitution to include this guarantee.”
Sure the language probably needs some cleaning up but an Amendment carrying forward the Spirit of Freedom in relation to public safety, the tenor of a government caring about its State's Citizens, and without any other Amendments or riders for political and party agendas is where the power and authority to reject Syrian Refugees, or any other threat to the public safety of their State, lies.
Now it's been a while since I was at the law library Shepardizing cases, and I mention this because the published cases represent 20% of the cases actually heard and dealt with by the courts, and though these are assumed for citation to claim case precedent, this low margin of the overall cases would appear not to do justice to the presumption that the published citable cases are the be-all-end-all of the meaning of America’s laws and Constitution. I bring up this to help educate on the significance of case precedent, but also as a bit of a caveat to my not having used the more centralized (and controlled) case law data systems developed since the time I was sitting with a Shepard's book Shepardizing what I am about to share from the California Constitution and what was mentioned briefly earlier:
“SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of
conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
When I Shepardized this California Constitution Section I found 2 cases whose certiorari (writ of review) was rejected by the SCOTUS with explanation of why, which stood out to me that I'll try to state as accurately as I can recall:
“The Constitution of the State of California provides a guarantee of 'enjoyment' of religion. This guarantee exceeds the protections provided by the United States Constitution and therefore denies this court jurisdiction to grant writ of certiorari to review this case as presented to the Court.”
Again, there were 2 cases that the SCOTUS stated this as their reason for rejecting taking up their case on appeal. You can see why this would be remembered, and, as I continued my studies of history and the law I learned it was entirely valid and why, which is covered more thoroughly in other articles at http://changingwind.org and I won't get into here.
So States (State governments) who do not want and will reject Syrian Refugees (even if only to keep your political seats of power) I urge you to take up an Amendment to secure your right and authority to do so, one that stands for the right purposes and reasons for government: To protect their Citizens from harm.
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
I know the money supply, or size of our economy is limited solely to our imagination, as it is our invention and production of those inventions, be it a product, a service, or mixture of these that are how those things that generate work, jobs, and new inventions exist in a perfect Capitalist cycle.
However, to Humanist religion practitioners, in perfect “catch 22” fashion, who are the driving force of the “Secular Progressive Left” (i.e. Man is God in the absence of God), they act upon an assumed limit to the amount of money possible. They brand any who have more than someone else as “the wealthy” in comparison to those with less -- a term of art to disparage those who achieve greater sums of money than others by applying their talents to invention, and producing that invention by the most base mechanism of Capitalism known as “bargaining,” legally referred to as a contract.
Of course this takes us to “Collective Bargaining,” which often includes more than just wages, but also discusses safety issues, vacation pay, and other “benefits,” of which the most significant is the “Retiree's Pension Trust Fund Plan.”
While the unions make every effort to organize workers in non-unionized sectors to push for a “living wage” (another term of art, engendering the fallacy of guaranteed income by redistribution, which is an affirmation in the belief of, and method to assure, an overall limited amount of money), the unions also invest their pension funds throughout the financial sector via banking (credit union), to stocks and bonds, hedge funds, and in commodities.
Understand Union Pension Managers are very good at making money from other people's money in a Pension Trust Fund. Here's a link to CalPERS, California's public sector union's Pension Trust Fund, http://www.calpers.ca.gov/, with market value for market close of May 21, 2015 of $308 Billion, or 1/3 of the current national government deficit. I highlight this because the erroneously blamed crux of the problem explained by some union spokepeople or Progressives espousing a higher national minimum wage is, “these corporations make billions in profits and can easily afford to double their employee's wages.” Now for a screen shot of CalPERS at $182 Billion from December of 2008, visit this site: https://web.archive.org/web/20081228041044/http://www.calpers.ca.gov/. Please note this isn't CalPERS’ lowest value for 2008-2009 so clearly around 120 Billion dollars has been made in 7 years by this one Public Sector Union Pension fund, or $17 Billion per year! Isn't it interesting that the union spokespeople and Progressives, often funded in some manner by hedge fund manager Progressive George Soros, all ignore this massive growth in pension fund net worth? And what makes it so much more irritating is that this is a Public Sector Union meaning: The Pension Trust Fund value is the total amount of wages withheld by government from Public Sector Employees, servants of the People -- withheld and managed by the same government paying these unionized government workers from your tax dollars. It appears the whole thing is a government & union working together scam to bilk we the people, notice the “.gov” website link? If it were a corporation we'd be hearing “fascists” from all quarters, but since it's only a Labor Union acting identically to a corporation we're giving it a pass.
I applaud the Huffington Post for picking up on this AP Investigation of CalPERS fund manager's bonuses, though I figure it's to highlight the last line stating what then Governor Schwarzenegger said, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/. It's worth noting that the Senior Fund Manager, Ted Eliopoulos who netted $400K when the fund had lost almost $60 Billion dollars, became the “Chief Investment Officer” for CalPERS, and he then moves to get the fund out of investing in hedge funds, http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/.
Interesting isn't it how the screams for McDonald's, and before they caved, Walmart, to “pay a living wage” by raising their hourly rate, and Obama's push for a higher minimum wage, all ignore that the profiteering greed mongering face of the “Wall Street Investment Mogul” is Public Sector Union institutional investors exploiting their tax-exempt pension wealth, where those making the investments make money on union employees’ money that originated from taxpayers?!
And to add insult to injury, let's look at Netflix, first via NASDAQ itself, http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nflx/ownership-summary. Notice the Institutional Investor ownership is almost 90%! And in the details, according to Stockzoa, the largest holder is a public sector union out of Ohio, http://stockzoa.com/ticker/nflx/, and as you follow the links you end up at the SEC.gov site (use your browser's “search on page” and type in “Netflix”) where Netflix is right in the filings of the State Teacher's Retirement Board of Ohio (i.e. “OTR” apparently soon to be their acronym).
I want to post more but this would end up 50 pages long and not even scratch the surface. What must be said: unions are institutional investors, and they are investing in corporations and commodities to the tune of $5,000,000,000,000 yes that's Trillion illustrated. How is this different than corporate raiders and other investors? It isn't, in fact Credit Unions even “merge,” http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.
The difference is that this originates from union money, and this is far down in the list, but see 26 USC 401 (i), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/401. Go figure, every pension is a “Pension Trust Fund,” http://thelawdictionary.org/pension-trust-fund/ and http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pension-trust-fund/. And that's on top of Credit Unions, who also make these same institutional investments and are explicitly tax exempt https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.501, an exemption they want to fight to keep, http://www.nafcu.org/cutaxexemptionissue/. While Oblahma blah blah blah's about “fundamental fairness,” the unfair advantage of tax exemption for both Pension Trust Funds and their Credit Union counterpart, is sucking up the profitability of a level free-market playing field for individual & small business investors to larger corporations, profits that would prompt increases in spending in offset, including higher wages for their employees. Please make specific note of this fundamental unfairness of the carve-outs for unions, the abuse of it by their 1% salaried Pension Trust Fund managers, and their Credit Unions, the next time you want to get mad at a corporation for lobbying for their own carve-outs. We can no longer ignore how special treatment of unions in both the public and private sector provides them with tax free use and exploitation of large pools of money that has large scale, market-affecting, financial influence that suppress profits and wages in all other sectors of the economy.
I'll leave you with Michael Masters’ testimony regarding institutional investors, and how it was the unions’ first time venture into crude oil futures speculation that led to the price increase to almost $150/barrel that was a catalyst, if not cause, for the 2007-2008 financial collapse, http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/052008Masters.pdf.
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
P.S. Note that it was President Clinton who, it appears, acted upon Eric Holder's advice, pardoned Marc Rich “who invented Oil Trading,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/.
Name calling? Me? Nah, just the facts and only the facts.
And it is in that interest I submit to you how duped we've been, how absolutely duped by visions of candy canes, unicorns, and fairies, that we've foolishly viewed under the banners “World Peace,” “multi-culturalism,” and “environmentalism.”
Make sure you see the dots I am connecting here because it's metareality, the top layer of reality, of man's Progressive humanistic stupidity that I am writing this to address.
Ice cream, and particularly how we scoop it, is the subject of today's “history lesson” on #ProgressiveStupidity.
If we go back in time to, obviously, after we discovered using dry ice, ammonia (still used in commercial refrigeration), and of course freon to assure freezing temperatures we find smooth, creamy, cooling on a hot day with ice cream.
And here's the scoop:
Notice the long handle? Leverage! The actual mated gearing of gear teeth, and yes we'd use wood for a handle.
Now, the big deal here about this ice cream scoop: What part of it isn't “biodegradable?” Answer: The whole thing is biodegradable. If it were buried in the ground, this ice cream scoop would break down into its original elements and dust. If buried in moist ground, it would break down much faster due to the rusting of the metal components and water's natural solvent attribute with many elements, including the wood handle.
Of course, it might take longer if portions of this ice cream scoop are brass or made of some precious metal, but the fact is, what you're looking at is 50+ years old and still works, still scoops ice cream, and will do so until it breaks, and only if irreparable will this scoop find its way to a landfill somewhere.
So now let's look at a retro of the above ice cream scoop, a “vintage” one of “Progressive Design:”
See that it has a plastic chemical non-biodegradable handle? Notice the lever mechanism is by a group of holes, easier to manufacture and using less metal than the geared lever in the first image. And of course to further save on metal cost the ice cream scoop must be shorter, which means the person using it will not have as much leverage in scooping out ice cream. Will those drilled holes, last anywhere near as long as that antique ice cream scoop with actual gearing on the lever that is matched up to the gear teeth surface to surface? Doubtful.
Yet, in the name of environmentalism, less metal is used to make the second one, and more plastic, and usually these wear out at the outer edge of the scoop, where that pin goes in for the scoop release, as it is not fitted to the hole in the scoop either, or, due to the cheaper metal used, it just rusts at that “wear point,” and that's assuming the handle doesn't crack in 10 years or less. The reason for which is the pressure point of leverage and how it takes on more torque pressure due to being so much shorter than that old wood handle on the older ice cream scoop.
So in 100 years, the old scoop still works and has no reason to be replaced, while that new scoop, 10 of them or more have found their way into the landfills, into the dumps across the world.
Now you're saying, “Littman, this is stupid, you're gonna say that the making of more disposable ice cream scoops proves Progressive Stupidity?” And I reply, “Yes. Better amplified and understood when you replace “ice cream scoop” with antique automobile versus modern day cars; with iPhone, iPad, Galaxy, etc, versus copper land line telephone that you don't upgrade every 6 months to 2 years with a new plan that comes with a new iPhone, iPad, etc., and almost always causes you to discard your old devices as they are slower, have less memory, and networks stop working with them, as well; with desktop computers often holding information that, when compiled, documents your life, your work, your photos, but, which needs to be replaced every few years with a new computer because the operating system upgrades fix security breaches as discovered (and usually doubles the operating system size beyond your current computer's capacity) versus a paper file cabinet with backups of your most important information and items in a safe or bank safety deposit box; with digital books or record systems such as Lexis-Nexis for lawyers where your selection is limited to what's been digitized versus a library with volumes on the shelves, where you can find whatever information you want without a “protected area rope” barring you from reaching for a book even in a Federal Repository – your feet your only limit to the information you receive. And make special note with all these electronics that this isn't including the cost of the bandwidth, servers, and personnel to manage these digital records, all of which, even if entirely wind, solar, etc., is still using more energy than that book sitting there on a shelf, usually in the dark in a cold library, and that this list of #ProgressiveStupidity isn't exhaustive.
Sure, the speed of access is diminished. Sure the ability to look up trivial information is hindered by volumes of significant and important information. So the question is: Are these things, when combined and 90% of the use of technology today, speed and trivial information, really worth the cost of 10 ice cream scoops?; going on 2 decades of digital devices from phones to computers in landfills, some of which are being combed by thieves looking for a way into taking over and stealing others’ property?; losing your lawsuit or being incarcerated because some “standards” of a centralized source of information denied digitizing law or cases that would help you prevail or be found “not guilty?” And this is aside from the idea of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” and how we waive that by using, and acknowledging by some click of an “I accept” that one is usually presented with the first time they use the Internet, to something to the effect of “...by using the Internet you understand and agree that there is no guarantee the information transmitted or received will not be viewed by third parties,” a backhanded license to government or anyone else to get whatever they can and leave you with no legal recourse!
I submit to you that the #ProgressiveStupidity in Democratization of American Government, the Progressive “movement,” by Unions, and business people, such as Kevin O'Leary's statement on a recent episode of SharkTank, “I'd sell crap if it makes money,” indicating an absolute embrace of Marx view of Capitalism without even the slightest idea of its difference in comparison to subject servitude under a Crowned head, and how that fact is the difference that would stop any scrupulous and good business person from doing exactly what he just said he'd do, the fact that Capitalism is not about making money but is about having a product or service to sell in a free market of free people, people who want and or need that product or service to make their lives better is the whole and entire reason Capitalism works (something the #ProgressiveStupidity of modern day planned obsolescence “environmentally conscious” ice cream scoop designs with a short in leverage handle yet long in biodegradability, 5,000 yrs, clearly fails to do).
And, that this #ProgressiveStupidity has been able to accomplish selling incompetent design because the People of this nation are so busy paying for the services in relation to these items, be it access to the Internet, the device upgrades, the software to run on them, etc. That it is a flurry, an induced #ProgressiveStupidity fog of “Gruber voter/consumer war” that we must pause and take a step back from (maybe a leap or 2) for a more objective view before we are lost in an overarching reality with a mind of its own, to which we, Individual People, are the disposable minority.
God Bless you and thank you for sharing and reading this,
P.S. Note: Any copyrights on the above photos weren't mentioned on the search engine I used, so I can't name those to whom credit should be given, but do recognize and well understand that if such copyrights exist they belong to those respective holders, whether I know their names or not.
With the rhetoric of today's colleges and universities; with the rhetoric of even those who have billions, such a Buffett, Soros, Winfrey, & Gates (might as well be named as a feigned philanthropic billionaire's club); and with the persistent rhetoric of the Progressives, most of which are Liberal Democrats, telling the rest of us all that's wrong with Capitalism, on the basis of some fictional “public” or “social interest” or even “justice,” it is necessary to look at the principle, to look at Capitalism as the Political, Economic, and Social system of Freedom that it is.
You see, in a nutshell, without Capitalism you own nothing... Nothing! Understand that precious retirement and/or pension is included in this nothing. Our first look at the investments made by the unions who generally are managing, as institutional investors, stocks, bonds (and even Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich's original oil speculation) will be using just one union website that explains their stock holdings, CalPers, http://www.calpers.ca.gov/. Please note the $300 billionish in holdings of just this California State employees union, which, just a month ago was $290 billion, in 2007 dropped to a mere $170 billion. Again, this is just one public employees union's holdings for one State.
And for union Oil Speculation, to which many unions have been involved, I refer you to the statement of Michael W. Masters to the Senate in 2008, explaining:
“You have asked the question “Are Institutional Investors contributing to food and energy price inflation?” And my unequivocal answer is “YES.” In this testimony I will explain that Institutional Investors are one of, if not the primary, factors affecting commodities prices today. Clearly, there are many factors that contribute to price determination in the commodities markets; I am here to expose a fast-growing yet virtually unnoticed factor, and one that presents a problem that can be expediently corrected through legislative policy action.
“Commodities prices have increased more in the aggregate over the last five years than at any other time in U.S. history. We have seen commodity price spikes occur in the past as a result of supply crises, such as during the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. But today, unlike previous episodes, supply is ample: there are no lines at the gas pump and there is plenty of food on the shelves.
“If supply is adequate - as has been shown by others who have testified before this committee - and prices are still rising, then demand must be increasing. But how do you explain a continuing increase in demand when commodity prices have doubled or tripled in the last 5 years?
“What we are experiencing is a demand shock coming from a new category of participant in the commodities futures markets: Institutional Investors. Specifically, these are Corporate and Government Pension Funds, Sovereign Wealth Funds, University Endowments and other Institutional Investors. Collectively, these investors now account on average for a larger share of outstanding commodities futures contracts than any other market participant.” – Emphasis mine. Numbers are footnote references, see http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/052008Masters.pdf?attempt=2 to read these footnotes.
Understand, what I am sharing here is that “Corporate and Government Pension Funds, Sovereign Wealth Funds, University Endowments and other Institutional Investors” make such large scale investment in exploitation of Capitalism, even if it means their investment causes rapid increases in prices based on the speculation alone, which was a major contributing factor to the 2007 Recession.
So how does this relate to “Capitalism is caring?” As I said, “in exploitation of Capitalism,” which is to say, these pension funds and endowments, “Institutional Investors,” produce nothing, invent nothing. They are money pools for a group of union members, such as college professors or the 5 on the roadside (4 standing holding shovels) while the one guy is digging the hole for a “Your highway funds at work” road construction project, a money pool that is invested as indicated above by Mr. Masters. Amazing, isn't it, that the taxpayer-paid employee pension plan, while exploiting those who produce via the capital and commodities market, exploits those who do produce by the taxes on the citizenry, working at the local restaurant, retail store, big box store, etc., who have to pay more for gasoline or any other commodity, the silent tax of inflation by the tax-payer funded Union Pensions' Profits just makes my blood boil!
You could easily conclude the Unions and their pension fund management are no different than the hedge fund managers, the point of each the same: to always make a profit, their legal fiduciary obligation. It's a great cover isn't it? Unions paying people to chant in the streets for $10 and hour, then $15 per hour if the $10 is reached, knowing full well the dues money and percentage investment from those eventual union members will increase the total pension pool – The Institutional Investment money that was invested in oil speculation and drove the price up to $150 per barrel in 2007. And please recognize that when minimum wage goes up, the public employees now have grounds to demand States and National government give them a raise, or expedite some previously arranged wage increase, no matter if the State can afford it or not. Funny how they use the same hedge fund management approach to wages contract increases isn't it? Almost like they are running unions for a profit, meaning: running a non-profit as a profit enterprise (as Unions are required to be registered as exempt from taxation according to the IRS). Yes, there are no taxes whatsoever paid on these trillions in pension and retirement plans.
I heard a rare and endangered species cricket rub its legs... Oh wait that's the Progressives trying to say something... They are screaming, “Warren Buffett shouldn't pay less taxes than his Secretary!” So you say, yet, you have no trouble with a public sector union whose employees are paid by taxing citizens from being completely tax-exempt while holding 5 trillion dollars of stocks, bonds, and commodities speculation paper? Seems a complete and anti-Capitalist selective hypocrisy and persecution of the “wealthy” for you to arrive at no objection to a collective of elitists who make money as Trustees for public sector union pension plans while private individuals, who you argued in Hobby Lobby are the those real “persons,” and that the government is limited from taking private property from by the 5th Amendment, who you agree have innate 1st Amendment protections, aren't allowed to make the same risk and enjoy the same capital gains benefits as Union Institutional Investors? You'd actually deny a 1st time investor who is investing their post-tax income the right to make tax-free money by risk? I guess so, considering you want the dead to be taxed for leaving their hard-earned money to whoever they wish, even they can't be without government taking some portion... Apparently you've applied the abortion principle of no rights to the murdered fetus Individual to an Individual who leaves property to another when they die, perfect parallel, but surprised you'd make it so blatantly.
And what's so insane, so very insane oh Progressives, is that your Union Pension “investment banking” is entirely based on the success of Capitalism to afford its demise. That you know these businesses, by delivering their products or services, have met their entire requirement to show they care, know that in meeting the contractual obligation with a person who paid, be it to sell gasoline, movie tickets, an item from Amazon, or a gun show, etc., that the caring of the two parties is met upon delivery. Anything beyond that, anything else, is to propagandize and attack the company for sake of attacking Capitalism solely because it is the most moral system in the world. I can say that because we negotiate and exchange our property, our work and labor, which is the Individual determining their value and acting on it by their own standards. The morality of this system is only interrupted by Government which has proven to be the most corrupt and immoral institution on Earth. Government's abuse of its right of force (and when no such right exists just using force) be it by the tax code, or local governments via their enforcement of building and fire codes, or local taxes, such as the tax on “sales” of local retailers, is the only money taken out of the economy and used to pay public servants whose Union Institutional Investor does as Mr. Masters explained above.
So while you Progressives bring up your complaints about Capitalism and spout some “unfairness” talking points, know that you are only talking against Freedom and Individual Liberty, for the sake of the newly named corporate organizational structure: Unions, whose wealth, rivals, and in many cases exceed, the largest corporations and banks in the world, is destabilizing economies and without caring at all about the cost to the individuals in nation after nation, evidenced by you remembering what you were paying at the pump, when talk of $5 a gallon was being assumed “the new normal gas price?” Take a Progressive bow and thank your Institutional Investor Union Pensions for personally redistributing your wealth, since you're so “rich” and so “wealthy.”
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
I am certain this is a significantly covered topic. The trouble with what's out there is a lack of objectivity. You be the judge. I'll do my best to deliver the facts. Separating it out like this makes it much easier for me, and for you, not to confuse the observer and the observed, nor to invert and be subjective from either view.
What does the Declaration of Independence establish? It tells you in most certain terms:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
“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. -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Emphasis done for those who may find it useful.
For instance “certain unalienable rights” will engender the idea of “specific” (limited) rights today, when, at the time, it meant “absolute,” contrary to the United States Supreme Court's rulings, suggesting, “no right is absolute,” where the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” phrase originates, though, often by omission. The phrase is “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater” making the idea of protected Freedom of Speech not being absolute, subject to the criteria that the speech is untrue, inaccurate, deceptive, and intended to mislead, cause panic etc., 249 US 47, at page 52, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/47/case.html.
This was just one illustration of how Free Speech is used to destroy Free Speech, and is backed up by this paragraph from the Hartford Courant, regarding gun control in Connecticut, a few months after the Sandy Hook incident of a mentally deranged person's actions:
“....[T]those using the Second Amendment to justify their right to have high-powered guns with high-capacity gun magazines might be accommodated under an interpretation of the Constitution that would have been applied by our Founders, even as Connecticut considers stricter gun rules.” -- http://articles.courant.com/2013-02-01
Now, the import to this is that the author, Saul Cornell, who explains they fully understand the “interpretation of the constitution that would have been applied by our Founders,” is advocating for gun control by that article, placed in the commentary section, of course, but he makes sure his credentials are noted too:
“Saul Cornell of Redding is a Second Amendment expert and constitutional historian and the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University.” -- Ibid.
So, the take away is this: That, using the Constitution as intended, pursuant to how it was written, we discover absolute rights and absolute limitation imposed on government would be our Founders' interpretation.
Now, I know some of you are saying, “Littman's lost it, he's citing the 2nd Amendment as part of the Declaration of Independence!” Actually, no, I am saying that the Constitution that limits government, and is ratified by the People, is an act and historical factual event in execution of the Declaration of Independence as Our Written Will, that the Constitution constitutes “the consent of the governed,” and that the 2nd Amendment's language, pursuant to the preamble of the Bill of Rights, is intended:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
So ends the idea the “Bill of Rights” is expressing the Rights of Individuals under a national government's absolute power, treated as an instrument establishing the “privileges of US Government subjects.”
The above is merely an aid.
The fundamental principle of all politics throughout history is a Master and servant relationship. Socrates even discusses slavery, without any abhorrent denouncement but as an accepted institution of Greece in Plato's Republic. Tribal Chieftains to the Blueblood Crowned heads of Europe, the politics, even after the existence of America, still the same, understood by these 2 simple inherent questions: Who is the Master? Who is the servant?
These questions, until the existence of the United States of America with a written Constitution, that even ends the institution of slavery by 1808 (see Article I, Sec 9, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html, Federalist 38, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_38.html, and Federalist 42, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html), was answered by a Feudal hierarchy, guild system and noble classes, as well as a parliamentary institution of the “House of Commons” and “House of Lords” never yielding the government to be anything but levels of Masters all under a final Master, a Crowned head.
So now we must play at parsing for clarity, no other reason. “Servitude” and “slavery” are easily identical terms, based on conditions of “employment” which is merely the using of something to achieve an end. If the employment features an ownership clause over you, and treats you as property, it is slavery. However, when done by a Sovereign Crowned head, or a parliament, who makes the law, and adjudges for themselves by whimsical political standards, without a written Constitution, which would mean the entire of Europe, “subject” is included as slavery.
Servitude is employment, and the 13th Amendment, while abolishing slavery, separated out “involuntary servitude” as abolished as well, which is saying in reverse it is not abolishing voluntary servitude.
Do you see the Master and servant relationship that in the modern day is considered “labor law” or “employee employer” law? I mention the modern day to help understand by parallel, not as the standard.
In a nutshell, because it's easy to get “out in the weeds,” so to speak, on this, the Constitution's directive language, its use of “shall,” and “enumerated” powers, instead of “general powers,” without one scintilla’s presence of the word “grant,” or the phrase “grants the people,” explains it is a document establishing a collective public servant to carry out the needs of each Individual's Will. Representatives are intended to hear all constituents, as a matter of their job in public service, the job they volunteered for, by election or even accepting a bureaucratic appointment, and because the constituents constituted the government these public servants volunteer to work for the constituent who is their Master.
The American Constitution, for the first time in known, recorded, history of mankind, in a most clever move of absolute genius, created a government in servitude to carry out the Will of the People as their employer and Master in complete reversal of the role of the private “House of Lords” noble class, the peasant subject doing the bidding of those who demand homage or subject that peasant to imprisonment, the rack, or other public spectacle to intimidate the remainder to obey the “noble” and heed the will of the Guild (modern day union, see “Screen Actors Guild,” the Hollywood Union, http://www.sagaftra.org/about-us/mission-statement).
Yes, the Screen Actors Guild uses remnant terms of the Feudal Era of Oppression (while screaming their actions, even if lies, are protected free speech). As well, the Dark Ages before the Age of Enlightenment and where the Sentience of each Individual is recognized sacred, shattered by bold America, who by Constitution is Individual Liberty living a free way of life in self government, all secured and assured by a government of public servants serving each one of us as their Master. Said one more way, people living their life by our public servant government's execution of the Principles of the Declaration of Independence, though carrying out their job according to the particulars of the Constitution.
This is the Fundamental American Politics that those who cannot handle the responsibility that comes with Freedom want to destroy. They do not care if they eradicate the choice of Freedom from the face of the Earth, as, to them, if that can happen it was meant to happen, and if they did it, it is meant for them to abscond with whatever they can get from the end of Freedom and Individual Liberty.
At least now you know, subject, why you are taught your “constitutional rights.”
God Bless you, thank you for reading and sharing this,
I don't care who you are as an American, just that you are an American.
What I mean is every single one of us is in an oppression situation.
- The poor can't get jobs, can't get the crime to stop, because the Government won't support businesses in their area...
- The wealthy have to pay to play, pay for permits, licensing, taxes, and leap every other regulatory hurdle, as well as risk their money to being lost to open a business, no matter where, and government wants them to open them in areas the government believes will generate more tax revenue...
- The white person who can't get in a college because they have enough white people and are required to make room for other ethnicities or the government will cut their funding...
- The black person who can't get a job because they didn't qualify for the student loan or a grant, and doesn't have the education they wanted, and do need…
- The young student who did qualify for the loan or grant, but didn't know that most of these “grants” have to be paid back, and can't pay back their loan...
- The senior citizen whose fixed income, said to have a “cost of living” increase, buys less and less every day, and as their deductible on their bronze health insurance plan is $5,000, they're exhausting what they have on their $400/pill subscriptions (this one also applies to the poor)...
- Those in the middle find that if they go upward, they'll jump too high, the government's imposed tax tier will absorb whatever increase in income they have and more...
- Veterans can't get healthcare, can't get the money they need, can't get anything they put their lives on the line and often lost a limb for in serving their country, and yet are demanded to be “patient” in the most insensitive use of terms that only pours salt in their wounds...
- The child who is looking for some sort of baseline to understand right and wrong, to understand the value of life, theirs and others, is without any aid from any of the above because they have their own problems...
And all but the child's problem, directly issues from the government, a government by party, not the People. A government that is dividing us along every difference we'll accept to claim a narcissistic special circumstance, a special interest that applies to us and that we expect the government to cater to, without realizing this is the hook, our crutch, our weakness, and all because the political parties want us divided and conquered (commanded) by government when their party is the majority.
Yet, even this writing will be scrutinized for my angle as being opposed to someone else's. It doesn't matter if I said nothing but that they are my fellow Americans matters. That I, a Christian, speak up for gay lives and want to know why they weren't a priority to our President in dealing with Iran; That I, a Christian, do not want women to be persecuted by Sharia law; That I, being a Christian will count against me even though I am an American; and that I am a Constitutional Conservative Christian, will be all that matters to those who have accepted the division as America instead of wanting to stand united as a People so we can question government wisely from all quarters as Free, Individual, Americans.
I want our ills cured in all quarters, and the method is important, for, it cannot exacerbate the oppression we're suffering by a government who wishes us to act like children, to be rivaling interests like rivaling tribes, and to fail to ever hold, together as a People, the very government we constituted and put in place, accountable for the oppression they are causing overall. Freedom is our cry as Americans, because it is our Right and our Property, not by government, but intrinsic to us by whatever Creator we wish, that even in the most platonic sense places the origin of our Rights above man and groups of men, no matter their party or denomination. Objective government, with representatives of all their constituents, not just those who elected them, is how we bring an end to government's oppression by division, government catering to special interests from Civil Rights this or that, to Corporations, as well as other Nation States, and “religious” orders.
We alone are the ones to tell government we'll no longer hate in the name of party, no longer let a party use the power of government to have its way, because we know government power was granted to it by all the people, not just one party, and in no instance was this power granted to oppress those who disagree with the controlling party's views. We want objective government that assures our Individual Liberty and Freedom, not using us against each other to achieve what a party in control of government wants.
It is time Americans stand for Freedom, and stand deliberately, with one voice, so loud that we shake the very solar system we're in!
God Bless you, be Free, thank you for reading and sharing this,
While numerous articles have been floating through my mind, and compulsion to write them fought for reasons I can't explain, I come before you with the following summaries for sake of their point not being lost:
Lufthansa, the Epitome of Altruism & why it is wrong
Many say airlines just don't care about their passengers, passing this off as the cause of the crash. Who can blame them? Socialists constantly saying every advancement of mankind is done by people who don't care about mankind, be it the farming equipment that replaced slavery, to the pesticides that kill an endangered bug as collateral damage for saving crops for food, or to be artificially raising commodity prices to use for making ethanol and pursue other alternative energy ideas. Of course it is that evil corporation that owns the plane, it is their fault...Not! The reality is that as our society has moved away from appreciation of Freedom, ambition, and the curiosity that leads to invention, producing something new that makes the old obsolete (i.e. like farm equipment made the slave obsolete). We've decided to blame anyone with more than us, that we perceive to have some privilege gained by their success – earned or inherited, “they're wrong because they have more than I do”...Perfect Communists!
This is what Lufthansa, and every other business is fighting, and led to the birth of AI...er (sorry Matrix Morpheus moment)...PR (Public Relations). Why was a 28-year old man, who the airline knew had “a previous episode of severe depression” ever allowed into the flight training program? Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot who died crashing the plane into the French Alps, would have been a PR nightmare if rejected, and was going to be a great PR success if he had become a pilot. You see, the company is trying to separate itself from the rest of the airlines, as the rest of the airlines are too, and Lufthansa's approach is to take anyone who wants to be a pilot and teach them to be one, to show their willingness to sacrifice standards for sake of community, in hopes fewer people will say, “Lufthansa doesn't care.”
Well the result is 150 people were sacrificed, on the Altar of Altruism, to the great unicorn of public opinion.
Deny it: Airline is paid, takes your ticket, gets you on a plane, you arrive = Airline caring. You can't. This is their business, and to say that the airline doesn't care, without 50% or more of their planes falling out of the sky, and their passengers not making it to their destination, is to say the airline is supposed to do something else, something in addition to being an airline. Flight A320 shows that this is a dangerous proposition that cost the lives of 146 innocent people. Altruistic Anti-Capitalist Terrorism is to blame for the deaths of these people. Andreas Lubitz never should have been in that cockpit, even as a co-pilot. Anyone who thinks otherwise had better make sure the corporate charter for the airline and its tax ID number accurately depicts the variety of social consciousness programs the airline is taking on, and that they also are willing to admit that these extraneous concerns, can and will affect the airline's performance of its duty, to fly you from point A to point B without incident.
For me, Lufthansa represents the death of Altruism. But, I am sure another extremist who believes in sacrifice will prove me wrong, be it ISIS, Al Qaida, or Iran with a nuke.
Hillary Clinton's Paperless Office
Having been a small business owner at the beginning of the computer revolution, when Supercalc and Visicalc were coming out, precursors to Lotus 1-2-3 and Microsoft Office, the vision of the paperless office was being discussed amongst the coding and developer community. The great possibilities and potentials were, of course, recognized, and as they sunk in and lost their newness shimmer, the fears and real potentials were considered: “They can erase history. They can set-up an archive and then just change it to say something else.” Thus and so, Hillary Clinton has carried herself, electronically. She has erased history to meet her liking, she has decided that she is the most objective reviewer of her information as to what pertains to government activity and what doesn't. All the while receiving billions of dollars in a tax-exempt foundation, a not so amazing “rags to riches” in trust story. Her control over her server, a specious means to control the information and assume the information belongs to her as well... I believe it's time we used this with Microsoft, to explain why we're exempt from their End User License Agreement, don't you?
We volunteer to buy the product, yet are stuck with the End User License Agreement explaining we own nothing, that we are being licensed the product and Microsoft can prosecute us for wrongdoing in the use of their software.
Compare: Hillary Clinton accepted (thereby volunteering) to be in an office of trust as Secretary of State and was fully apprised that all information obtained in that capacity is subject to the law governing government property and disclosure, and that the government can prosecute her for wrongdoing in disclosure, omission, and erasure of information in her possession or control as Secretary of State.
Compare further: I am a small business owner. I agree with the Tea Party and volunteer to set up a non-profit organization to receive donations so I can help those who are like-minded win the next election. At signing my IRS application it explains I am subject to the penalties (civil and criminal) of perjury if I made any misstatements. I make no misstatements, am not prosecuted, but the IRS wants records from me, audits my unrelated personal business, wants lists of members of my Tea Party group, and after years of providing this information, continues to stonewall and fail to issue or reject my application to be a political non-profit organization.
Note in this last example, that if I deleted any records, claiming, “those are personal,” I'd be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, and, if what was deleted had anything to do with money, tax evasion.
Yes, special rules apply for the Clintons, rules that admit that Progressivism is about subjective tyrannical fairness for and by those who will tow the Progressive Party line. Any other American, when asked by the government to “produce your books and records” would be, at minimum, fined per record for each record deleted, and could be jailed by an IRS agent who wants to make an example out of them. But no one wants to make an example of Hillary Clinton, of what happens when corruption is treated properly. Make no mistake, denial of access to records that belong to the office, as we paid her salary in that office, is corruption.
Obama's snubbing of the Gay Community
While President Obama said things like, “the election is over, I won” in answer to his previous opponent, a sitting Senator, who was asking him a question in that capacity, let us remember the gay community votes Democrat and Liberal. So I ask, where are you now gay community, are you ecstatic that Barack Obama, who you voted for for 2 terms, negotiated a treaty with Iran, which didn't in any way whatsoever address that Iran hangs gays by the neck just for being gay? Please, let it sink in if that was too heavy, that you, gay community, voted in a President who only wanted your vote but didn't actually care enough about you to do anything about gays being killed in Iran as part of a treaty deal, not even a mention!
As a Christian I don't agree with your lifestyle, but it is your choice, not mine to make. I wouldn't want you stoned and killed for your choice, for that's another imposing force upon you that is not their right. And I just as well do not want you trying to force me, through law or otherwise, to do something I can't do in good conscience. I'd think this is a mutually respectable and able to be appreciated position. Explain, oh gay community, how Barack Obama and the Democrats celebrating a treaty with Iran that didn't even make the slightest effort to end the hanging of gays for being gay is showing you even a modicum of respect.
“You’re attacking Obama because he's black!”
I'll make this quick: Anyone who says that about you when criticizing Obama's policies, is admitting in the reverse, “I am defending Obama because he's black” and thereby, they, not you, they are the racist! If race is the reason to defend, it is just as racist as it would be if it were a reason to attack, and for anyone to jump to that conclusion about criticisms of Barack Obama is to jump to a conclusion of convenience for the over-hyped weight of the racist charge. A black man whose middle name is “Hussein” was elected President of the United States twice. Bury your notions of racism, especially any institutional or educated idea of it, for they do not exist EXCEPT in the reverse. And that will only keep racism alive, to never end. If you want racism to end, be objective in reply, don't accuse me or anyone else criticizing Obama of attacking him for his skin color, to also admit that's the only reason you're defending him, and instead address the policy criticism raised.
That's how we end racism, through objectivity, through reason and not maligning people by innuendo and baseless claims for sake of repeating them enough so a group will believe it. Winning elections, as has been proven by all that's fallen apart around the world in the last 6 years, is not the point to electing our representatives in government, but, instead, to achieve the maximum Freedom and Individual Liberty possible so all can prosper.
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
Slavery, as a negotiated clause of the Constitution at the time of founding a nation, being an allowed institution subject to prohibition in 20 years makes sense, as it gives each state and its inhabitants the chance to adjust to a new way of life. But this was not the crux of Lincoln's efforts nor the real cause of the Civil War, the slavery issue was one of many, best illustrated by the National Bank Act of 1863, where the National Government decided to fund the Civil War with paper they printed themselves, one could say, “Civil War Quantitative Easing” (yeah it's been going on that long, a good 50 years before the Federal Reserve even existed, and part of the National Government's encroachment upon the States), http://www.let.rug.nl/.
Let's take a candid look at the 14th Amendment regarding freed slaves:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
And now the words of the Senator credited with drafting the 13th Amendment that ended slavery, words that explain his winning argument for wording of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
“[Jacob Meritt] Howard also participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. Howard said: "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States [as is the case of every foreigner in the United States to this day, as it is also with any American living abroad], but will include very other class of person."
“Despite his intention, the amendment has since been interpreted to guarantee citizenship to every person born in the United States.”
Note I am not confused and laying out the lack of any foundation for anchor babies and immigration. But, stunningly, one will find that the reason no one will accept the facts of the purpose of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is that the 14th Amendment then sticks with the point and purpose of the entire germane and original Constitution as well as the first 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights, of terms and conditions for government to assert authority that are consistent with the Constitution, and to declare all areas absolutely off-limits, such as the Second Amendment does): An Amendment limiting the powers of the National Government in D.C.!
Here's a proper interpretation, using the above as a guide:
“[The 14th Amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons [specifically freed slaves].
See, when we apply the actual intention of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment we find Government Amended the Constitution to create a ward of the State for Government to protect, in the same way Obama, without any right whatsoever, made 5 million people dependent on Government in a Chicago patronage style “amnesty.” We of course also discover that, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is Government's claim upon the freed slaves, a claim of their existence being “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” as property that will receive subjective specific protections provided to them by the government.
This goes against Freedom in every way, not just for those made a ward of the State, but also of those who haven't been made wards. This confuses our laws, our acts, our activities. This makes the facts meaningless, irrelevant, and the ability to learn from history to better our future is lost.
We have a government that claims it is run by the Parties (Democracy) and not the Constitution, (Republic), where the Constitution is used only when expedient to a political party's agenda in election, and is discarded for Party agenda when governing the nation, subjective Political Party Agenda and Ideology paramount and superseding the Constitution. No one is free in this situation, as the limits imposed on government are thrown out the door for what can be sold for politics, the exact situation Our Founders wrote the Constitution to assure wouldn't happen.
A person subjected to another's whim, their children born as possessions of another, people wrongfully treated as livestock, bred to be larger, to be stronger, women used as surrogates for sex, raped, and often delivering a progeny that a Master resents.
Tell me what I don't understand about slavery, as every race, even sects of religions have been subjected to it. I'll mention islam to get it out of the way, though its gift of virgins admit it fails to recognize itself as a spiritual Faith, http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.279, however their brainwashing has led to Sunni and Shiite fighting and enslaving each other for centuries. But let's talk about the White Slave Trade, of the Irish, http://www.globalresearch.ca/. Irish slavery is so well forgotten by those trying to racialize and Americanize slavery that an author is writing a book about it, http://rhettaakamatsu.com/irishslaves.htm. Should we look at the Chinese, and why, after World War II and before Mao killed 50 million people (who wouldn't be Communist slaves), the people accepted slavery to a government of their own nationality as opposed to the Japanese as their Masters? http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/02/.
So now, let's talk about “solutions.” Would a new Master end one’s slavery? Answer: No. So why would anyone who is against slavery agree to the terms stated in 14th Amendment Section 1 of the Constitution? I mean, what could be worse than not just a Master, but a Master with full coercive power, the power of imprisonment & sentencing to death?... The power of drafting you into an army for a war you don't agree with?... The power to take your property because of a mistake the IRS refuses to hear the explanation that someone else used your social security number to buy a house, sell it, and make a hefty profit on which the IRS now says you owe taxes? Can you see how this doesn't explain voting for big government, a government that costs more, a government that taxes us to the point our labor is slavery almost no matter what our rate of pay is?... Ya think this might be why there's a lot of illegal gang and drug business (unreported income) going on?
But this is what happens when government leaves its legitimate perch and purpose: Objective function, according to the Constitution, to assure protection of the smallest minority, the Individual -- this is what Liberty means. This explains Freedom is assured by those who Constituted, We the People, and to which we are the descendant as “Constituents” regardless of color, religious belief, etc. as Americans. And all it takes is our embrace of America, of American culture, of Capitalism to appreciate our Individual Private Property Rights; appreciate that our control of our destiny is only safe when it is in our hands to decide, and not by another's “handouts,” government's intentional lie to obscure the truth that those giving something for free are exploiting our weakness (see, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDomkBtJC7Q), even if only for a moment in ours or our nation's existence. Government, like any other Master, is quite a bit like a drug dealer, inviting someone to a party to “try out this stuff,” never imbibing themselves with it, but watching their prospective mark become an absolute addict in a few weeks, leeching the addict of every dime they have in a few weeks. A new payment plan is proposed by the addict - the drug and dependence are so intense - slavery in prostitution or some other abuse to pay for the drug and maintain the addiction. What must be said: This is what, “No Justice! No Peace” means, for the peace is no less the peace of a Chinese slave who appreciated a meal and their wage of access to the opium den.
Ain't it grand to see how easily we are duped, we are sucked into an addiction, to slavery, by what's “free?”
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
The moment a President issues a proclamation and America amends its Constitution, deeming classes and an ethnicity of people as wards of the State, and, a Civil War is claimed as though caused entirely by this, is the moment America's national government corruption sees daylight.
Call me racist, call me anything you want, if reason is responded to with such emotional defenselessness, it is at that point the reason is affirmed true.
So let's dig in....
James Madison wrote so eloquently in 1788:
“It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation.” he continues...
“But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed...
“It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy;…
“that within that period, it [slavery] will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union....
“Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!” -- Emphasis mine. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html
This is the clause in the Constitution Madison is referring to:
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight , but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”-- http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
What I just cited is James Madison explaining what the Constitutional Convention did by this clause in the Constitution, that the Convention agreed to end slavery and that this is why this clause even exists in the Constitution.
Now for the emotional part, James Madison used phrases that all you folks who came to racist assumptions about Our Founders should be falling all over yourselves to ask forgiveness for being wrong about, such as “unfortunate Africans” and “European brethren,” phrases that absolutely contradict the public education depicted “callous and uncaring white slave owning American Founders.” Remember that Madison said these things to aid in getting the People of America to ratify the Constitution in 1788. Let that sink in, please. Let your mind appreciate that more than a majority of America's Founders (reference to Members of the Constitutional Convention) and the American People (or Madison would not have made an emotional heartfelt plea this way) were against slavery when the Constitution was passed. This is the unabashed appreciation for the Federalist Papers and their purpose, for the anti-Federalist Papers and their contribution, and for the depth of thought and consideration made by Our Founders in the course of the Constitutional Convention.
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
As I write this Obama came on the television, the man who goes against the Constitution to cause #Shamnesty, slavery by patronage of 5 million illegal aliens who will now be dependent on government by what government grants them. Obama is the beginning of the situation.
You see Obama's on the television regarding the Ferguson Missouri verdict, his opening comment laughable, if not so cynically arrogant, “We are a nation of laws.” To then explain how America needs another reform, “to reform the criminal justice system.”
Apparently President Obama didn't actually see the Ferguson Grand Jury decision presentation by Prosecutor Robert McCulloch explaining a key fact that had been misreported from the beginning as to why Darren Wilson had confronted Michael Brown.
Officer Wilson was on a call and received a radio broadcast explaining a robbery, that the suspect had stolen some cigars from a nearby convenience store. We had all seen the video but all accounts ahead of time said Officer Wilson has no idea Michael Brown had stolen those cigars from that convenience store. Well Officer Wilson decided to head toward that convenience store and another police report came in, that the offender, “had a red hat and yellow socks,” and while driving Officer Wilson sees 2 people in the middle of the street, one carrying a handful of cigars and wearing a red hat and yellow socks:
What many will not accept is that police are very organized. You see these radio calls are to alert officers to act, called “hot pursuit” when a crime has just occurred and they are looking for the suspect. Officer Wilson found Michael Brown in a position that you'd think Michael Brown would have avoided having just stole these items from a local convenience store, a crime against his community, let alone the stealing of private property and ignoring the private property rights of the store he stole them from.
Michael Brown decides to fix his mistake, but not by confessing and agreeing to return the cigars, hoping for the officer's leniency not to arrest him. No, instead, Michael Brown attempts physical confrontation with a police officer. This is the moment Michael Brown agreed he's a menace to the community, a scofflaw and with an arrogance only rivaled by President Obama, that Michael Brown fully intends to defy the Officer's orders, to deny a man his peaceful existence to do his job as a Police Officer and earn his pay, a decision Michael Brown made based on his initial decision to steal.
While Progressives will belittle “trickle-down economics” under Reagan, Michael Brown and the protesting mobs prove Progressives have perfected Trickle Down Lawlessness under Obama, and, by President Obama's comments, he further proves he does not care about the facts.
In the Michael Brown case, it is proven without any doubt, that there is nothing wrong with the criminal justice system, there is no need for reform; just like healthcare needed no reform, a few changes to achieve what the people actually wanted, but not government reform and a take over; just like Immigration didn't need an executive action reform, but does need legislation that achieves what the American People, especially those who waited years, even decades to be US citizens, want.
But a verdict in Ferguson, Missouri, that the Dictator in the Oval Office disagrees with, irrespective of the facts of an arrogant thief having defied the police who were acting entirely with probable cause to stop the thief in the street, President Obama seeks community organizing reform to fix it. Michael Brown shows what he thought about community intervention by how he treated the store clerk/owner in the video now didn't he?
Barack Obama is at the top of the Lawlessness food chain, and as his political popularity has eroded, out of desperation, Obama has chosen to exploit the death of Michael Brown for the sake of politics whether there is any merit to doing so or not. Making Obama's first statement, “that we are a nation of laws” a meaningless gesture of pure arrogant and defiant sarcasm, a contempt for the American Justice System as it is. I don't agree with every bit of our justice system, but I also know one must not steal from another, use force and intimidation to deny them their rightful pay for what I took, to then flaunt the theft walking down the street with the items in hand, taunting police and the community, “Just try to stop me.” But what do we expect criminals to think when the Government is not obeying the law, even before Obama's immigration “Executive Action?”
As I've said before, Michael Browns death was by big government, http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.278.
I pray Michael Brown's family finds peace over this tragedy so many are exploiting for themselves.
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
P.S. Normally I'd have what I wrote edited, so if this was difficult or awkward to read, my apologies, I just felt I had to post this as soon as possible as someone has to rebut the President's exploitation of Ferguson as a “crisis not to go to waste” with the fact that tragedies need to end, the families deserve to suffer as little as possible, not to be exploited and have their tragedy prolonged by politicians (or “Reverends” for that matter) and their need for a photo op.