Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Centralization Of Power Is Always Bad

December 15, 2011 by  

Centralization Of Power Is Always Bad

Today is an important day in American history. On Dec. 15, 1791, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) came into effect through the process of ratification by the States.

Most people have their own view of what the purpose and effect of the Bill of Rights was supposed to be. Some think it authorizes Washington to enforce a nationwide free speech zone. Others think it requires the Feds to protect the right to keep and bear arms in every nook and cranny in the country.  And others think that there must be a nationwide separation of church and state in every State, county, city and town.

To those of you who believe that Federally run education in this country has destroyed public knowledge of the Founders’ Constitution, my next comment is no shocker: All of these people are wrong. According to the Founders, that is.

The Basics

First, we have to understand why we even have a Constitution and, thus, a Bill of Rights.

The entire founding generation toiled under the tyranny of the king of England, a king who had virtually no limits on his power. He could make rules as he went, change them on a whim and change them back. He could seize your property, your labor or your life — and you could do almost nothing about it.

Because of this, the Constitution was written to spell out the limited powers delegated to the Federal government. And it was clearly understood that this government had only the powers that were delegated to it in the Constitution.

The original Constitution contained no Bill of Rights. Many of the Framers felt it wasn’t necessary, since the Constitution clearly enumerated the few powers delegated to the Federal government. They thought any further restrictions would be redundant.

However, some of them thought there could be misunderstandings. So a Bill of Rights was proposed, and some States ratified the Constitution only on condition that those amendments would be added, which happened a few years later.

A Preamble?

Adding a preamble to a legal document was common practice at the time. It could identify the parties, list important facts and explain the purpose of the document.

Many people are unaware that, like the main body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights had a preamble explaining its purpose.

What was the purpose? There’s no better way to answer that question than in the words of the Founders themselves in the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

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…

Rob Natelson, in his book The Original Constitution explains what this means:

Thus, some of the proposed amendments were “declaratory…clauses” (that is, rules of construction) designed to “prevent misconstruction” of the Constitution by explaining how the instrument should be interpreted. The rest were “restrictive clauses” to prevent “abuse” of federal powers by creating external limitations curtailing those powers. [emphasis added]

The important message here is that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to you, me or any other person. It applies to the Federal government.

Not The States? No Way!

Maybe it’s because most people weren’t taught that a Preamble to the Bill of Rights existed — or maybe because they confuse the word “Constitutional” with the word “good” — but it’s quite rare to find someone who doesn’t disagree with the preamble to the Bill of Rights.

Many opponents claim things like:

  • “The 1st Amendment is the only one that mentions just Congress, so the rest apply to everyone and not just Congress.”
  • “The States agreed to the Bill of Rights and, combined with the Supremacy clause, that means the States can’t violate those parts of the Constitution.”

While there are others, these are some of the most prominent reasons people give for essentially disagreeing with the Founders themselves on the Bill of Rights.

Each could use a full discussion on their own, but the important points are:

  1. The 1st Amendment was the only Amendment which specifically prohibited the making of a law. When the Founders wrote the word “law” in the 1st Amendment, they meant it. And Congress was the only branch of government that was supposed to make law. Today, we have an executive branch that makes law through executive order and a judicial branch that legislates from the bench. At the time of the founding, it would have been absurd to include either of those branches in an Amendment preventing the making of law. That’s a big part of why the 1st Amendment starts with “Congress shall make no law.”
  2. Claiming that because the States ratified the Bill of Rights, each clause applies to the States, too, is just bad logic. Think of it like this. You and 12 business partners own an apartment complex. You hire a person to manage the property and give him some rules about how you want your property run. He follows your rules pretty closely, but eventually he starts showing up at the homes of all 13 of you. He starts demanding that each of you follow the rules for the apartment building that you gave him — in your own homes!

Absurd? Absolutely. Rules created by employers for their employee don’t necessarily apply to the employers, too. In the case of the Bill of Rights, in the Preamble the employers (the States) told the employee (the Federal government) that it would have new rules that applied just to it.

And if that twisted logic weren’t enough, James Madison hammered it home in his famous speech introducing the Bill of Rights. In it, Madison proposed that the Bill of Rights have three distinct restrictions on the States.

He said: “No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.”

What happened? Congress considered Madison’s proposal to have some of these new restrictions apply to the States, but rejected it.

Federal Restrictions

What was the end result? The body of the Constitution primarily tells the Federal government what it is allowed to do. The Bill of Rights tells the Federal government what it is not allowed to do, such as the following non-exhaustive examples:

  1. Make no law abridging freedom of speech, press, religion or assembly.
  2. Do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
  3. Do not “quarter” soldiers in peacetime.
  4. Do not conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, and don’t issue warrants without probable cause.
  5. Do not force people to testify against themselves.
  6. Do not deny a speedy trial to a person accused of a crime.
  7. Do not deny trial by jury to an accused person.
  8. Do not impose excessive bail.
  9. Don’t assume that this is an exhaustive list of rights. Just because some are listed doesn’t mean the people don’t have others.
  10. Don’t exercise any power not delegated in this Constitution.

The Lesson

What’s the big message behind all this?

Centralization of power is always bad, even when it appears to have a good short-term result. Every time you approve of the Federal government taking on new power for things you approve of, you authorize your opponents to do the same for things you oppose.

That’s why every person who advocates using the Federal government to make abortion illegal nationwide also authorizes the other side to make abortion legal nationwide when it is in power. Get that, Rick Santorum?

And every person who advocates forcing every State to legalize marijuana also authorizes the opposition to ban it in the entire country when it is in power.

The same principle can be applied to just about every issue.

Decentralization

The system we have today puts almost all decisions about the fate of your liberty into the hands of nine unelected, unaccountable, politically connected lawyers. That’s not a good place for any society to be.

How do we fix this mess? The first step is to stop going to the Federal government to fix problems that are actually caused by the Federal government itself (most are!). Doing so is not just an absurd idea, it has led us to the place we are in today.

Moving forward to the principle behind the Bill of Rights (decentralization of power) will bring you a huge step closer to liberty. It’s an idea whose time has come.

Michael Boldin

is the founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center. Michael has a full schedule working as senior editor of the Center's website, writes a regular column, fields media interviews, and travels the country (when invited, of course) to speak to crowds about sticking to the Constitution — every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses. [send him email]

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Centralization Of Power Is Always Bad”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Robert Smith

    “And it was clearly understood that this government had only the powers that were delegated to it in the Constitution.”

    Abortion is NOT mentioned in the Constitution.

    The only mention of religion is that our government NOT run one and that there be NO religious test for office holders.

    BTW, we DO need a central government for National defense, setting standards, establishing a common currency, and things like lisencing of drivers who cross jurisdictions all the time. IOW IMO, gun rules should be centralized and focused on upright citizens not being infringed upon.

    Rob

    Rob

    • FreedomFighter

      The FED is the root of the problems in the United States, these centralized banks that own the FED care not whom runs the United States or any other country as long as they control the money.

      End the FED save America, its that simple.

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

      • steve

        agreed…end the Fed…does anyone ever think of what the Billionare Bilderbergs who have been making making Trillions of dollars manipulating our currency for almost one hundred years will do to us if we are ever able to actually end the Fed?…I’m not smart enough to know the answer that question but I would think they would not be to thrilled to have their gravy train derailed…perhaps another great recession or depression orchestrated by them to punish us for our unruly behavior….

        • http://al@bellaproducts.com al metcalf

          Ending the Fed without creating another method of controling the currency is leaving an opening for those who created the Fed in the first place to place the wedge to destroy us again.
          If in fact we merely change the Fed to a new ownership, by this I mean, we revoke the charter and move the main office of the Fed directly under the U.S. Treasury and create a Currency Reserve Bank in each State under identical CHarters in each State (it is against the Constitution to have Federal Government Banks). Increase the Board of Governors of the new National Fed to 50, one for each state. Disconnect from the IMF and the World Bank. Place our currency back on the gold standard and start over from scratch. All of the billions of dollars that now accrue to the International Bankers will now accrue to the U.S. Treasury. Now all we have to do is place all of those bureaucrats into the GSA schedule for salaries and pass a law that fraud in banking or in any government position is Treason and start executing crooked bankers and politicians. Sounds to me like a logical solution to our problems.

          • Vicki

            The Constitution clearly says who is to control the money and how precisely they are to do so. It worked fine before there was a Fed. It can work fine again.

          • professor

            al, I like! It is long passed time to get rid of the Fed (that should never have been allowed.) I wish the candidates were talking about revoking the charter for the Fed, in debates and interviews.
            It seems to be a “taboo topic!”

        • Robert Smith

          Check out how Reaganomics ruined our economy: http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2011/12/22/n_opinion_jeff_sachs.cnnmoney/

          Rob

      • c.w.s.

        This may be PART of the solution, but not the entirety by all means. It really isn’t ‘that simple’. People also have to read and learn to understand what the baseline document of our nation. Without a citizenry that is educated, no self-governing form of government shall live for long.

        I acknowledge that fiat money is one form of enslavement, but would submit that ignorance is yet another. It is ignorance that allows for the FED to exist and without proper education, the next generation will repeat the errors of the previous.

      • cawmun cents

        Having watched the Iowa debate tonight,I can only say that the subject of auditing the Fed was purposefully ignored by the Fox News crowd.
        They did not play to Congressmn Paul’s strength.They did however play to his suppoused weakness.
        This shows that they are as biased as the lamestream media.
        I oppose their stance and I oppose any party which will not talk of this condition.
        I will not vote republican,even if it means re-electing Obama.
        If they do not speak openly of these things,can that be considered honesty?
        The answer is obvious…you get a choice of Obama or Obama lite.
        What a farce the office of President has become.
        The malaise will continue,lines will be drawn in the sand and someone WILL overstep one.
        Then you will see how much of a farce this political posturizing has become.
        I do not necessarily agree with Congressman Paul on his foreign policies,but as the”Taboo”subject of auditing the Fed was never discussed,Fox News clearly showed their bias.
        What a shame.Obama is a shame.
        But so is the media coverage of key issues involving the solvency of our financial woes.
        But they were never broached.
        Woe to the public.
        Woe to the FED.
        Woe to those who seek justice.
        None is forthcoming.
        -CC.

        • professor

          I watched the debates last night, twice. RP did well up to a point.
          When asked questions about foreign policy, I started to cringe. He did not serve himself well with his answers. Bachmann “rattled” him with her criticism, which I felt was justified.

          Maybe RP does not express his positions on foreign policy very well or they are completely out of touch with the dangerous world we live in today. The audience did not support him on his answers on foreign policy questions. even though many of his constituents were present. Not that I want to be critical of RP, but when countries threaten our very existence, we have to take them at their word. They are telling us their plans and we must act accordingly.

    • Mark Are

      “gun rules should be centralized and focused on upright citizens not being infringed upon.”

      What do you mean by this? Explain please. I doesn’t communicate your thoughts very well.

      • Robert Smith

        I posted that gun rules should be centralized and focused on upright citizens not being infringed upon.

        It’s up to the Federal Government to assure that if you have a gun permit to carry in one state that it is good in all states, like the privelage to drive.

        Upright citizens are those who are not convicted of a violent crime or crazy.

        Rob

        • Capitalist at Birth

          Why don’t you try saying what you mean in plain english the first time?

        • Old Henry

          Rob:

          You make it sound like owning a gun is a priviledge when in fact it is a RIGHT.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Robert Smith does not believe that we have any rights as per our Constitution. He may also believe that if we have any rights they are given by government and the anointed ones who occupy positions in government. It may be,according to him, that the government can do no wrong since it supposedly “works” for our benefit.

          • Ronald R. Johnson

            Old Henry hits the nail on the head! In a country where it’s citizens are free anyone who is not crazy or a criminal should be able to own any gun and as many guns as they can afford to own. The only government that wants to disarm and or control gun ownership are governments like Obama’s who have plans to disarm and enslave it’s citizens! Anyone thinking like Obama, Hillary,Holder, Waters,Barney and the Billionare Mayor of New York or anyone else thinking like that gun nut Sara Brady! You also have to remember all of the above have no problem with being allowed to hire armed body guards. Seems sort of two faced!

          • Robert Smith

            Old says: “You make it sound like owning a gun is a priviledge when in fact it is a RIGHT.”

            Owning a gun is a RIGHT. There is no doubt of that.

            Carrying it from one jurisdiction to another can currently get you into trouble.

            I want the rules set up so if you are OK in one place you are OK in all.

            Driving is set up that way. Get your lisence in one place and it’s good all over. Why can’t guns be that way?

            BTW, I’m quite in favor of not having a driving lisence. If you aren’t doing anything wrong the police should not bother you. If you do something wrong (repeated traffic violations) you should not be allowed to drive. If you get stopped in the not to drive catigory with something wrong then it should be a heavy fine or off to jail. Police don’t need you to have a card in your pocket to keep track.

            It may be bordering on an extremist point of view but the same thing could work for guns. If you have a reason on your record not allowing you to carry then it’s a high fine and / or jail. If you don’t have a bad record then why should one need a piece of paper to allow carrying?

            On the other hand I DO think folks should carry an ID to make sure one is a citizen of the United States of America so those who are NOT can be quickly be determined to not have the same privelages as Americans.

            Rob

        • http://al@bellaproducts.com al metcalf

          Requiring a gun owner to have a permit is an infringment of the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in and of itself. What part of ‘Shall not be infringed’ do you not understand? Who makes the determination of who is upright? Obama and Holder? Or some other enemy of the Citizen? If we allow any infringment of our rights we are on the slippery slope of slavery. Wake up and smell the coffee, these progressives are well on the way to destroying this nation now. What do you think is going to happen after the 2012 election? Obama and Holder have hired whole new group in the AG office for the express purpose of makeing sure He wins the election. Can you spell trouble. It is on its way….

          • Vicki

            Liberals think that rights come from government not from God. Thus they think that government can take those rights away at a whim. Since keeping and bearing arms is a right and not a privilege it can not be infringed by ANY government. Thus the 2nd amendment is in fact a restriction on ALL government at ANY level. (This is a point in which the OP and I disagree)

          • Robert Smith

            Shucks Vickie… You state: “Liberals think that rights come from government not from God.”

            WRONG on both counts.

            What part of “WE THE PEOPLE” don’t you understand?

            I’ve still got rights even though I don’t follow that brutal christian god some around here have taken a fancy to. How can I believe such a got that killed most of humanity (except Noah and his family) would show any mercy at all for anything? Just doesn’t compute based upon his own record. He even had his own kid tortured.

            Rob

          • Joe H.

            Robbie,
            And you are torturing us with your lack of brains!!! WRITE THE CHECK!!!!

          • Robert Smith

            No point relevant to the discussion.

            No point irreveant to the discussion.

            No point whatsoever.

            But the rules say, “Please don’t stoop to name calling.”

            Oh well. It isn’t as overt as samurai’s “moron” name calling.

            Hmmmmmm, looks to me like posts just for harassment on this forum are OK.

            Why is such allowed?

            Rob

          • libertytrain

            oh dear, forgetful are we? If they weren’t allowed almost none of yours would be allowed – gosh…and who are you to decide what is acceptable and what is not…..

        • JC

          Robert Smith says:
          December 15, 2011 at 10:11 am
          I posted that gun rules should be centralized and focused on upright citizens not being infringed upon.

          Your comment assumes that there should be “rules”.
          That is incorrect and in no way reflects the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Your comment is a non-sequitor.

          • Robert Smith

            From JC: “Your comment assumes that there should be “rules”.”

            Yup. Folks with a history violent abusive incidents or who are violently crazy enough to be a danger to others (I don’t worry about “themselves”) should NOT be allowed to have guns.

            We do need SOME rules.

            Rob

          • Joe H.

            Gee rob, then we need some rules for that demon weed you approve of so much as well!!! According to YOU, that couldn’t be a God given right so it has to be covered by LAW!!!

          • JC

            Robert, the “only” people who should be prohibited from owning guns would be convicted felons and the “provably” mentally ill.

          • Robert Smith

            Joe says: “According to YOU, that couldn’t be a God given right so it has to be covered by LAW!!!”

            Nope, not at all. Laws come from THE PEOPLE, not some brutal god. Even atheists can propose laws.

            Pot does not need to be covered by a law making it illegal. I do think it needs to be kept track of the same way alcohol is to assure quality and to keep it away from kids.

            Rob

          • Robert Smith

            Posted: “Robert, the “only” people who should be prohibited from owning guns would be convicted felons and the “provably” mentally ill.”

            Mentally ill AND who would do harm to others. If they wish to shoot themselves who am I to worry?

            BTW, that should be convicted VIOLENT felons.

            Rob

        • c.w.s.

          Rob, and everyone else who banters about gun “rights”….faulty logic….it is not a “right” of the state to license people to own or carry arms, nor is it the obligation or right of the feds to try to arbitrate non-legal rules.

          As the tenth amendment clearly indicates, the founders recognized “THE PEOPLE” as having a distinct status as an unit of authority and power to which powers are “reserved. “…the rights of the people…” is pretty explicit that the intent was to acknowledge that this is one such reserved right. As such, this also is one right that is NOT considered as being reserved “…to the States respectively…”. (The right of a person to put into their own bodies whatever foods, drinks, medicines they so choose would most certainly be another).

          some points to ponder

          1. criminals who carry guns usually do so without “carry permits”
          2. “carry permits” constitute gun registration – a list – but only of “law abiding citizens”
          3. criminalizing a citizen’s right to self protection subjugates him to a servant of the state.
          4. assuming that all persons one meets is armed, makes for a more polite and civil society.

          • Joe H.

            CWS,
            Agreed on BOTH points!!!

          • Robert Smith

            When seconds count the police can be there in minutes.

            Rob

          • El Gringo

            Robert says: the police can be there in minutes. While that may be true in some instances, it is often “seconds” that may be the difference in life and/or death,

    • Vigilant

      “The only mention of religion is that our government NOT run one and that there be NO religious test for office holders.”

      I think you may fall into the category mentioned by Mr. Boldin of those who misunderstand the Constitution as telling the states what they must do or not do.

      Properly understood, the Constitution does NOT prevent the states from establishing a state religion or devising religious tests for eligibility to hold office. In fact, several states had religious tests for office-holding well into the 19th century.

      Moreover, states may outlaw or blanket legalize abortion if they wish to. Nothing in the Constitution prevents it

      • Robert Smith

        From Vigilant: “Moreover, states may outlaw or blanket legalize abortion if they wish to. Nothing in the Constitution prevents it.”

        You are correct. N.Y. and several other states voted on abortion and approved it before Roe v. Wade. Just as over a dozen states have voted to approve medical pot. Yet the Feds keep trying to step in. Just as Washington state voted twice for assisted suicide and Bush’s minion when in and tried to overturn it in the courts.

        An exception is for guns. That IS in the 2nd Ammendment that allows Americans to have guns. The only local assurance needed is to assure that no criminal or crazy gets a gun.

        Rob

        • DaveR

          Ah, but the devolution of our constitutional law system via liberal “scholars” of today is likely to result in their pronouncement that anyone who does not see matters as they do is demented and therefore unfit to possess a gun. That such “reasoning” is already at play in the minds of today’s liberals is demonstrated by the statement issued some time ago by DHS warning local law enforcement authorities to watch out for returning US military personnel.

          • Kate8

            Well said, DaveR.

            It was never intended that citizens be required to register firearms with the government, as this constitutes infringement by its very nature. The criteria used to define someone as unfit grows with each passing day. “Unfit” today means anyone who believes that government should abide by the Constitution.

            We all know that gun registration is a prequel to gun confiscation. Indeed, it’s already happening.

            We need to really get that our rights do not come from even the Constitution, but from our Creator. The Constitution was written as a “hands off” warning to government not to overstep.

            Since government (and progressives) don’t believe in God, this makes government “god” by default in their minds, meaning that the power to bestow or remove “rights” falls to the ones wielding the biggest stick.

            By removing any concept of God from the minds of the people, the people are left with only one authority…one which is wholly fallible and subject to all of the corruption of a fallen humanity.

            It just blows me away that so many people do not understand this.

            If our rights come from Creator, then it is up to us to claim them, Constitution or no. It is WE who bestow godhood onto a pack of psychopaths, giving them all power simply because they shred a document and say we must.

          • http://www.painreliefnetwork.org/ Ian MacLeod

            The Federal government has for a long time now become an organization that exists to take power away from the states and exercise them itself as THE superior power in the US. It began attempting to overstep its boundaries almost immediately and hasn’t stopped since. The ultimate example is the NDAA they’re pushing now: it’s an ANTI-Constitution which, if it passes, denies the Constitution completely. They may as well burn it on the Capital steps when it passes.

            The Second Amendment says that “The right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” PERIOD. Demanding a license is infringement. Demanding registration is MAJOR infringement because of the potential it allows the Federal Government to take guns away. The federal government has no right whatsoever to know whether you have firearms or not, what kind or how many, nor has it the right to say a citizen cannot own a particular type of gun. Almost every piece of federal legislation there is there is these days is unconstitutional as such laws usurp state’s rights per the Constitution.

            Ian

          • Kate8

            Ian – What happens when we break the law?

            Congress does not have the authority to override the Constitution…it was put in place to bind THEM from such acts. It does not have the authority to empower the other brances to override it, either.

            They only have this authority by our compliance. They are in treasonous violation of our Supreme Law. Worse than that, they have overthrown the system, right under our noses.

            It is we who have accepted it by still attempting to find remedy within this illegitimate system. This is not possible since this new system no longer recognizes our right to do so.

          • JC

            DaveR says:
            December 15, 2011 at 10:58 am
            “…statement issued some time ago by DHS warning local law enforcement authorities to watch out for returning US military personnel.”

            That’s right and you could add to that list;
            NRA / Gun Club Members.
            People who store food.
            People who pay with cash.
            People who seem gaurded about their privacy.
            and on and on…

            Apparently that’s today’s “terrorist” according
            to this Liberal (Globalist) regime.

          • Joe H.

            DaveR,
            Very well stated!!! I still feel it is a God given right and the second merely enforces that right!! The second does NOT allow the possesion of firearms, it just enforces the RIGHT to own and carry, open or concealed!!

        • JerryM

          Robert, the 2nd Amndment explicitly states that the “right to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE Infringed” by the Federal Government. The Brady Act violates the second Amendment. Before there were any restrictions of any kind concerning firearm ownership and possession it was relatively safer to live in this country than it is today. Convicted felons could re-arm as sson as they stepped outside the prison gates, after they served their time. Even so, the violant crime rate for that period was much lower, per capita, than today. More people went about their daily lives ARMED which caused former felons to behave better. BTW, during that same time period, prison was a very unpleasant place to be, unlike today, as inmates currently have it better than many law abiding people who aren’t in prison.

          There is absolutely no way to legislate a perfectly safe society, so let’s just get off that silly notion, OK.

          • bob wire

            I was wondering how long it would take for the church matters to come up.

            State religions? Wonderful! that all we need.

            As for firearms possession, I’ve never understood why it was any ones business if no violence is present. The right to defend ones self seems rather obvious.

          • Robert Smith

            From Bob: “The Brady Act violates the second Amendment.”

            The Brady Act belongs out in the outhouse for one and only one purpose.

            I find it amazing that her husband got shot in the head but it was Sarah who apparently got the brain damage.

            Rob

          • Robert Smith

            Hey Jerry, crime is going DOWN.

            Check out the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html

            From that article: “In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States. Small towns, especially, are seeing far fewer murders: In cities with populations under 10,000, the number plunged by more than 25 percent last year.”

            There are two theories, nither is proven but it is interesting.

            One is that the criminal population is getting older.

            The other is that because of abortion many potential criminals weren’t born.

            Note: The above are theories. What’s yours?

            Rob

          • Joe H.

            robert,
            according to the FBI stats, gun ownership is at an all time high for the last three years. for those same last three years, violent crime has plumited. my theory which is backed up by these stats is that an armed society is a more polite society!! The criminals are facing different odds than ten -twelve years ago!!!

      • Robert Smith

        From Vigilant: “In fact, several states had religious tests for office-holding well into the 19th century.”

        Yup, and most states got rid of them long before the sodomy laws were taken off the books.

        Shows what most think should be prohibited and what shouldn’t.

        Rob

    • Buddy

      Smith:

      We do NOT need a centralized government for defense. But we do need it to get us into various wars as is plain to anyone who looks. Does Switzerland need to be part of an overwhelming government to be safe? –How many centuries of non-involvement does Switzerland have. More than the history of centralized USA! Also look at the history of the Germanic states prior to their centralization by Bismarck!

      Being a WWII vet, and my father a WWI disabled vet, it is apparent to me that political centralization is deadly for those who want to live in a peaceful and productive society. Take some time to read the book, Costs of War, to see the terrible costs of “defense”. Terrible indeed!

      • Vigilant

        “We do NOT need a centralized government for defense.”

        Then, by your reckoning, we don’t need a Constitution. The most important reason for the centralization provided by that document was to provide for the security of the people in their lives and personal effects.

        You would divide and conquer us in one fell swoop.

      • Vigilant

        And just whom do you think would provide defense of the US, were it not for the Armed Forces? State militias? Americorps? ACORN?

      • Joe H.

        buddy,
        By your statement about your dad and you, it sounds like you are trying to say he is still alive yet I read this year where the last WW1 vet had died. Care to explain?

    • Old Henry

      All gun laws, whether federal or state, are illegal laws per the Second Amendment. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do these people not understand?

      • Kate8

        Exactly, Old H. But talk is cheap.

        How many of us are actually willing to stand up and tell these self-appointed tyrants to kick rocks?

        As long as we continue to bow to them, it doesn’t matter how loud we whine or hom many courts we petition (and ususally lose) against the government. They are on a roll and mean business.

        Our entire system has declared war on the people. Thinking that we can work within a system that has turned on us is insanity. We either find a way to regroup and stand firm against their onslaught, or we lay down and accept being rolled over.

        It’s that simple.

        • Lost in Paradise

          Too bad Americans are no longer made of the real stuff that created this country. The government loves us, because we look up to it like our god, and will let it do what it wants. Mostly a bunch or wimps, except for those in our military, that are willing to give their lives for WHAT? I guess for some bull, that we have liberty,and freedom. It is mostly all gone, because of US.

      • Robert Smith

        Hi Old,

        You posted: “What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do these people not understand?”

        I’m still working on the “WE THE PEOPLE” with those who claim their god is responsible for America.

        Things are stated very clearly yet they try to corrupt it. I really don’t understand. How can such lies be?

        Rob

    • Vigilant

      “Centralization Of Power Is Always Bad” is an all-inclusive title that does not reflect the reality of the Constitution. “Excessive Centralization Of Power Is Always Bad” would have been a more fitting title.

      Were it not for the abject failure of decentralized power per the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution as we know it would never have been written. The initial object of the framers, and the themes found in the Federalist Papers, make clear that the excessive decentralization of powers would not suit a growing nation of states if it ever hoped to survive. Providing for a national defense, for example, was proving impossible under the Articles.

      SOME centralization was necessary. Obviously, the unconstitutional power grabs by the Feds have bent the Constitution way out of shape and resulted in something the Founders never intended. But to describe the centralization provided by the Constitution as a categorical evil is misleading and downright wrong.

      • Robert Smith

        Posted: “Obviously, the unconstitutional power grabs by the Feds have bent the Constitution way out of shape and resulted in something the Founders never intended. ”

        I’ll bet the Founders would be horrified if they saw (as the Bush administration pushed through) the government had a right to see what library books we had taken out.

        Rob

        • Vigilant

          Rob the power grab began a long time ago, almost at the start of the new nation. The acceleration can be blamed on both Roosevelts and Woodrow Wilson, with the aid and comfort furnished by both major parties.

  • Iris

    Since most adults do not understand how to exercise SELF-POWER, we are talking to the wall.

    • Pat Bright

      Speak for yourself, Iris.

      • JB

        I think she did – but, I’ll speak for her as well – - everyone has excuses, alibis, exceptions & blame for their foundation in decision making.
        Too few were ever taught personal responsibility, personal integrity, or personal honesty – & have lost their moral compass about right vs wrong – -

        • Robert Smith

          From JB: “Too few were ever taught personal responsibility, personal integrity, or personal honesty – & have lost their moral compass about right vs wrong – -”

          Yup, they palm it off on their “god” and let him take responsibiility for things they do and put the hate and bigotry in his name.

          Too bad so many project such a brutal vision of their god. It’s my understanding that most gods and goddesses are pretty good working for the good of all mankind.

          Rob

          • wbliss

            Rob that is nonsense. You obviously have not read the Bible and don’t understand it. So don’t criticize what you don’t understand. It makes you look foolish.

          • Lost in Paradise

            Booooo!

          • Vigilant

            wbliss,

            He also has never read the works of the Founders, in which it is made abundantly clear that the very survival of our Constitutional Republic is dependent upon the high sense of morality and individual responsibility as promulgated by the Natural Law of the Creator.

            RS’s atheism, hatred for religion and belief that secular humanism is the answer are the very things the Founders knew would destroy this nation. Or does he believe it’s only coincidental that an erosion of morals has been accompanied by a deterioration of the national fabric?

            It is there for the intelligent person to see: as we have abandoned our awe and respect for the Creator and turned instead to materialism, selfishness and greed, we have all begun to suffer from the natural results.

          • Robert Smith

            There goes Vigelant lying again. Why is he telling lies? Because I’ve posted to him and others many times that I am NOT a atheist, etc.

            Let’s look at the specific: “RS’s atheism, hatred for religion and belief that secular humanism is…”

            First: I’m not a atheist. It’s that simple Vigelant. Quit lying.

            Second: I don’t hate religion. What I do hate are followers of a brutal god that apparently justifies in their eyes hate and bigotry. I honestly do thing that is evil. But, that is not all religion.

            Rob

          • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

            Robert Smith

            You are right.

            Many of the devices were inscribed with the motto “Glory be only to God. … The pulley or strappado was the first torture of the Inquisition usually applied. …. In 1478, the Spanish Inquisition was established with the papal approval of Pope …
            http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm

          • Kate8

            Robert Smith – You are always accusing those who believe in God as being filled with hate.

            Yet, you are expert at displaying hatred and contempt toward those with whom you disagree. In fact, your vileness and hostitily is quite palpable.

            Christian-haters like you are guilty of exactly the same things you accuse others of doing…in spades. You have shown zero tolerance toward those who don’t think like you do. You don’t even realize that you have been programmed to do exactly that. You are a mindless tool.

            Try removing the beam from your own eye before you continue to point out the splinters in the eyes of others.

          • Vigilant

            Rob,

            If I’ve unfairly characterized you as an atheist and hater of religion, I apologize and stand corrected.

          • Vicki

            To help reset your moral compass I offer thus

            First Principle. Your Creator gifted you with life and free will.
            How you use those 2 gifts and how you honor these gifts in others,
            defines your moral character.

          • JC

            Robert Smith says:
            December 15, 2011 at 8:33 am
            From JB: “Too few were ever taught personal responsibility, personal integrity, or personal honesty – & have lost their moral compass about right vs wrong – -”

            Yup, they palm it off on their “god” and let him take responsibiility for things they do and put the hate and bigotry in his name.

            JB is absolutely, word for word, right.
            And Robert, does it become ok to right off your responsibilities and leave it all to God…if your God is the Government who feeds and clothes you?
            There’s other ways to make your point if you could somehow take a broader view.

          • Robert Smith

            Posted: “the Spanish Inquisition was established with the papal approval of Pope …”

            Go to: http://www.reanimality.com/founders/mjd/writings/magick/malleusMaleficarum.pdf

            The work of Springer & Kramer is a horror story.

            Yet it is what ran much of that there brutal christanity for quite awhile.

            It’s the instruction book for the inquisitions.

            Rob

          • Joe H.

            robbie,
            I can say I’m the president of the US, does that make it so??? no more than a person saying they are a Christian makes THAT so!! The spanish inquisition was ran by PEOPLE that thought they were EQUAL to God!! The same with the Crusades!! Those were the actions of MORTALS, not God!! If you can’t see that, then you truly EED to remove the beam from YOUR eyes!!! I can say I am Christian and not you or any other mortal here on earth can prove or disprove that, only GOD!! your only problem, robbie is that Christians operate on faith alone and you are not strong enough to do that and it embarrasses you!!

          • Robert Smith

            Claimed: “You obviously have not read the Bible and don’t understand it.”

            I sure do understand the brutality some see in christanity. Killing everyone except Noah and his family or sparing Lott to screw his own daughters just doesn’t cut it with me.

            Rob

          • Robert Smith

            wbliss claims: “You obviously have not read the Bible and don’t understand it.”

            Bzzzz, wrong. I’ve read it and DO understand it. Don’t you think it’s a pretty brutal god that destroys everyone except Noah and his? How ’bout Lott and his girls being the only survivers of a couple of cities?

            How can you bible be used to justify the crusades? The inquisitions?

            Nope, it’s a horrible book as far as “inspiration” goes.

            Heck of a sword and sorcery novel though.

            Rob

    • Nadzieja Batki

      They better learn really quick how to have self control. The adage is “if you don’t control yourself, there will be someone to control you”.

      • Robert Smith

        Nadzieja posted: “The adage is “if you don’t control yourself, there will be someone to control you”.”

        Yup. Sadly, for too many it’s corrupt clergy, preachers, etc.

        Rob

        • Tim

          Rob – Your posts brand you an an Anti-Religion nut. Christianity hasn’t been problematic for hundreds of years – as a full blown Atheist, I am not so foolish as to blame religion for our ills. Christianity is the basis for every pre-socialist American law – and those are good laws, of a great and free people.. Compare those laws to the horror of Sharia, or the post-Enlightenment laws of those who worship the State (you, Robert?) — there is no comparison. The laws of Christianity are based on love and understanding. Your Anti-Christianity laws are just an excuse to strip liberty from the people and impose the rule of the State. I’ll take Christianity any day – it’s why Atheists like myself are not burned at the State’s “Stake”.

          • DaveH

            Ditto, Tim. Good post.

          • Robert Smith

            Tim posts: “Christianity hasn’t been problematic for hundreds of years –”

            Really? Some forms of brutal christanity are being used to deny equal rights for gays. Others are using their religion to justify a ban abortion.

            I call them the American Christian Taliban.

            Your mileage may vary.

            Rob

          • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

            Tim,

            Bull sh*t!Christianity, a loving religion? you got to be a kidding.Tell it to the American Indians.Ha ha ha

            Events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete). Ancient Pagans. *As soon as …
            http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html -

          • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner

            Tim,

            Another one.

          • DaveH

            The gays are pushing for “equal rights”, Robert. They’re pushing for “special rights”, rights that the rest of us don’t have. They’re pushing for Government to force them on groups of people who don’t want them. Have you ever heard of Freedom of Association?

          • DaveH

            That should have read “The gays AREN’T pushing for “equal rights”, Robert”

          • DaveH

            I think there ought to be a law, Robert, that there must be an equal proportion of Libertarians in each household.
            I’m being sarcastic, of course.

            The act of forcing one group of people on another just creates resentment which then institutionalizes prejudice, the opposite of what the do-gooders are trying to achieve.

          • Vicki

            Robert Smith writes:
            “Really? Some forms of brutal christanity are being used to deny equal rights for gays.”

            It is not Christianity that is suppressing gays. I am in a position to know this because I am a Christian. I have looked into the hearts of some of my gay friends and found no evil in their being gay. The actions of some, like the actions of other humans may be evil but just being gay is not.

            http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html

            Robert Smith writes:
            ” Others are using their religion to justify a ban abortion. ”

            Silly them How dare they ban murder most foul.

          • bob wire

            “DaveH says:
            December 15, 2011 at 1:14 pm

            That should have read “The gays AREN’T pushing for “equal rights”, Robert”

            I never thought I find myself defending fairy’s Davy, but if you could remove the gender factor, I believe that you would be wrong. Gay’s do seek equal rights in the eye of law.

            So we are okay with gendered laws? And too, what is your business doing in another mans/womans home? Were you invited in?

          • Joe H.

            bob wire,
            Gays aren’t looking for special rights? What is the difference between murdering a gay and murdering a straight??? NONE what so ever, yet they want “hate” laws!! they want to FORCE all churches to marry two gays even though it is against their beliefs. The laws in most states say only a couple, meaning a man and a woman can adopt. a single can nt adopt, yet they want a special dispensation that says two men or two women can adopt. Special. they want special laws as to survivor benefits that can be covered by a living will and it CAN be made iron clad! Even a married couple can have their wishes contested by family, it is a fact of law. Special. don’t give me that “equal” rights crap!!

          • Robert Smith

            Dave H. claims: “They’re pushing for “special rights”, rights that the rest of us don’t have.”

            Really…

            And what right is that? What do they want that you don’t already have?

            Please be specific.

            Rob

        • Rebecca

          Rob,

          We are talking about control by the Federal Government …the subject matter is not what priest did what to whom. I am sure there is another blog somewhere on another site for that specific topic. I welcome you to join it. Furthermore, there are sites for readers to bash God and religion and even set up their own anti-religion occults. Knock yourself out. You are on the wrong page here.

          • Robert Smith

            I’m on the correct page when religion is being used to take freedoms away from Americans.

            Rob

          • Rebecca

            Religion is not the point where abortion or gay rights are concerned. There are plenty of people out there who aren’t affliated with any religious organization who see abortion for what it is…MURDER.

            What rights are being taken away from gay people by “religion”? Gay people have the right to live their alternative life style. Most states recognize “common law marriage” between two people and some companies even offer benefits for the gay partner. Just because not everyone stands up and applauds that life style doesn’t make gay people “persecuted ones”. The people who may be bashing them are little more than street thugs and are not true Christians. I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I would not harm the feelings or physical being of a gay person nor would I take any rights away from them.

            Stop trying to lump the “religious” together on account of the actions of a few nuts.

          • DaveH

            When is comes to Freedom Taking, Robert, there is no religion in America that outperforms the Religion of Liberalism.

          • bob wire

            WHAT?! I’ve never heard of such a religion! because there isn’t one! It’s a tradition.

            “Liberal religion is a religious tradition which embraces the theological diversity of a congregation rather than a single creed, authority, or writing. Because it may draw resources from many traditions, it cannot normally be characterized as Christian, Jewish, or any particular religious faith.”

            God is good, religion bad. They are not the same.

            Libertarian is not a political party but a reaction to government.

            Horse shoes or hand grenades ~ You throw both but proximity and effect varies greatly while just getting close counts for something.

          • JC

            Robert Smith says:
            December 15, 2011 at 10:28 am
            “I’m on the correct page when religion is being used to take freedoms away from Americans.”

            Have you seen what the “Government” has been doing to our rights and freedoms? They’ve been knocking Constitutional law to the sidelines “wholesale”.
            The Bill of Rights might as well be called the “The National Restraining Order”.

            But you think our concern should be focused on people who go to Church, because “they” are hurting our freedoms? You’re kidding right?

            (Ok now Robert, take a deep breath and slap yourself!);)

          • Robert Smith

            Rebecca claims: ” Most states recognize “common law marriage” between two people and some companies even offer benefits for the gay partner. ”

            Gays can NOT get social security benefits if they are married.

            Gays could not serve in the military out of the closet until this summer.

            Gays can not get health insurance for their spouse if the work for Uncle Sam.

            Rob

          • Joe H.

            robbie,
            do you realize what jeopardy gays that serve openly in the middle east put themselves into if they are captured??? you think the Muslims would bend over backwards to accomodate them? (no pun intended)the muslim religeon ABHORES the gay movement. IMADINNERJACKET Claimed they had NO gays in Iran!! Know why??? They murder them!!! they also believe in guilt by association. That means a soldier that would be taken captive and imprisoned for awhile would be immediatly killed because he serves with an openly gay person!! not the facts you like robbie, but facts just the same!!!

          • Robert Smith

            From Rebeca: “There are plenty of people out there who aren’t affliated with any religious organization who see abortion for what it is…MURDER”

            “Murder” is a legal concept. Unauthorized killing according to the government. In America the government is NOT an extension of your religion.

            Americans have determined that abortion is NOT murder.

            If you want to make anti-abortion a rule withing your religion IMO you can not have all the abortions you don’t want. BUT, you must respect other religions. For example, the Rostifarians want to use pot in their religion. Why stop them?

            You don’t want abortion in your ranks, they want pot. Isn’t America supposed to be a free society? Ooops, not if one is a christian imposing their beliefs upon others. Darn, isn’t that a limit to freedoms in America?

            Rob

        • Nadzieja Batki

          Kindly go find another site of your own like minded people to vent your hatred of Christians and Jews. Get over your hate of Christianity and Judaism, most people on this site have no problems with either. They also have the common sense to know that ALL humans are capable of evil.

          • Buddy

            You’re somewhat right, Batki. The little detail is that we were give a “republic” as differentiated from a democracy. Democracy panders to mob rule whereas a republic is based upon democratic rule filtered through (hopefully) statesmen like representatives. Dr. Hoppe’s book, “Democracy – the God that Failed” puts it all in perspective.

          • Vicki

            Close. Republic is the rule of Law. This Republic uses democratic methods to create the laws along with specific restrictions on what laws can be written even by the democratic methods.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

          • Joe H.

            Buddy,
            Kindly show me where Batki said a single thing about a DEMOCRACY in that post???

  • skyraider 6

    Why don’t we insist on following the Constitution to the letter? And eliminate all this liberal bull.

    • Buddy

      The reason is simply that following the limits of the constitution won’t get many votes when elections come around.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      We are a population who are either thinking or not thinking,with common sense or without, are language twisters or are not.Some of the population is so devoid of sense that every detail of life must be spelled out or they would be a hazard to themselves and others.

  • Alan

    Oh what a concept! Government – by the people and for the people. You cannot be a tenther today and not expect to be on someone’s radar screen. We have to decentralize this behemoth and get the States back in the driver’s seat! That way we control the Government from the bottom up!

    • James Andrews

      Exactly-the Feds have gotten way too big, and too powerful. And financially, way too crooked as well!

    • Robert Smith

      From Alan: “We have to decentralize this behemoth and get the States back in the driver’s seat! ”

      Does that mean there will be respect for states that will legalize pot?

      Does that mean there will be respect for the laws made by states like Washington that have approved Dr. assisted suicide?

      Rob

      • DaveH

        Did you complain to Obama, Robert, when his DOJ launched their coordinated crackdown on Medical Marijuana in California?
        http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/06/doj-launches-coordinated-crack

        • Robert Smith

          Hi Dave. You ask if I’m aware of Obama’s antics and pot. Yup, I sure am. There was a lengthy article in the December issue of “High Times” that went into exactly how pervasive it is. Not only are dispensaries invaded but the IRS is taxing ALL income under the misguided notion that equipment used in the production of an “illegal” substance isn’t deductable, as all the labor, etc. isn’t deductable. It is costing owners millions.

          I’ve sent hard copy letters.

          I’ve also supported Ron Paul, Barny Frank and others in thier efforts to legalize pot on a Federal level. I’m also working in my home state to legalize pot and get it treated similarly to alcohol. BTW, I’m also a member of a state firearms support group and I’m working for rolling back intrusive gun laws. I’ve made several appearances on local TV and radio over the years.

          Bottom line: Yes, I’m active in the real world also.

          Rob

          • DaveH

            Good answer.

          • JC

            Have to agree.

          • Joe H.

            robbie’
            Decent answer EXCEPT I wouldn’t trust Bawney Fwanks to do a damn thing he said or promised!!! He is a politician through and through, not a statesman!

          • Vigilant

            “I’ve also supported Ron Paul, Barny Frank and others in thier efforts to legalize pot on a Federal level.”

            I’m not aware that Dr. Paul has ever proposed or sponsored an amendment to the Constitution to “legalize pot on a Federal level,”
            because that’s the only way it could be done.

            Dr. Paul believes it’s up to the states, NOT the Federal Government, to decide whether or not they will legalize pot.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Instead of wasting every ones time with your inane postings, perhaps you should start reading at least 100 pages a day of historical, theological, economic, and philosophy books. You might learn something. I doubt that you will choose knowledge over ignorance, and will continue your idiotic writings.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          Raving and ranting about Christianity and Judaism is a lot easier for Robert Smith than to actually go read and study Philosophy and History and Archeology and Science.

          • Karolyn

            How do you know he hasn’t?

          • Kate8

            What is Robert Smith’s point, anyway?

            It is not Christianity that is destroying America, trashing our Constitution and human rights, declaring war on the citizenry, collapsing our monetary system, corrupting our children via indoctrination, turning kids against their parents, building up foreign troops on American soil, completing a total-control grid, slaughtering civilians abroad and at home, taking away our access to wholesome food and water, making virtually every aspect of life illegal, and openly declaring the intent to round up and detain whomever they wish as they are staffing FEMA camps all over the nation.

            Get a clue, Robert. You are obsessed with the wrong enemy. You will only be seen as a fool, and will be no safer than the rest of us.

          • bob wire

            I think that maybe Robert Smith has overdosed on all the Christian Self Righteousness Hypocrisy that we must wade knee deep in on these forums ever time God matters come up.

            I’m not sure about his Jewish bias, I’ve not followed Robert long enough to assume I know much about him.

            But offhand I do find Christians and Jews strange bed fellows that’s never made a lot of sense other then the money, security, codependency and enabling.

            But if everyone is happy with it, I am too! can we move on?

            Central Government, good? ~ bad?

          • Lost in Paradise

            DOn’t believe everything you read, especially in a U.S. university. A book is mostly anothers opinion, with some, and I say some fact, mixed in.Problem is that most people are not able to tell the difference between Bull, and facts.

          • Robert Smith

            From Nadzieja: “Raving and ranting about Christianity and Judaism…”

            Christanity and the way it is played on these forums is clearly a very brutal religion. I have often said that the christanity of Bishop Spong and others is a loving religion rather than a hateful one.

            The Jewish religion has no impact on me. They ain’t trying to get me to joing and they ain’t trying to make laws that impact me.

            Rob

        • Robert Smith

          Kate 8 says: “It is not Christianity that is destroying America,…”

          Yup, it sure is. Well, it’s SOME extreme right christians who are seriously misguided that THEIR American Taliban is the way for all Americans should live is the one and only.

          Rob

          • Vigilant

            RS says: “Well, it’s SOME extreme right christians who are seriously misguided that THEIR American Taliban is the way for all Americans should live is the one and only.”

            And you truly believe that the destruction of America is due to “SOME extreme right christians?” I see, then you intend to blame them for the deficit/budget fiasco, the Federal Reserve, criminal corporate and government activity, the corrupt politicians and anti-Capitalist socialist schemes of the ineptocracy.

            You must have a a screwy dictionary at hand, since the things that have set this nation on the path to oblivion are JUST THE OPPOSITE of what those “extreme right christians” advocate.

          • Robert Smith

            From Vigelant: “And you truly believe that the destruction of America is due to “SOME extreme right christians?”

            Yup, sure do. They are out to destroy freedoms in America and run America as a Talaban organization would.

            BTW, I’ll bet there are some christians who are in the 1% and working to crash America from the inside.

            Rob

      • Buddy

        Yes, Smith, that will mean that we’ll respect the wishes of people in a particular state.

      • JC

        Robert Smith says:
        December 15, 2011 at 8:48 am
        From Alan: “We have to decentralize this behemoth and get the States back in the driver’s seat! ”

        Does that mean there will be respect for states that will legalize pot?

        Does that mean there will be respect for the laws made by states like Washington that have approved Dr. assisted suicide?

        ————————–
        Does it mean space men will visit?
        Does it mean we’ll all sing Kumbaya?

        People will settle into moral and ethical dealings with one another based on mutual respect backed by laws of Justice…and prosper. Nature has it’s own way of keeping a population healthy, and Government, as we know it today is the opposite of that.

        • Lost in Paradise

          OH! All Bull ROar!

          • JC

            What is your point?

  • Tazio2013

    This recent item seems to fit well with today’s topic:

    Libertarians uphold the sovereignty of each adult individual in social life. They distinguish themselves in the political arena in most western countries from both the Left and the Right because, on the one hand, the Left is inclined primarily to impose restrictions on individuals pertaining to their economic or material actions, while the Right embarks upon imposing on individuals when it comes to their spiritual or mental actions. Both Left and Right enlist government for the purpose of regimenting certain aspects of the individual’s life, whereas the libertarian sanctions only those laws or rules that aim at keeping everyone’s sovereignty, at protecting individual rights to life, liberty and property.

    For example, the Right in the USA endorses the war on drugs as well as a closer unity between government and church, bans on prostitution, gambling, pornography and other vices. It is mostly concerning the crafting of people’s souls that the Right enlists the government’s coercive powers, although since body and soul aren’t ever sharply divided, this often involves regulating people’s economic activities as well (e.g., when Sunday blue laws prohibit commerce in liquor).

    The Left, in turn, wants heavy government regulation of the economy – minimum wage laws, anti-trust crusades, etc. They want progressive taxation and government efforts to equalize and redistribute wealth, not simply protect the integrity of market transactions. Here, too, a sharp division between the economic and the spiritual is impossible, so the Left is often involved in regimenting people’s talking and thinking (e.g., when it supports government bans on hate speech or racial discrimination in commerce).

    In the particular area where their philosophical focus is, the Left and Right both want government intrusion. Ayn Rand noted this a long time ago – she suggested, thereby, that metaphysics has a good deal of impact on public policy. (The Right’s idealism and the Left’s materialism tend to dictate what is to be controlled.)

    http://www.thedailybell.com/3350/Tibor-Machan-Machans-Archives-Essay-on-Libertarianism-in-One-Lesson

    • Karolyn

      Blue Laws don’t only concern liquor. Here in SC where I live, merchandise, other than food, cannot be sold on Sundays til 1:30.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        Nit-Picking, he said for example.

      • bob wire

        Poor girl, I wasn’t aware you were in South Carolina Karloyn .

        You still have “blue laws”? Texas did too for years. But they have been gone for 10 or 15 years now. We still can’t buy beer until noon, and booze till Monday

        • libertytrain

          I’ve been in Northern places that you can’t buy liquor period. And I expect SC is like NC….some counties, towns, etc have these laws in place, some do not. And like you in Texas buying beer or liquor is verboten till high noon on Sunday. I don’t know when they stop selling on Saturday night – I’m not usually in the market at that point in time… :)

          • http://deleted Claire

            Same here in my town.

          • Joe H.

            libertytrain,
            i don’t know if it has changed or not, but Columbus Georgia used to be dry on Sundays. Pheonix city alabama, right across the river, used to do a bang up bootleg booze business on sundays, mostly from the soldiers from Ft Benning!!

          • libertytrain

            I’ve been to Ft. Benning but not on Sunday so don’t know. Do know these laws are continuously up for some sort of vote on a fairly regular basis everywhere and sometimes they change and sometimes they don’t.

        • Karolyn

          bob – Another weird thing is that on Wednesdays many of the stores in the little town I live near are closed. It’s a throwback to the olden days when everybody went to church on Wednesdays too! And then they’re not open on Saturdays either! I don’t know how they make a living! Unfortunately, in my experience I have found that many South Carolinians, at least in this part of the state, are just downright lazy!

          • libertytrain

            You know Karolyn I don’t always disagree with you, I don’t always agree with you. However, one thing you try hammering into us poor slobs is that you are upbeat and say great things about people and that there is so much good, yet, in all these months or year or so, I have yet to hear you say even one positive thing about South Carolina. You chose to live there but having nothing but rotten things to say about it. Not positive, not upbeat, just spreading more unkindness in the world.

          • Buster the Anatolian

            libertytrain…..Yup, “do as I say not as I do”. that is karolyn’s life philosophy.

          • http://deleted Claire

            Buster the Anatolian—How’s that dog?

          • bob wire

            Karolyn can defend herself, but can’t remember at time that she told anyone to do anything but be nice. I guess that’s too much to ask of some people.

          • http://deleted Claire

            I live in Illinois, and the politics stink-Democrat and Republican. All I can say about Illinois politics is BEWARE. Other than that, I love my neighbors, I have good friends, etc. Like I say– they are “showhorses (politicians)” and there are “workhorses (the middle class).” Without the middle class, the politicians and the richies would have nothing. Behind every rich person are people that have done a good job and made their bosses wealthy. BTW, I don’t begrudge the wealthy, I am totally happy with my life.

          • Buster the Anatolian

            Claire, he is doing great.

          • libertytrain

            One problem us “Northerners” have when we decide to move down South is to literally take over and expect everyone to behave in our manic style. Northerners have a hard time understanding the South. I’ve been here a long while now and almost can feel a small right about saying – “Yankee, go home.” Get over yourselves and what you presume is the right way to do everything or how everyone is supposed to behave, walk and particularly talk. Learn to really understand, not just mouth it, that the South has its own culture, diverse in more ways that I could even begin to write, yet so many of you all are too blind to see or appreciate…

          • Joe H.

            Libertytrain,
            I lived in Ga. for three years and found that the old saying “when in Rome do as the Romans do” applies real well. In other words, if you don’t like it, MOVE!!! karolyn CHOSE to move there and she expects them to adhere to HER ways, well maybe she shouldn’t have moved there!!

          • libertytrain

            Joe, I just reread her comment and it really does demonstrate that she is not open minded enough to appreciate where she lives. And lazy — who determines lazy. Is that lazy people ONLY in SC near where she lives? That is such a goofy statement.

    • http://www.facebook.com/calebgrayson Caleb Grayson

      Mark, that is very insightful. i would like to add, that whatever is controlled by government makes the development of personal responsibility more difficult. when the Right controls the soul, spiritual development is hindered. when the Left controls the body, worldly development is hindered. they are hindered in both directions. those needing help have no understanding or value for the government help they got and those who need to help have not connection to the people their money helps through their taxes. the intervention of government by force and anonymity, removes the joy and appreciation that comes from charitable acts. our lives then become less human by virtue of a policy vs humanly run State.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      The Libertarian Party still supports open borders, which is why I left it in 1985. The only solution is too get involved in your local Republican Party at the grass root level, and change it from within, just like the Totalitarian Socialists did with the Democrat Party.

      • DaveH

        Why do you keep telling that same old lie, over and over again, Crony Capitalist?
        Here is the truth:
        http://libertarianparty.org/platform

        see section 3.4 Free Trade and Migration

        “We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property”.

      • bob wire

        “The only solution is too get involved in your local Republican Party at the grass root level, and change it from within, just like the Totalitarian Socialists did with the Democrat Party.”

        If you cut out the cancer in today’s GOP, you’d be left with only a pair of nice shoes, a mask and Slim Wittman’s “Maiden Love Call” on 8 track.

        • Vicki

          Much the same could be said about the Democrat party.

          • Joe H.

            Vicki,
            and if you removed the BS and long winded sentences from bob wire all you would have is “HI” As it stands now, that “HI” takes four long winded paragraphs!!

    • Buddy

      You’re surely correct, Tazio.

    • Lost in Paradise

      In this country a libertarian is someone who want to live by the United States Constitution. I bet you do not understand.

    • Raf Leon Dahlquist

      Pitrim A. Sorokin in “Social and Cultural Dynamics” provides a cogent view of the dialectic between Left (Sensate) vs Right (Ideal) across two millenia of Western history. It is clear that America is in full swing to the Sensate extreme. And it is likely that after the coming ‘quantitative crunch’ the pendlum will swing to the Right (Ideal). Too bad Sorokin was unable to find a place for consideration of the magnetic monopole in his world view. Libertarianism always gets caught in the crossfire between Right(Ideal) and Left(Sensate) poles. Thus the Libertarian search for establishment “off-shore” or at the next frontier, wherever that may be.

    • Kerry Good

      As for being an enlisted,disabled VN combat veteran I have seen what the liberals have done to this country since I got back from war in ’70. They run the government, they allowed an illegal alien to be president, they have taken away alot of our liberties. It seems to me maybe it is time to overthrow them and put in working men and women who have served time in the Armed Forces, whom put America ahead of foreign butt kissers and wish to make America once again rich for industry, working people, jobs and to end welfare, food stamps or the very least drug test them and no vote in elections for them. I feel this would go far to restart this great country!

    • Will Wharton

      That is a very definitive view of the political positions of our country. I’ve learned something (at 81)from it.

    • Jerry

      Excellent essay – I wish we could get this point across to more young people.
      AND I wish we could find a better representative for Libertarianism than Ron Paul.
      You can see how large a group he attracted – but he has to be the worst salesman EVER!
      Who can you recommend?

    • bucs65

      It’s all about morals! This person evidently has not spent much time studying the establishment of our constitution and the importance the founding fathers placed on morals. They believed the longevity of a republic depended on a moral and religious people.

    • Clyde

      Friedman and Buckley both opposed drug laws. Gambling is legal more places than is not.Porn is internet ubiquitous and prostitution is local option in Nevada and only minority supported.Large L libertarianism remains on the fringe because the desparation for ideology as opposed to logic plagues the Liberts- hey – just like the left.

    • Trevor

      I think the commenter distorts the Right’s desire to control individual behavior. As a rule the Right is against most federal “one size fits all” legislation and regulations. The only federal law most conservatives promote is Defense of Marriage, and then only as a constitutional amendment. The reason for that is, if one state were to recognize same sex marriage, a same sex couple could conceivably move to another state and expect that new state to recognize their “marriage”. I am not aware of the Right ever promoting a closer relationship between religion and government or promoting government control of private relationships.

  • Warrior

    Ponder this.

    “Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
    the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
    its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery..”
    – Winston Churchill

    These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read: Unfortunately, most voters don’t know this.

    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

    5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

    You “progressives” somehow keep failing to understand these principles.

    • skippy

      GREAT POST WARRIOR!!! I CAN ALWAYS COUNT ON YOU~~ :)

      • Lost in Paradise

        I agree Skippy.

      • C. Bradley

        The Bill of Rights, is like the Bible, people will take from it, if it benifits them in one form or another. As I read this article and the rights put in lamens terms, I couldnt help but think of how many of them have and are currently being broken for political gain, by all partys. Michael Trump said it best ( even though I think he is a turd) “The golden rule, those with the gold rule” until this is reversed, there are no real rights just words

    • Dingle

      You forgot to credit Abraham Lincoln for those 5 quotes.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Ditto that!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Thank you.

  • Joe Brooks

    “Centralization of power is always bad, even when it appears to have a good short-term result.”

    Absolutely. The embrace by the US central government of “free trade” has been a disaster for Americans and America, and a terrific financial boon to the mass murdering Communists in Red China and the state capitalists in Germany, Japan and OPEC.

    We need to return to this, ASAP:

    Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the specific right to “regulate commerce with foreign nations”.

    • DaveH

      Please do not confuse Government-controlled trade with Free Trade. That is an oxymoron. The whole idea of Free Trade is the absence of Government meddling.
      http://mises.org/econsense/ch87.asp

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Thank you, DaveH. This is the hardest concept to get across to people. Anytime governments get their grubby hands into business and trade they is no longer free trade.

        • Vicki

          Governments ONLY legitimate role in “free trade” is keeping the trade honest.

      • Joe Brooks

        Dave H.

        We have been over this before, the US already has unilateral free trade, I will agree that the special interest enrichment scheme “free trade” agreements are even more damaging.

        US free trade itself of any sort has to be a central government policy to even exist.

        We are building Communist China [270 billion/year], OPEC [100 billion/year, total 700 bilion/year trade deficit mostly to the enemies of freedom.

        Please justify the building of Communist/Muslim economies thru the looting of US factories, middle class and military capabilities.

        • DaveH

          Two wrongs don’t make a right, Joe. But even if they did, Trade restrictions damage the citizens of the imposing countries more than they do any other country, by depriving their citizens of the choice of goods that they desire.
          There is no way that I could fully develop the reasons why Free Trade works better than UnFree Trade in a comment short enough to not waste my time and be read by other readers. But I will give a few short things for people to think about and those who want more can read the posted link.
          If Free Trade wasn’t better for any country, embargoes would be a complete waste of time, yet they are the weapon of choice for any statist efforts at controlling other countries’ politics.
          If Free Trade wasn’t a good thing, why did our founders give the Federal Government the power to stop States from restricting their trade with other states? Why don’t the States currently engage in open Protectionism of their native industries?
          The fact is that everybody has different talents and abilities, thus are better at producing some things than others. The wider the pool of trade, the more we take advantage of those different talents and abilities.
          Imagine for instance that you were restricted to buying products only from your own city. Obviously, you would be missing out on a lot of excellent products and services.
          Free Trade (which we don’t currently have anyway) isn’t responsible for our bad economy. Big Government, with their meddling in the Marketplace and wasting of our resources, both financial and physical, is responsible for our bad economy. Let’s not repeat the follies of the Great Depression.
          More on Free Trade:
          http://mises.org/daily/2070

          • Joe Brooks

            Dave H., Libertarians say protectionism is an affront to their freedom to buy from whomever they want, wherever it was made and if they want to support products made cheaper by slave labor, that is their choice, at whatever cost to millions of Americans’ jobs, standard of living, opportunities and prosperity.

            Also, you must realize by massively bolstering, with what was our wealth, the entrenched wealthy CCP, Mexican Oligarchs, Brazilian Communists, OPEC kings, Caste System Indian trash, etc. that we are aiding and abetting their continued tyranny.

            Here is something that is never discussed. You are making choices for me: What about my freedom to choose to buy American? Free trade has decimated American made industry, to the point we do not have a USA made choice in the vast majority of products.

            This did not occur by choice, it is well known that the Japanese dumped product on US manufacturers, then Germany, then Mexico, then China, all to put US factories out of business and then buy them cheap.

            I was there, I am an eyewitness to these events. I could go on about the servers I shutdown to pack up and ship to Mexico, China and India, along with entire factories, but the statistics are there for anyone to see.

            http://americawakeup.net/

          • Joe Brooks

            “Let’s start by reminding ourselves of a basic fact: the Depression’s cause was monetary. The Federal Reserve had allowed the money supply to balloon excessively during the late 1920s, piling up in the stock market as a bubble. The Fed then panicked, miscalculated, and let the money supply collapse by a third by 1933, depriving the economy of the liquidity it needed to breathe. Trade had nothing to do with it.”

            http://www.tradereform.org/2011/10/protectionism-didnt-cause-the-great-depression/

          • Joe Brooks

            “If Free Trade wasn’t a good thing, why did our founders give the Federal Government the power to stop States from restricting their trade with other states?”

            Easy one Dave. They created a nationwide [not International] prosperity zone that lasted, with a few free trade hiccups, especially Woodrow Wilson’s disastrous Adminstration, from Hamilton’s tariffs of 1789 until the traitor Nixon [1970] reduced the import tariffs again to all time lows. The country began suffering trade deficit extractions in 1971, ballooning to nearly a trillion dollars/year in the early 2000′s.

            “Why don’t the States currently engage in open Protectionism of their native industries?”

            Because the Founders were smart, they did not want the states battling each other over manufacturing, it is Constitutionally illegal for the states to tax each other’s products. That created a cohesive country, not a bunch of selfish anarchists.

            Article I, Section 10 of our Federal Constitution prohibits the state governments, without the consent of the Federal Congress, from collecting Tariffs on goods imported into the states. Likewise, Article I, Section 9 prohibited the Federal Congress from assessing tariffs or taxes on goods exported from any state. This is why you pay no tax/tariff when purchasing from another state, the Founders made Regionalism illegal.

            International free trade is a practical impossibility, as 140 other place tariffs, VATs, currency manipulation, Border Duties, etc. to enrich themselves at our expense.

            Unless you are advocating One World Dictatorship? That would be the only way to control the entire planet’s economy. Oh wait, we already have the WTO and the IMF.

        • Vicki

          Joe Brooks writes:
          “Please justify the building of Communist/Muslim economies thru the looting of US factories, middle class and military capabilities.”

          I don’t think that word (looting) means what you think it means.
          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/looting

          No evidence of force or war therefore your entire argument is based on a false assertion.

    • DaveR

      Article I, Section 8… “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

    • Vicki

      “Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the specific right to “regulate commerce with foreign nations”.”

      Thats a POWER not a right. People have rights (and powers). Government only has such powers as the people delegate to it.

      • Robert Smith

        WE THE PEOPLE, not some reich winger’s god.

        Rob

  • Charles

    Heart broken over what this White House is trying to do to America. I am glad there is a day coming when Truth shall come to light, and those who have taken unjustly and those who could have worked, but would not, will be known. May G_d redeem and bless America!!!

    What Warrior has said is good!

  • paul

    lol Rob
    What you wrote appears to fly in the face of this whole article. The upright citizens should be focused on maintaining their freedoms and elect those representatives who will stop the bloated BIG government from further eroding what Madison and others fought so valiantly to procure for us. The government has the armed forces to protect our nation, but that appears not to be enough, so now we get the TSA ,neapolitano (“big” sis), EPA what kind of toilets, lightbulbs you can have in your house and how your business must fund ALGORE’s agenda, etc… The States had power, but BIG gov fails to recognize them with all the policies to deflate their sovereignty beginning with abe lincoln (if my memory serves me well).

  • Patriotic nut

    I have recently posted on several sites that the only way to remedy our situation is to elect the correct people to office in our local and state levels. Trying to change our nation from the top down will not work, we can elect anyone we choose as our president and even thought they may be constitutionally correct in their governing they still must have the congress in order to accomplish much of anything. Can we replace enough congress people to effectively make the desired changes? No, by the time there are enough of them there the first ones will have changed to “the dark side”. Elect your local and state officials wisely and we can repair our nation.

    • James

      While we’re rediscovering the U.S. Constitution, let’s be reminded that there is no provision therein for the popular election of the President and Vice-President. See Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 and on.

      • DaveH

        From Article II, Sec. 1:
        “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector”.
        Notable phrase — “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”. If the Legislature directs a vote by the states’ citizens, so be it.

        • James

          Dave, The “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” applies to the appointment of Electors that each State is entitled to. The States have always done that, from our beginnings, and they will do that next year. The Electors cast their votes per the requirement of the 12th Amendment. You will note there is no mention of any political party there they can vote for whoever they want to.

    • clarence swinney

      $$$$ out of elections
      Fed funded–6 months–3 primary 3 general
      NO $$ –free equal tv time
      debate a week=12=enough to evalauate

      Congress + White House employees can take Nothing=O of value
      bye bye K street

    • Joe H.

      Patriotic nut,
      While what you say is mostly correct, what about the fact that Abummer has side stepped the houses and passed items by presidential
      edict?? When he practices this it doesn’t matter who is in the houses, they aren’t going to get to decide anyways!!

  • s c

    The path back to sanity and functional government involves re-education. From our position, those who criticize limited government have a truly false education, and you could call them a) ‘buts,’ b) ‘this timers’ and c) ‘costume jewelry lovers.’
    The first mistake BUTS make is in forgetting that no matter what a politician promises, that politician has to rely on lies, stupid followers and a whoring media for support.
    Some of America’s in-house enemies cry ‘THIS TIME I FEEL SO GOOD.’ Lies are lies, and NO ‘this time’
    will ever change that. When Ponzi schemes replace the Constitution, masks come off. No liars can stop that.
    In addition to the ‘buts’ and ‘this timers,’ some claim that the ‘costume jewelry’ offered by the newest crop of liars and pretenders is beautiful and can be personalized for everyone. The chains of slavery are NOT costume jewelry, and if you can find reasons to sell your soul to a politician for mere “costume jewelry,” you were never an American.
    People choose to forget that ‘Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.’
    If you can find a reason to ignore that concept, you have found a reason to hate being free, and you are willing slaves, people.

    • Paul

      S C – Power per se does not corrupt. Rather, the corrupt seek power to get rich quick because they’re too stupid or uneducated to make it by honest work and initiative in the private sector. More power just enables them to extort more money. Our entire political class, with very few exceptions, comprises this kind of debauched individual, all of them narcissists with no scruples whatsoever. That goes for all levels of government, municipal, county, state and federal. The higher the level, the bigger the money, but they’re all complicit in the criminal enterprise that is now the government of our United States. To add insult to injury, they have the unmitigated gall to tell the rest of us how we are to lead our lives while being sure to exempt themselves from anything that restricts them, even insider trading, the main source of their millions. Getting rid of them will be just as difficult as keeping them from office in the first place because they are pathological liars. And tragically, there are still enough stupid and/or uninformed people out there who believe them.

      • Lost in Paradise

        I disagree with you that Power in itself does not corrupt.We are witnessing it now in the White House, and have many times before. I have seen it at the local level, and even in the church. Power does corrupt directly.

        • DaveH

          What Paul is saying is that positions of power attract people who are corrupt to begin with.
          Those who have strong moral character would not be corrupted easily.

          • Lost in Paradise

            Strong moral character can be overcome by power and the satisfaction the think it gives them.

      • http://www.personalliberty.com/news/paul-foreign-policy-gaining-traction/?eiid= William L Collins

        that why i am voteing for RON PAUL

  • amarq

    …and todays signing will go largely unreported…
    The main stream media are running scared. Yahoo has taken down it’s comments section on all news stories because of the overwelming support for Ron Paul. Most of the big 5 still allow comments…as long as they are not critical of their chosen candidate. We have reached a major turning point. Our crooked politicians are but a reflection of the real problem…the mindless masses who elect them.

  • Michael Lewis

    Restoring the 1st Amendment rights of flesh and blood would be a satisfying solution.

    Amendment 1
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Political campaigns assemble people and coordinate their money and talents to communicate, thru speech and the press, demands for redress of grievances. The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws. Campaign laws are corruption of the 1st Amendment!

    Flesh and blood people should be equally exempt and equally free from unconstitutional restraints. But only the corporate voice has been unregulated since the passage of the Federal Campaign Act.

    2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term “expenditure” does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

    This exemption created a “State Approved Commercial Press!”

    Many non-profit corporations, 501s and 527s were formed to get around some, not all, restraints FECA and BCRA placed on political communications by flesh and blood citizens. Interest groups, from the ACLU to the NRA to DownsizeDC.org, are all corporations too. The persons in these groups have interests, and particularly in the non-profit sector, it’s a method for organizing the so-called 99% so they can pool their resources and be sure they are heard.

    The NRA bought a radio station to restore the rights of their membership to participate in American politics. But the 1st Amendment does not require people to purchase a radio station in order to enjoy freedom of speech. Radio stations enjoy freedom of speech because they employee people.

    “Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a “special interest” by any definition, and heavily engaged in the “issue advocacy” and “independent expenditure” realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it. To illustrate the absurdity of this special exemption the media enjoys, I frequently cite as an example the fact that if the RNC bought NBC from GE the FEC would regulate the evening news and, under the McCain-Feingold “reform” bill, Tom Brokaw could not mention a candidate 60 days before an election. This is patently absurd.” – Senator McConnell

    It is normal for all large businesses to make serious efforts to influence the news, to avoid embarrassing publicity, and to maximize sympathetic public opinion and government policies. Now they own most of the news media that they wish to influence. From The Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian

    To restore equal protection under law, the “press exemption”, 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i), should be modified to read: “The term expenditure does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate, political party, citizen, citizens group, non-profit corporation, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.”

    The only thing campaigns produce is information for public distribution. If commercial media were to publish and broadcast candidate and issue ads for free it would eliminate the need for much of the money spent in politics.

  • http://bobLivingston Power to the People

    Great posts Tazio, Warrior and Patriotic nut. Tazio has summed up that the two parties have for too long twisted the constitution to fit their agendas at all of our expense. History has and will always repeat itself when those who fail to know history repeat the mistakes of thought and actions perpetrated in the past. Case in point our “vacationer-in-chief” Prez.

    I agree, it has to start at the local level and the state level. DC is lost and it will take generations to reclaim it from the sickness.

    If a supreme power exits….we need help more than ever!

    Keep fighting to restore our foundation!

    • James

      Let’s all write our congressmen and ask them to declare war on the District of Columbia.

    • Robert Smith

      I’ll bet you’ve been listening to Rush. The vacation issue isn’t his first lie, I’m sure.

      You posted: “Case in point our “vacationer-in-chief””

      You are just plane incorrect.

      From: CBS news, By Brent Baker, August 18, 2011

      “While “Obama has taken 61 days of vacation so far,” anchor Scott Pelley noted over a photo montage of those he cited, “at this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch, where staff often joined him for meetings, and Ronald Reagan 112 days at his ranch. Among recent Presidents, Bill Clinton took the least time off — 28 days.”

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2011/08/18/cbs-comes-obama-s-defense-vacation-time-after-they-cue-him-prognosticat

      Rob

      • James

        Robert, “vacationer-in-chief” wasn’t my post. Where did you read that? There is another ‘James’ commenter here whom I have usually drawn attention to as being someone other than me. I have even suggested that such duplication of names be prohibited.

        • Thinking About

          His reply was to Powet

          • James

            To Power? Thanks, I missed that.

      • Joe H.

        robbie,
        And how many rounds of GOLF has he played??? I’m not complaining, though, while he’s on the course he’s doing less damage!!!

    • Lost in Paradise

      Because of the power in D.C., we cannot start at the local level, and not get arrested. It has simply gone too far. Washington now has power over everyone, and it is growing its power more everyday.

  • shirley

    WE were given these rights by our fore fathers.So leave them alone.There is a day coming when all eyes will see the tureth.

    • Marcus

      No we were not given these rights by our forefathers. Our forefathers were the ones to realize and codify that we were given these rights by God, not the government, and then they tried to put in place a system so that we could relinquish some rights to the government for the common good. The government has no inherent rights, only those we allow it to take through our representatives.
      Unfortunately every administration in our history, regardless of party or promises, has increased the power and scope of the federal government. Remember, every time the government passes a law, we give up a little more freedom.

      • Robert Smith

        From Marcus: “Our forefathers were the ones to realize and codify that we were given these rights by God, not the government”

        What part of “WE THE PEOPLE” don’t you understand?

        It isn’t YOUR god, but us, the people from which the United States of America gets its power.

        Rob

        • bob wire

          Tell it like it is Rob.

          So much programing to undo,so little time.

          It not a God matter, God don’t care! you are his, regardless what you do and will met him soon enough.

          It’s “now” and a people matter, how they chose to live and prosper.

          • James

            I think Robert was referring to 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.”

          • Robert Smith

            No James, WE THE PEOPLE.

            Trumps that there barbaric reich wing god.

            Rob

  • Believer

    LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – Yes, abortion is a moral issue, but it also breaches the Bill of Rights. The right to LIFE. “Abortion” – ending of a pregnancy, thus ending a life. That is MURDER and must be legislated. Even animals protect their young.

    • Marcus

      I agree but it is not a federal issue but, rather, a local one. Murder is not a federal crime but is a crime in every state. Remember “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.”

      • Believer

        You may be legally right, but when it comes to the natural consequences of this issue, we are all personally responsible for what we did or did not do to prevent such an atrocity. If a state made murder legal, would you do nothing?

        • DaveH

          The problem is that the issue is far from cut and dry.
          First we must determine when life begins. Is it wrong, as some religions believe, to practice any form of birth control because we are in effect preventing life? Does life begin at conception? Does it begin when the fetus appears to be a human? Does it begin when the fetus is viable if taken outside the body? Does it begin at birth?
          If we determine that it begins sometime before birth, then we face the issue of death from childbirth. Does any one of us have the right to Force a mother to undergo a possibly fatal birthing process? And the risk of death is not trivial, being about the same risk as dying in an automobile accident.
          Personally I think abortion is a mistake. And under ordinary circumstances I think unwanted children should be given up for adoption. But since the mother’s life is at stake, I would not even consider forcing my choices on her.

          • Believer

            Birth is a natural thing and if it is your time to go, it is your time. One can die from a finger cut. There are many risks to life in general. Fear can cause poor choices. Life begins at conception, that is a biological fact. Even a secularist who only believes in the rules of science knows this, though he might try to deny it for this argument.
            Abortion became a big issue when man began to try to control nature with contraception and began to denounce the rules of life given to us by God. Our secularist culture has rejected the sanctity of marriage and the GIFT of life. BIG mistake.

          • DaveH

            My point, Believer, is not what YOU believe, but what the vast majority of citizens will ascribe to as to when a life begins.

          • Vicki

            DaveH writes:
            “Does life begin at conception?” and other good questions.

            Life obviously begins at conception as the fertilized egg can grow when protected in the same way that a human will grow when protected. The moral question would be when does the set of cells become “human” I.E. Sentient or if such a thing exists, when does that set of cells gain a soul?

            All difficult questions based on our current knowledge of the way things work. I therefor recommend we err on the side of caution and strongly encourage Abstinence or Adoption. If the mother’s life is REALLY at risk than MAYBE abortion.

      • Joe H.

        Marcus,
        Let ANY state de-criminalise murder and see how fast the feds step in WITH the supremes!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002914456416 Jenny Davis Bussey

      Except one thing, the phrase “life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is not in the constitution or bill of rights, it is from the declaration of independence.

      • Believer

        Okay, I’ve been told. But don’t forget, those rights in the Declaration of Independence were considered natural, inalienable rights and therefore would not need to be expressed in the Bill of Rights. The founders were men of faith and this must be remembered when interpreting what they wrote.

        • http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ Michael Boldin

          Believe, I THINK the founders would have agreed that the right to life is of the utmost importance. And I tend to think they’d all probably be opposed to abortion. And even if not, for what you mention the response would be:

          “If you believe something should be protected, keep it away from the federal government AT ALL COSTS.”

          That’s why they left the most difficult, and most divisive issues – to the people of the several states.

          • Believer

            I agree with you, but our inalienable rights trump states rights. We must proceed with caution and total devotion to our creator or we will fail. Even states can fail to make the right decisions, as they did with slavery. It all goes back to only one thing – We need God. A secularist nation is destined to fail, no matter what is in its constitution.

          • DaveH

            I disagree. Respect for your fellow human being does not require a belief in a God. Those who respect their fellows would not use the Force of Government to impose their personal beliefs on them.

          • DaveH

            That was a response to Believer.

          • bob wire

            “We need God. A secularist nation is destined to fail, no matter what is in its constitution.”

            What’s this “WE” business?

            What makes you believe we don’t have God? If you have lost God, it’s for you to find him and don’t include everyone else in your personal search.

            Maybe you don’t approve of my God? Maybe I don’t like yours? Then what are we to do? Accept it or Try to kill each other off? or just slowly chock and starve each other out, making life miserable as possible?

            Accept the fact that all nations one day fail regardless,God,no God, like all things of man. Accept the fact that we win some, lose some and some day’s you are simply rained out which make it a perfect day to go home and play with the kids momma.

            To be so short sighted, you entertain unrealistic opportunistic future ambitions.

          • Vicki

            Bob Wire. The question is not whether your God is better/worse/different then my God. The question is your VIEW of God closer or further from who/what God really is. Jesus had a comment about that. John 14:6

          • bob wire

            Very good Vicky, so that’s the test if my God qualifies to be a good God and one everyone must/should accept?

            These are lovely words metaphorically spoken and to a select audience. Thomas to be exact, and for Thomas. As Thomas has asked Jesus where was he going and how could Thomas find him? In John 2, Jesus speaks of his fathers house having many mansions. Thomas is worried and wanting a clue as were to look for him as Jesus speaks of them becoming separated.

            5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

            6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the away, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

            7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

            So Jesus is God and God is Jesus and then there’s this holy spirit thing to include in the mix. The three “state of the Divine” comprising the Trinity. Three states of manifestation, Water, Ice, steam, ~ liquid, solid, vapor all the same thing in different manifested states.

            But maybe this understanding doesn’t suit you? Must we agree? Are we going to fight about it? are we going to marginalize people for not believing our way? Is government to be used as a introduction tool by mandate? Must I grow a beard and wear a funny hat to be accepted? Should such things as how we look or what we wear matter to a “GOD”?

            Taken in context, verse 6 is a great place for a protestant to jump in and start their search but this leaves out a lot of people with their understanding and quest of the Divine.

          • Vicki

            bob wire says:
            “Very good Vicky, so that’s the test if my God qualifies to be a good God and one everyone must/should accept?”

            That is the test. It is an individual test. It is not my place to judge your acceptance. If God exists, and if that test is the test God provides, it is GOD who will decide your fate. God IS good. Your view of God may or may not be.

    • James

      The central theme here is that the Bill of Rights is restrictions we placed upon the federal government. The legalization of abortiion in Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court was based upon the 14th Amendment Section 1′s “All persons born in…in the United States…are citizens of the United States”, and the fact that only “citizens” have rights. The Court, then searching for a way to justify abortions included it in “Liberty” clause of that amendment. In Lawrence v. Texas, they included the right of people of the same sex to have sexual relations, in that “Liberty” clause.

      • DaveH

        Only citizens have rights? Not to disparage you, James, because I do think most people believe that, but aren’t rights something we think need to be respected in other people? If so, shouldn’t we respect those rights for any human being, whether citizen or not?

        • James

          Dave, I am relating what the Supreme Court bases its opinions on, namely the U.S. Constitution. The Court doesn’t take a poll to see what the most people believe. They are bound by the written law, and it says, if you are born here, you are a citizen. The only way to alter that is to amend the 14th Amendment to read: “All persons born to citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
          The 14th Amendment was never intended to mean what it literally said, it’s original purpose was to make citizens of the just freed slaves.

        • James

          Per the 14th Amendment, one doesn’t have rights unless they are citizens of the United States, and they aren’t citizens until they are born in the United States. Thus fetuses have no protection under the law. If the 14th Amendment read; “Any being conceived by citizens of the United States is a citizen of the United States” then aborting such fetus would be murder. Until the 14th Amendment is changed, abortion will still be legal.

          • Joe H.

            James,
            Tell that to a judge and jury when you get into an accident with a pregnant woman and kill her “fetus”. you Can be convicted of vehicular homicide and IT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE SAME HIGH COURTS!!

          • James

            Joe H, Not the ‘same’ courts. Some States have negligent homocide and first & second degree murder laws (offenses for the killing of another ‘person’), which do include death of an unborn child, at any stage of developement. In federal courts, one is not a citizen, with rights, until they are ‘born’ here.

    • Robert Smith

      “The right to LIFE. “Abortion” – ending of a pregnancy, thus ending a life.”

      “Life” certainly, but a cockroach is “life.” A bunch of cells is not a “human being” until it is born. Even it is for the sake of argument no human being can take from another without permission. If she doesn’t want to give out it goes, just as YOU would not tolerate someone living in your house taking all they need to survive without your permission even if you did invite them to a party.

      “That is MURDER and must be legislated.”

      Only in your mind / religion and those who want to deny women choice. In fact there is an organization called, “Catholics for Choice”. They can be found at: Catholics for Choice, 1436 U Street NW, Suite 301, Washington, DC 20009-3997, USA.

      Denying women choice is just like voting slavery back. Both are unConstitutonal.

      “Even animals protect their young.”

      Really… Some eat their young. In times of hardship many animals will spontaniously abort.

      Rob

      • DaveR

        Much of your “logic” in that post is bizarre, at best.

        • bob wire

          No, he is not bazaar at all, but addressing a polarized and unpopular subject head on with his thinking cap on without baggage and burden of religion dogma and bias.

          A woman is the host to life, she is vested in ways like none other and she “HAS” rights that supersede others.

          This not a matter for government but for family and church.

          You are are attempting to approach it from the church side by encroachment of church into government.

          That’s what so many righty are attempting to do, force their brand of god matters into government for dominion, in the guise of personal freedom and liberties and all things holly.

          An unspoken facet of truth that has infiltrated the Tea Party movement. Where it was there all along,~ perhaps so but never so overt as we see today. If it was ever a secret, the cat is now out of the bag.

          They are attempting to do, much like the Taliban, instill notions of a particular brand of God and righteous living via government.

      • Believer

        In general, she does have a choice. That choice is made when you engages in sexual intercourse, and the male is also morally responsible for this decision.
        Humans do have spontaneous abortions, we call them miscarriages.
        And – A true Catholic does not support abortion.

        • Thinking About

          Not all sexual intercourse is conscentual and it should never be to punish a victim of rape by forcing an unwanted unplanned pregnancy upon any woman or child. For those who thinks liberties are being denied should rethink a woman’s choice. It should not be any of your business what another woman decides what to do with her body.

          • Vicki

            Thinking about writes:
            ‘Not all sexual intercourse is conscentual and it should never be to punish a victim of rape by forcing an unwanted unplanned pregnancy upon any woman or child. ”

            If it is wrong to punish one of the victims of rape why is it ok to punish with DEATH the other, indeed the most innocent possible, victim?

          • Joe H.

            Thinking about,
            I believe that the only exceptions morally acceptable for abortion are Rape or incest and in matters pertaining to the life or death of the mother. IE ectoptic pregnancy, weak heart, other biological reasons that it would threaten the mothers very life to carry. an abortion of convenience is NOT acceptable! (and robbie, i don’t need to hear about your acorns or cockroaches!)

        • bob wire

          I suppose that it’s a deliberate choice to eat and drink too. Let’s face it, few are forced.

  • tony N

    Do you think this is cause for alarm about whoever gets in power will centralize transparency and allow this crony Capitalism to continue to take down the Fairness of the Capital system of how it works to be a determining factor in how a Company or Individual maintains solvency and sustains the supply-side markets ? I found this surfing a Blog on How Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital works .

    http://newtgingrich360.com/forum/attachment/download?id=6433548%3AUploadedFile%3A28048

  • Arthus

    Warrior,
    Who is the author of the 5 best sentences in your comment?
    Outstanding!

  • William Cocker

    If you had a car that is as badly broken as your government, you’d junk it, not try to repair it!
    Trying to “elect” a government to repair a broken government is an exercise in futility. Furthermore, doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Why are you waiting until 2012 to “elect” a rebellion? Do it yourself, NOW! Why wait while your enemy gathers strength and power, and weakens you?

    • http://lib.alerts Joel

      If you had a bad heart through no fault of your own, would you “junk it”?

      • Lost in Paradise

        No need, it will junk me.

    • Lost in Paradise

      Now here is an intelligent post, and very accurate and to the point. Read it over and over till you get it.

    • Lost in Paradise

      What do you expect from whiners, cryers, and couch potatoes. Not much I hope, and like you say more of the same from them also.

    • Robert Smith

      “you’d junk it, not try to repair it!”

      I can tell… You’ve never restored a car or bike to its show room glory, have you?

      Rob

      • bob wire

        Labors of love ! No respect, No love, no appreciation but Pearls thrown to swine.

    • DaveH

      So, after millions of people give up their lives, what if the bad guys win? What if the good guys win, but they aren’t as good as you’d hoped?
      Read this:
      http://mises.org/daily/5363

      There really is no substitute for educating the electorate and getting us back to the wisdom of our Founders and their resultant Constitution. Yes, the Constitution has flaws. Mostly those flaws stem from the writers putting in the so-called “Welfare Clause”, and from not strictly defining the use of the “Commerce Clause”. The “general welfare” phrase was intended to be a guarantee that all Federal Laws would apply equally to all of the states, so that the Federal Government could not target certain states with their laws. And the Commerce Power was to prevent individual states from protecting their own industries with protectionist means such as tariffs on other states’ goods or higher sales taxes on out-of-state goods, etc. The Commerce Clause has been greatly abused, and used to justify almost any law the Federal Government wishes to pass.

      • James

        Dave, That’s nonsense and you know it. The U.S. Constitution created the federal government, delegated certain powers to it, and the Bill of Rights denied to it, power over rights.

    • Vicki

      Our form of government is NOT broken. The current drivers can not drive it cause they never learned how. Our current mechanics (voters) can not repair it cause they never learned how it works.

      We, who love freedom more then even a little temporary safety will need to teach how it works so that we can throw out the drivers (Congress) and put in people who both know how our form of government works but also love as we do freedom and liberty.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

      Then again that is why we are here. To educate each other and those who come and just listen.

  • http://lib.alerts Joel

    The average person cannot with accuracy define the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We need more articles like this to more people, especially students. The people in Texas writing our kids text books are failing our kids and thus our Country.

    • http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ Michael Boldin

      Thank you for the positive feedback, Joel!

    • James

      Here’s the basic rules. Article I created the Legislative Branch (Congress) and delegatedd certain powers to it in Section 8. Article II created the Executive Branch and named the president Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. Article III created the Judicial Branch and has power to setle disputes between States and determine whether federal laws, when challenged, are within constitutional limits. The Bill of Rights was added to prevent the federal government from exercising any power over our rights.

  • Paul Wheaton

    The analysis offered ignores the effect of the 14th amendment which makes the rights of U.S. citizenship enforceable against the states.

    • Marcus

      Of course, lets look to the reconstruction ammendments which took power away from the states and gave it to the federal government with blatant disregard for the constitution. Federal representantive still fearfull after the civil war. This was when Franklin’s quote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” was the truest and since then the centralized federal government has been grabbing more and more power and we have been loosing freedom faster and faster.

    • James

      You’re right, but see my above comment. It was never intended that “Liberty” of the 14th Amendment should include abortion, homosexual acts and mescegenation as rights. The Supeme Court is the villain there.

      • http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ Michael Boldin

        Agreed, and even further than that on the 14th…

      • Robert Smith

        Hey James, you post: “It was never intended that “Liberty” of the 14th Amendment should include abortion, homosexual acts and mescegenation as rights.”

        Really? And where do you get such a bogus idea? Do you have any letters from those who crafted the 14th Ammendment that would state such a sentament or did you just make it up?

        Rob

        • Nadzieja Batki

          You are the one who makes up statements that cannot be verified.

        • James

          Robert, The relevant part of the 14th Amendment reads: “No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” ‘Liberty’ meant freedom as opposed to incarceration. States were locking up blacks for no apparent reason, without due process of law. Liberty never meant freedom to abort fetuses, commit homosexual acts or marry out of one’s race.

          • bob wire

            PERSON

          • James

            Bob, And your point is?

      • Karolyn

        Unbelievable! Understandable that you would include homosexual acts and abortion, considering you’re obviously a Christian Conservative, but miscegenation??? What century do you hale from? All I can say is “WOW!”

        • James

          Karolyn, I didn’t include them, the Supreme Court included them by High Court decisions (Roe v. Wade -abortion’ : Lawrence v. Texas – homosexuala acts; and I forget the miscegenation case). In our beginnings, the colonies and later the early states all had laws which criminalized interracial marriages. In our beginnings, all people here were of the same race and religion, five different cultures from five different nations, but all were white Christians. At that time no other people who were here, Indians, blacks or whatever were considered to be citizens of the United States. Most all nations were then comprised of the same racial or ethnic people.

      • Vicki

        James writes:
        “It was never intended that “Liberty” of the 14th Amendment should include abortion, homosexual acts and mescegenation as rights.”

        Let us look at the 3 listed cases

        Abortion (NON-consensual termination of a (possibly) human.)

        Homosexual acts (Behavior between consenting adults)

        mescegenation (Behavior between consenting adults)

        Now please explain why consenting adults do not have the right to that behavior?

        • James

          Vicki, read my above quote on the 14th Amendment -Liberty subject.

        • James

          Vicki, They do now have those rights. But until Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia, doing those things was a criminal offense, in most States. The Supreme Court expanded on the original meaning of “liberty” in the 14th Amendment, to make those rights effective in the States. However, before that “Liberty” only meant freedom versus incarceration, and was a restriction on slave States. Prior to the 14th Amendment there was almost nothing in the U.S. Constitution that limited the States.

    • http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ Michael Boldin

      Well, 1500 hundred words as a limit is tough, and the 14th is another full discussion! My goal here was to start from the beginning, being Bill of Rights Day and all.

      Before we can understand ANY amendment past the first 10, we need to begin with the proper framework of how the constitution and the bill of rights worked, according to the founders.

      I hope that this helps establish some proper framework – and if I’m given the honor of continued space here at Personal Liberty, I will most certainly address that and more in time.

      The short of it on the 14th? Surprise, surprise, it’s not what the college professors or the pundits or the politicians have been telling you.

      Thanks for bringing that up though!

    • DaveH

      The “Truth about the 14th Amendment”:
      http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=282

      • James

        Dave, I am in favor of repealing Section 1, of the 14th Amendment. It has been a loophole for the Supreme Court to play games with. It applied to the just freed slaves, and its usefulness is obviously no longer required.

  • http://lib.alerts Joel

    The feds give no choice!

  • Mark Are

    One of the major problems is the Federal Reserve. This is from Miracle on Main Street which was written back in the 1980′s…Morality shifts when people feel worthless. It may not be apparent consciously, but subconsciously it exists. Please read and note:
    Blood running in the streets. Mobs of rioters and demonstrators threatening banks and legislators. Looting of shop and home. Credit ruined. Strikes and unemployment. Trade and distribution paralyzed. Shortages of food. Bankruptcies everywhere. Court dockets overloaded. Kidnappings for heavy ransom. Sexual perversion, drunkenness, lawlessness rampant…

    One distinguished politician writes to another: “The wheels of government are clogged, and we are descending into the vale of confusion and darkness. No day was every more clouded then the present. We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion.”

    Where, when and whom? Get ready for a shock: AMERICA, 1786, ten years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The correspondence was from George Washington to James Madison. On February 3rd, 1787, Washington wrote to Henry Knox: “If a person had told me that we there would have been such formidable rebellion as exists, I would have thought him fit for a madhouse.”

    What went wrong? What forced this noble new country into conditions far worse than the tyranny against which it had declared its independence in the first place? The history books tell us it was a complicated variety of interrelated things, but reality tells us it was only one: the money issued by the Continental Congress and the states’ banking houses was paper that could not be redeemed for gold or silver coin. Inflation, that was what had sunk George Washington to the depths of despair.

    The paper currency of the Congress was printed in such exorbitant amounts (in relation to the precious metals they represented) that wages and prices skyrocketed, forcing the Legislature to enact harsh wage and price controls. When these failed, moral-sounding laws reeking of piety and patriotism were enacted in an attempt to chain the people under penalty of violence to the government’s absurd money:

    If any person shall hereafter be so lost to all virtue and regard for his Country as to refuse to accept its notes, such person shall be deemed an enemy of his Country.

    This amounts to a law protecting bad check artists and so the people naturally ignored it and others like it. The depreciation of paper currency relative to coin followed the same sickening course our paper currency follows today….

    Folks, the previous information was taken from a book written in 1980 titled “Miracle on Main Street” by the late F. Tupper Saucy, let this sink in…NINETEEN EIGHTY. We are now in the year 2011, rapidly approaching 2012. That was over THIRTY years ago. Have you heard the phrase “Worthless as a Continental?” It is the same concept. Let’s look at the problem that is looming or that we are already embroiled in closer:

    “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
    – John Maynard Keynes

    • Robert Smith

      From Mark: “Blood running in the streets. ”

      Absolutely NOT true. Go to: http://www.planetizen.com/node/49520

      “Even amid a stalled economy, new data from the FBI reports that big cities, those with a population of at least one million, are seeing huge declines in crime.

      According to an annual crime report released by the FBI, there has been a substantial decline in both property and violent crimes across the nation. Most noteworthy is data revealing that America’s biggest cities are seeing greater declines in burglaries, car thefts, murder, robbery, and assault.”

      Full Story: “Don’t Fear the City: Urban America’s Crime Drops to Lowest in 40 Years” Source: The Atlantic, May 24, 2011

      Rob

      • Joe H.

        robbie,
        You SAY you are such a gun rights supporter, yet you always seem to ignore the part in that report that states that gun ownership has risen to all time highs during those same years, especially the last three!!! It is said that an armed society is a polite society!!

        • Robert Smith

          It is actually an interplay of SEVERAL factors that have reduced violent crime.

          For example, I’ve seen it claimed that abortion has reduced crime because those from a particular socieo / economic environment who are inclined to commit crimes are aborted.

          I submit that NO individual change has caused the reduction in violent crime but it is all of them to some degree.

          Rob

  • Pat Conley

    It has been said that when President Wilson (a progressive) effected the Fed that he realized he had done his country a grave injustice. About one hundred years later we see clearly how correct he was. Complacency by America’s citizens has ensured the Fed’s corrupt effectiveness. Obama (a progressive) stated that he would fundamentally change America. Well, what he is actually doing is completing what Wilson started. The saddest thing is that it’s too late to do anything about it now. I’ve decided to stop reading or listening to any political articles or stories. It is just too stressful and painful to deal with.

  • Wyatt

    Many many excellent posts and comments on this article . But what we must deal with is a sitting president who has call our Constitution obsolete , outdated and has shown nothing but contempt for it by trampling on it at every chance . By passing Congress at will to institute his will and agenda. And that agenda is to turn America into the Communist State he thinks it should be and his own little dictatorship . Only now are facts coming out about his days at collage from people who knew him there . As the records of his past have been sealed by his order we have noway of knowing just what sort of individual we have elected . This alone should speak volumes about his idea of transparency . What leads this once Great Nation is a dyed in the wool COMMUNIST and in all probability and likely hood was never eligible to hold the office . One has only to look and you will see how he has moved to centralize power to know what his aims are . Our Constitution is still the defining document of freedom , as Americans we should all support it and let elected officials in Washington know that the adhering to it is what is and always had been what is best for America and her people .

  • clarence swinney

    Central Power=$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    20% own 85% net wealth 80% own 15% Per Individual Ratio is 50-1
    20% own 93% financial Wealth-80% own 7%–ratio is 80-1
    50% get 90% individual Income-50% get 10%-rstio is 9-1

    20% control 80% is power

  • DavidL

    Mr. Bolden,
    Your history piece here was clear and reasonably accurate, and I was with you until the very end when you, unfortunately, jumped off the extreme conservative cliff. Here is why:

    1. Centralization is not inherently evil. It is also not inherently good. Its character and value depends on its form, rationale, and practical effect. Just as discrimination is neither good nor evil and depends on its kind to be judged so, centralization has been an important and valuable societal tool throughout our history. Remember, the Founding Fathers chose centralization over the highly decentralized and ineffective Article of Confederation. Had they not, the US would not exist today.

    2. In their deliberations about forming a new government for the nation, the Founding Fathers were, first and foremost, concerned with confronting the inherent nature of power. They knew, as you and I know, that unchecked power naturally grows and eventually abuses and corrupts. They wisely chose the mixed balanced government we have today fundamentally grounded in the separation of powers.

    3. The Bill of Rights is an ADDITIONAL check on power. The Constitution itself limits and checks power, and that is a centralization document.

    4. There are only three types of government, and all three are differentiated by the same issue of who holds the power. There is the government of the one, (dictatorship) the government of the few,(oligarchy) and the government of the many (democracy). Our Founding Fathers wisely chose to give us a government of the many [we are the government] because, fundamentally, power would be most diffused, weakened, and therefore more controllable.

    5. Our democracy is far from perfect, but the fault does not rest with its form and centralizing structure. The fault rests with irresponsible and destructive citizen participation within our system. We would all be wise to focus again on the admonition from Ben Franklyn when the woman in Philadelphia asked if we now had a monarchy or republic. He famously, and importantly, responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

    • http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ Michael Boldin

      this is not a democracy.

      Fixed that for ya.

      • DavidL

        Michael,
        The Founding Fathers gave us a democratic republic. In other words, government of the many.

        • James

          David, Article IV, Section 4 reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” That does refer to a Republican political party, it refers to a government with limited powers, as opposed to a Democracy where Congress has power to do whatever the most people want or will tolerate. Originally the Republican party stood for the Constitution as written, while the Democratic party wanted to treat it as just a guideline that was flexible. Now, it’s pretty hard to tell the two major parties apart.

          • James

            “does refer” should read “does not refer” sorry.

          • DavidL

            No James.I was not referring to the republican party at all. Here is what a republic is and what our Founding Fathers meant it to be.

            “A republic is a form of government where there is no king, and those holding political power do so, not by birth, but by being elected to office.”

            The Constitution mandates that the Federal Government and each individual state must, yes must, be a republican form of government. No kings, and those holding office must be elected.

            That is what I wrote and meant. I hope it clears it up for you.

          • Vicki

            DavidL. There are actually only 2 stable forms of government. Democracy is NOT one of them. This short video will explain.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

          • James

            DavidL, The point I was trying to make is that there is no such thing as a democratic republic. The Constitution requires all States to be a Republic, the word ‘democracy’ is nowhere to be found therein.

    • DaveH

      The founding fathers did NOT choose the kind of centralization that exists today, DavidL. The Federal Government was a shadow of its current self until the Dictator Lincoln and his Republican Party trampled the Constitution.

      • DavidL

        DaveH,
        My response to Michael Bolton’s good piece was a discussion of political institutional structure. It was not a discussion of the behavior of our elected leaders within that structure. I’m sure we all have sufficient criticism about how our nation has “evolved” at the hands of the right and the left.

        I liked Michael’s piece very much. The only difference I have with it is his contention that centralization is always bad. It’s not.

        • James

          DAvidL, If by centralization you mean going beyond the powers that were delegated to Congress, then its bad.

    • DaveH

      The further that Government is removed from the people, the less influence they have over it. The Leaders know that, and for that reason passed the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th Amendment, and the 17th Amendment in 1913, all of which helped the Federal Government to grow into its current unmanageable and behemoth-like state.

  • GDC

    “Claiming that because the States ratified the Bill of Rights, each clause applies to the States, too, is just bad logic. Think of it like this. You and 12 business partners own an apartment complex. You hire a person to manage the property and give him some rules about how you want your property run. He follows your rules pretty closely, but eventually he starts showing up at the homes of all 13 of you. He starts demanding that each of you follow the rules for the apartment building that you gave him — in your own homes!”

    Then the State can do ANYTHING they want like take away guns, NOT having to allow anyone to have Lawyers, lock people up for any reason they want. Start an Islamic State church.

    Michael Boldin YOU MUST be learning the Constitution from Obama.

    • http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ Michael Boldin

      Um, no. You forget that the states have constitutions too?

      And yes, states do BAD things…all the time. The Founders believed that the best system was to keep those bad things limited in their geographic scope.

      A market system – competing states, promotes liberty.

      A centralized, one-size fits all solution – is what we have today. And what we have today – sucks.

    • http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ Michael Boldin

      And like I said in the article, people find plenty of ways to disagree with the Founders.

      If you think they intended to make the BoR apply to the states, argue it with them. I doubt you could find anything that validated such a view. It just doesn’t exist.

      Now, if you think the founders made a mistake in this choice, then that’s a different discussion altogether. “Constitutional” doesn’t always mean “good”

      • DaveH

        Good answer, Michael.

      • Vicki

        Michael Boldin writes:
        “If you think they intended to make the BoR apply to the states, argue it with them. I doubt you could find anything that validated such a view. It just doesn’t exist.”

        http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

        lets look at some of their quotes on just ONE of the BoR Amendments.
        These 2 stood out in particular

        —————————————————————————
        “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
        Richard Henry Lee
        American Statesman, 1788

        “The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
        Patrick Henry
        American Patriot
        —————————————————————————

        It is clear they expected the PEOPLE to be armed. Not just some people in some states.

        In this next quote Thomas Jefferson makes the statement direct

        “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
        Thomas Jefferson
        letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45. “

    • James

      GDC, You’re attributing the right to bear arms to the Second Amendment thus if it doesn’t apply to the States, people therein don’t have the right. The right to bear arms is an unalienable right, it isn’t dependent on any document for its existence. The Second Amendment restriction applies to the federal government, and 44 State constitutions have similar restrictions in them. I suggest you read your Stste Constitution. In the 6 States that don’t have restrictions on infringement of the right, citizens there still have the right. All States agree on that, they just regulate the right differently.

  • DaveR

    If Obama had ever intended to follow the Constitution, he would have refused to accept the nomination as the candidate for the Democratic Party, recognizing that he was not a natural born citizen as defined by the US Sup Ct. in Minor v. Happersett. Does anyone remember that Obama claimed to be a teacher of Constitutional law at University of Chicago?

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])

    Instead, Obama and those who support him and his agenda have fought vigorously to avoid direct consideration of his qualifications.

    See http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html for a discussion of what is a natural born citizen and the corruption of an oft-used free on-line source of legal history, apparently by its founder.

    • Robert Smith

      The “BIRTHER” movement is just another right wing lie.

      Rob

  • JerryM

    It’s important to understand what the US Constitution is about, but I believe too many people fail to realize that every State also has it’s OWN “Constitution” and “Bill of Rights”, which may mirror to some extent the US Constitution/Bill of Rights, but often delegates to themselves additional powers not delegated or prohibited by the US Documents.

  • chuckb

    the [progressive “communist” movement in this country has finally reached it’s pinnacle. they have control of the media and the wealth of this nation, they have by hook or crook managed to elect an imposter they refuse to identify. they refuse to present any documents on this guy to prove his educational records or an actual birth certificate. in the meantime they have purchased votes by hiring federal workers, paying off the unions and allowing illegals to enter the country with little resistance, then maneuvering the law to allow these illegals to vote “motor voter registration”. barrys shock troops the seiu is busy at this moment signing these illegals up to vote and along with the huge amount of people living on the dole, barry will end up winning and then we will see what the centralization of power looks like

  • http://explorer Scout

    Get back to the basics. Vote for Ron Paul And less government.

  • Lawrence Ekdahl

    There is a lot of talk about religion. Every one has a religionor god of some kind. Most people are their own god along with materialism. I have only one God. The God of the bible, Jesus Christ. There is no gray area. You are either a christian or you hve another god.

    • ANA MATRIX

      no gray area. Jeshua Ben Joseph, was an Ascended Master who came to earth to show us the way–to becoming a Christed-Self. WE are gods. The Office of the Christ is held by a Master who has earned his ASCENSION.

  • Paul Fruend

    Best post of comments I read in a long time. Thanks, I was starting to think only stupit people were left in this Country. I now have hope!

  • Raggs

    Way too many conceptions of.

    Too many people here want to twist things in order to skew things in their favor and in their belief.

    Hell look at the white house that believes the constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper to wipe the arse with.

    I think that everyone has forgot about Individual freedom from tyranny of an out of control government be it from the state or a federal level.

    In my minds eye just by watching the discovery channel I see a very significant similarity with oblama and our hitler.
    Hitler took all individual freedom… oblama is doing the same thing under the guise of social justice.
    When will you people understand?

    • Vicki

      When thinking about Federal or state or local government and freedom I always hear that line from the Patriot.

      “Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard… why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?”

      http://www.hark.com/clips/tqqkkllkfk-3000-tyrants-one-mile-away

      It so makes the case that our rights need protection from GOVERNMENT at any level and not just from robbers and thieves.

      Being on the left coast that 3000 miles has significant meaning :) :>

      • Joe H.

        Vicki,
        not much difference in those 3000 miles, if you have the slimy liberal prog government of California to contend with!!!

  • Randy Brasch

    If you read the preamble, it states that it applies to the powers granted by the Constitution. It does not say the powers of the Federal government. The Constitution applies to both the Federal and State governments. Why the First Amendment specifically says “Congress” is still a mystery to me.

    • Vicki

      Cause the first was to apply to Congress only and the rest of the ammendments apply to all government?

      While researching to answer a question of the OP it seems clear that most of the founders didn’t really see a need to put the obvious protections into the Constitution nor in the Constitutions of the states. Hamilton wrote in particular about this in Federalist 84

      “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm

    • James

      Randy, The U.S. Constitution created the federal government and the Bill of Rights restricts Congress from making laws that concern rights. The 9th Amendment says the enumerating of certain rights therein shall not disparage others retained by the people. And the 10th Amendment says powers not delegaed to the United States are reserved to the States or the people. It’s just that simple. The States and the people have all the other powers not delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8.

  • Bono

    You hit the nail on the head. We are the people and the holders of the power not the federal government nor any government. Their power lies in what we assign to them so why on earth do we continue to allow government to rule and regulate the very minor aspects of our lives. If labels we believe in then Liberals and Conservites, Democrates and Republicans and whatever we call ourselves are not more than naive. Individuality will die an anguished death because of being sheep. We have a constitution but does it mean that it will always be there if we continue to let the weathy and the Washington power brokers take control of our votes and our sovereignty while squabbling over Obama or any of our other politicians whose goals are increasing the power and reach of the federal government and its world order. The Civil War was fought for the feedom of men as individuals through their confederate states against a growing federal government put in motion by President Lincoln not over racism nor slavery. Now the Washington estabishment is again sharpening its fangs under the guise of it new world order. We lose the constitution and we lose the farm! Thank you Bob Livingston.

  • Raggs

    Look at it this way..

    What is illegal for you is prefectly ok for those in “power”.
    And to be honest… I don’t give a rats ass of how much influence the money gives these creeps they will pay.
    And voting for yet another politican sucks.

    If I’m going to jail because I hate oblama then he better have an army to get me.
    And any army that hates me hates thier own freedom.

    • bob wire

      Raggs, Raggs, you don’t have to hate Obama to be treated poorly or much worse.

      People are beat and killed for fun, just to see their family cry in horror.

      What makes you believe that you are so important? I know that you would cut off your nose to spite your face.

  • Aurelio

    To me the most important articles of the Bill of Rights, based on my own personal-skin-felt experience are:
    1-Make no law abridging freedom of speech, press, religion or assembly.
    (In the lousy and criminal dictatorship that I knew, this right is non-existent; your are thrown in jail for telling a joke.)

    4-Do not conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, and don’t issue warrants without probable cause.
    (They break down your door in the middle of the night, and throw you and your family, even your children, on the floor while they ransack your house and take your meager possessions. Be thankful they don’t beat the crap out of you on their way out. )
    5-Do not force people to testify against themselves.
    (I spent three years as a political prisoner, and, under torture, they make you testify against yourself, and the sad thing is that you do it out of pure exhaustion)
    And Americans take those rights for granted, believe me it’s a privilege and a blessing to be an American.
    Canadians have to be careful when expressing their opinions because if they are found offensives to another, they get fined for it. Canada, our neighbor.
    So thank God or whatever it’s that you believe in for having granting you the pleasure of being born in the best country of the world.

    • bob wire

      Thanks for your heartfelt post Aurelio. I think it is safe to say, few here have been exposed to such conditions and take personal freedoms for granted, freedoms hard fought for by others.

      I have an Aunt, that’s father was taken from their home by the SS in Berlin in the middle of night. Some 4 week passed without a word and then one day her mother received a concealed message. “Be on the corner of such and such street at a certain time and look to a certain 4th floor window.

      Her and her mother did as they were instructed, he appeared in the window and waved. That was the last time she seen her father.

      Life is precious, ~ I don’t know if I’m still connect but I had started this post a few hours ago while my father hung to life by a thread. He passed at 12.06 and the ME pronounced his death at 1 AM December 16th, 46 year to the day after his brother. Strange timing, I wonder if he knew? Dad was a WWII vet heavy armor. He fought death to the last shallow breath.

      • Vicki

        I have sorrow for your loss Bob. May your father rest in peace.

      • libertytrain

        bob, I understand what you are thinking – mine died last month on November 16th – also a WWII vet – make sure you do Honors for him if you have a service. Dad’s was awesome. Several vets and then of course the Honor Guard came. Ask your Funeral Home – they will contact those that need to be contacted to make arrangements. There are so few of the WWII vets left. Oh, my father died about the same time as yours but until the hospice nurse could arrive to actually declare death – a few hours had passed.

        • libertytrain

          and you are right about that last breaths. Mine fought like the Dickens to keep breathing even though he was in a coma. I’ve not ever seen that before…

          • libertytrain

            mine did fight like Dickens – he loved that author… :)

          • Joe H.

            libertytrain,
            I hadn’t heard about your father’s passing. Please accept my condolences. May god Bless his soul.

          • libertytrain

            Joe, I hadn’t mentioned it specifically. Thank you. It was and is difficult and sad.

        • Aurelio

          Libertytrain, my heart goes to you and Bob.

      • bob wire

        Thanks Vicky, he moved on to a new life in the stars. It’s been a soul searching 3 months

        • libertytrain

          I understand, there is a lot of soul searching that takes place during this time. Part of it seems to be putting everything in perspective, the things we viewed as them doing the wrong thing and then perhaps understanding that they were human and we don’t know what exactly went on in their brains to account for whatever we thought they did wrong. I remember your posts about your father.

      • Aurelio

        I feel humble and sorry hearing about your father passing, my deep condolences. His passing 46 years to the day of his brother’s, my friend that tells me, like many other oddities I’ve seen throughout my life, that there is a lot more to life than what the eye can see. First time I have the honor to express my sorrow to WWII Veteran. God Bless!

      • Joe H.

        bob wire,
        My heartfelt sympathies at your loss. May God give you strength in the coming days. God Bless!!

    • Vicki

      Aurelio writes:
      “.. (They break down your door in the middle of the night, and throw you and your family, even your children, on the floor while they ransack your house and take your meager possessions. Be thankful they don’t beat the crap out of you on their way out. )”

      Have you watched any of the episodes of “COPS” a reality tv show. Lots of that behavior all in the name of the War on (some) Drugs.

    • James

      I would just add it says: CONGRESS shall make no law…

  • Ridge Runner

    I think the united states bigest problem is its citizens. Too many of them have just turned into parasites living off some one else’s work.It is wrong ,moraly wrong to look to some one else to feed and clothe you and put food on your table while you do nothing but watch tv and make more babys,just more mouths for some one else to take care of.Until we stop this insane idea of supporting these despots with gov wellfare while the us burns we will have nothing but a bunch of trash electing trash to govern our country. It is one thing to help the disabled and it is wrong to pay these entitlement minded to sit on their ass and not support them selfs.If these people can’t OR want take care of their children then they should have none.Do them like the bees do the ones that want work clip their wings and kick them out.The people in this country not all but too many dont have any morals and we are sliding fast.

  • DavidL

    Vicki,
    I saw the video you recommended and, unfortunately, it’s superficial and inaccurate in its explanation of the types of government. The issue, and our history, is more complicated than explained in this vid.

    1. I never used the word stable in my identification of the three types of government. I just identified them. Democracy is indeed a form of government.

    2. Our Founding Fathers did not, as the film argues, give us a republic. They gave us a democratic republic. The word in front of the word republic is crucial to understanding the nature of the government form itself. I illustrate the qualitative difference by reminding you of what the USSR stood for. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Soviet Union was a series of republics, but very different from our republic, right?

    3. The three forms of government, one, few, and many, have both good forms and bad. If grounded in and based upon law and justice, all three forms work. If they are not so grounded but based on whim and arbitrary uses of power, they corrupt. Monarchy corrupts to dictatorship. Oligarchy corrupts to plutocracy (I give you Russia today), and democracy corrupts to mob rule or anarchy. Anarchy is not a form of government as the film argues.

    4. A Republic is a form of government where there is no king, and those holding political power do so not by birth, but by being elected to office. Our Founding Fathers gave us, and required every state to be, a republic. What kind? A democratic republic.

  • Janet

    Ironical that it was a Thursday back in 1791 and a Thursday when they passed the NDAA.

    Go Ron Paul!

  • Paul D. Wagstaff

    To me this is not a dumb question. Where in the U.S.Constitution does it state that you must have a license to “bear arms”. Of course, I realize that these laws are mostly infringed on citizens by each setarate state. Naturally, their reasoning is to make certain that criminals do not have easy access to guns. We all know this reasoning is ridiculous as criminals find means to obtain restrictive arms by by stealing, using false identification, burgularies and/or other unlawful means. I believe this should be a debated subject within the U.S.Congress. That is if they wake up long enough to discus this possible violation of our rights.

  • Lost in Paradise

    Every one in this forum needs to decide what it is you want for government. Do you want more wars, more taxes, less liberty,more government and more government intrusion into your daily lives? Look at what has been happening and bills that have passed in the last two months. Are you happy with that??

    If you truly believe in the United States Constitution, and our bill of rights, you then need to support Ron Paul with your cash donations,and your vote. Most of you do not have the balls, to stand up and fight for what you think you believe in, so this is the easy way.

    • Joe H.

      Lost,
      I have a set of the roper proportion to do BOTH do YOU??

  • http://realitybooks.net Amerson

    Robert Smith says at 12/16/11 3:46 pm:… I don’t follow that brutal christian god…. The similar sentence is repeated by many, among them Bill Maher. I believe it is misunderstanding. I believe in evolution, not blind, random evolution,but evolution with some Universal Intelligence behind. It creates more and more complex structures over time.(Intelligent Design). This intelligence has some ability to communicate with us. It was the Bible in the past that was giving direction. The Old Testament was harsh, but Israel was on the brink of extinction, so it had to follow strict rules to survive. Christianity emerged as r the result of Jesus’ horrible death. It wasn’t tool of suppression, but it was guarrantor of education and literacy during Dark Age; later it limited power of kings in Europe, so they were not absolute rullers as rullers in other parts of the world. Inquizition was evolutionary mutation that did not survive, because it wasn’t beneficial to development of society.
    I wrote an article that compares Genesis to our knowledge of evolution of earth. Each event described in Genesis reflects certain episode from evolution of earth. The Deluge did not happen, but there was a period of time when water covered the highest mountains: it was the Ice age, snow and ice covered the whole earth and according to one study number of people on the planet dwindled to 30. The article about Genesis is available at realitybooks.net. I apologie if I violate rules of this discussion by mentioning the source, but it is virtually unknown, and it may be important in defending Christianity, God and our Constitution.
    And yes, our rights came from our Creator, only he is the solid anchor, but it is our responsibility to defend these rights. It is like if someone give me money, then I am responsible to protect my money, not the one who gave it to me.

    • Robert Smith

      From Amerson: “I believe in evolution, not blind, random evolution,but evolution with some Universal Intelligence behind.”

      Why did “intelligence” run the sewer through the playground?

      Rob

      • Vicki

        You may need to recheck your manuals. There is no sewer running thru any playground unless you are possibly misusing the sewer AS a playground.

  • http://www.wakeupamerica.com/constitutionalbelievers Constitutional Believer

    Hello Family, Friends, Patriots & Acquaintance’s.
    Now Is the Time for All Good Men and Women to come to the aid of Our Country!
    If Not Now, When?
    All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!
    If Not You, Who?
    Make the Difference and Take a Stand with other Good Men and Women, Join Us Here!
    http://www.wakeupamerica.com/constitutionalbelievers
    Take Care and GOD BLESS The Whole World!
    Sincerely
    Mr. Harris

  • Ken

    1ST amendment to the constitution “ONLY CONGRESS SHALL COIN MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF”. Learn about the unconstitutional fed and how they profit from interest and tax on every dollar printed, in the book “The Creature From Jekyl Island” Also, read in the law books, specifically the “Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177, Second Late Edition, Section 256″ How much legislation passed as law is actually contrary to the law, (that being the constitution) and is therefore illegal, no court need enforce it and no citizen need obey it !!!

    • Vicki

      You know. That’s interesting. I have read the 1st Amendment many times since coming to this site and I don’t remember coin or money being in it anywhere.

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
      http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html

      Are you possibly referring to somewhere else in the Constitution? There is a place that says that Congress shall coin money but even there I see no exclusive power to coin money.

  • Lawrence Ekdahl

    We have put the fox in the hen house and then try to tell him to leave the chickens alone.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.