About Me

Name: Sonny Farmer
Location: indianapolis, IN
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 
[removed]

The Chopping Block, where do we start?

Fellow Tea Party People,

  I know we are all worried about this November, but we are Tea Party-ers, not Republicans,  so here is the list of "Republican" Senators that voted for Kagan for Supreme Court Justice; and in doing so, they broke their oath to the Constitution. We must keep our eyes on these Senators and not trust their words, for these Senators are unprincipled to the ideas of the Constitution.  I'm from Indiana and will constantly remind my fellow Hoosier voters that Lugar is bad for our Country and must go, soon. These five Senators (who are up re-election this year) should consider themselves lucky this election, and if they had any brains, they will try harder to protect the Constitution next time, or else they will be voted out, eventually.   
Republican Senators that voted for Kagan

Richard Lugar (R, IN)
Lindsay Graham (R,SC)
*Judd Gregg (R, NH)
Susan Collins (R, Maine)
Olympia Snowe (R, Maine)

 
  * Announced retirement

 I must also note that Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb) was the only Democratic Senator that voted against Kagan.

People of America, we must start getting rid of the so called Conservatives that keep supporting bad bills. These are the Republican and Independent Senators that voted YEA for the TARP BILL (on the left) and the Republicans, Democrats, and Independent senators that voted NAY.  All other Democrats (41) voted Yea and are not listed (Clinton, Schumer, Obama and such). See if your senator(s) said "NAY" and made the cut, or voted "YEA" and should NOT be considered friends of the Tea Party.
                                      
                                      TARP VOTE


             YEA'S              Senators                   NAY'S   
                                                                                         
Alexander (R-TN), Yea                Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea                   Allard (R-CO), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea                     Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea                       Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea              Bunning (R-KY), Nay  
Coburn (R-OK), Yea                  Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea                Crapo (R-ID), Nay 
Collins (R-ME), Yea                   DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Yea                   Dole (R-NC), Nay 
Craig (R-ID), Yea                       Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea               Feingold (D-WI),Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea               Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea                    Johnson (D-SD), Nay       
Graham (R-SC), Yea                   Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Yea                   Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Yea                     Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Yea                      Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea                     Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea               Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea               Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea                         Tester (D-MT), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea             Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Yea                      Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Yea                 Wyden (D-OR), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea                                                   
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea                                                     
Thune (R-SD), Yea 
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea                    
                                                      
*source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"In God We Trust", Really?

  "In God we trust" is our national motto. Why?
The answer is freedom.God will keep us free
from government (other men), only when we

establish what is government's authority and
what is God's (our Constitution and the Bill of Rights
establishes Divine Providence and limits Man's).
But if we continue to allow the government to right
all wrongs (and not God = social justice), then freedom
and God's role in society will both diminish. Here's
an example: If Johnny, from down the street,
is doing crack and your Aunt Nelly finds out what
Johnny is doing, should she: A) pray for Johnny,
in hopes that he changes? or B) should she demand
that the men in the town, grab their guns and
arrest Johnny or kill him, if he resists? Poor Johnny
id not even hurt anybody. He does not even know
Aunt Nelly; and no respect is given to Johnny for simply
being a free man under God
(so long as he harms no
one
or endangers no one, other than himself).
Again, if we allow government to right all wrongs (and
not God), then freedom and God's role in society will
 both diminish. We must all remember that none of us
 are God, no none more Godly than another
and that "all men are created equal" under God. We
should not make any laws that only God can judge.
This is fundamental message of the Constitution (results
in limiting government's authority,costs, and ensures God's
role); this is fundamental in freedom; and this is what made
our Constitution so unique-an American is equal to Kings
and Popes.
  Tea Party-ers must unite under the principles
of our Constitution.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lockerbie bomber is Alive and Kicking

     Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, know by most, as one of the perpetrators of the bombing of  Pan Am Flight 103 that exploded in mid air over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 243 passengers, 16 crew members and 11 people on the ground.  Megrahi was released back to his home in Libya back in August of 2009 for humanitarian reasons (some speculate that Libya's threats of pulling oil deals with BP oil helped in his release.); he was predicted to die within three months from prostate cancer, some doctors say prematurely predicted. So we waited for the news across the Atlantic of Megrahi's death, but there has been no word.  So, I did a search and found out, Megrahi is doing well and has stopped chemotherapy.  He is deemed a hero by his countryman and is celebrated in the garden of his nice house with his wife and his five grown children in the suburbs of Tripoli, the Libyan capital. The report by Andrew Alderson and Robert Mendick of UK  Telegraph linked here.    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Are you a libertarian?




"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience." - Thomas Jefferson 

A Libertarian Stance

creed:
  

I am a free man by God.  I am free to think what I want; to say what I think; and to do what I want, so long as I harm no one or endanger no one, other than myself.  I respect the rights of conscience of all Men and I am sworn to protect them, for a Man's conscience is a sacred possession that can only be reasoned with and never altered by force.  I ask nothing of my fellow countryman but a mutual respect and a spiritual allegiance under the Constitution of the United States;to protect our inalienable rights which may only be granted by God and not by any man or government.  No government can possess this authority which is God's.
 

As an American libertarian:
  •  I  believe in the rights of conscience, which embraces the freedom of religion, speech, and thought, is protected by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights; and this is what made the Constitution unique to the world and defined America at her birth.
  • I believe my freedom is the freedom from Man, but I am never truly free from my principles, my beliefs, my personal responsibilities, and other Natural Laws of Man.
  • I believe it is my duty, as a free man, to utilize the Natural gift of reasoning with my fellow Man first, and to use force, only if reasoning fails and my or one's rights are under siege.
  • I support the laws of Man, so long as these laws are reasonable for public security and are respectful to the spirit of our Constitution, The Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence.
"In the establishment of Societies the Constitution is to the Legislature what the laws were to individuals."
- Rufus King, a Founding Father


  • I believe the Founding Fathers created a unique Constitution, embracing this understanding of Individual Freedoms, personal responsibilities, and limited governments; thus the Constitution's laws pertain only to our elected representatives and not to the people; and Bill of Rights pertains to all by protecting the individual's rights.
  • I believe that our Founders were brilliant men; scholarly men who many studied and understood the teachings of history and philosophers like Aristotle, Cicero, Cato, Hobbes, Locke,  Roger  Williams' Liberty of Conscience and countless others; for these combined ideas are the core values of the Constitution, thus creating a Democratic Republic, where the States control the Federal Government and the people control both.  The States are united under the agreement of the U.S. Constitution; a system that divides the powers into three separate branches,  so NOT to have a king or dictator; a system to unite the States when threatened by foreign enemies; a system that would ensure greater power and sovereignty to the States; and a system that ensures an individual's liberties from all levels of governments.                                                                
  • I believe the acknowledgment of a Higher Authority by our government is essential in keeping Man free; for if a government does not respect the concept of inalienable rights, then no man is free under God and is now a subject to the State.
"If men were angels, government wouldn't be necessary."
- James Madison

  • I believe the concepts of anarchy (absent of force, no government, peace); HOWEVER, I reject the application of anarchy; for anarchy can not function adequately, because NOT  all Men strive to be moral, and therefore; peace will not exist and basic laws are needed.
  • I believe, if someone is harmed, or property is taken or damaged, then justice is warranted and falls under both, (government's) Man's authority and God's authority. This idea seems to be elementary; however, most laws require no personal justice, but rather Societal justice; where as, Society expects compliance of, or else punishment.  These laws are widely debated, but often needed for the safety and function of Society i.e. driving violations, trade laws, firearms laws, tax laws, labor laws, environmental laws, real estate laws, and many others. I believe these laws are debatable amongst Man and a true libertarian stance may Not be defined.  However, as stated before; I support the laws of Man, so long as the laws are reasonable for public security and are in the spirit of our Constitution, The Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence.
“I submit to you that if a man hasn’t discovered something he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.”
 
-Martin Luther King Jr.

  • I believe that war is personal. Every man must decide for himself what reason to kill for and die for. If he agrees in the cause of war, then it is his duty to support or fight for that cause.  For a just war will have little difficulties forming an army. If he agrees with the cause, but is a coward or is an absolute pacifist, then he is only answerable to his God. If he disagrees with the cause, then must not fight; and is answerable only to his God.
"I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves." 
- then Gov. Ronald Reagan
  • I do NOT support the growing public expectations and entitlements for my government to mandate morality, i.e. drug laws, prostitution, welfare, gay marriage, fairness doctrine, health care, euthanasia, affirmative action, gun ownership, wealth redistribution and others.  If I allow my civil liberties to be determine by our leaders' own principles and not those principles and standards as prescribed by the Constitution and the Founders' basic understanding, that government is best which governs least,  then I have endangered my own freedom and that of my Countrymen.
  • I believe governments must be thrifty with Society's money; this is essential in keeping Society's economy prosperous.  

We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money

-Congressman Davy Crockett

  • I believe the government has no right to take (tax) one's property (money), in order to help others, some actually less fortunate (having mental and physical limitations) and many others, who have failed to apply themselves; I believe taxes should only fund government activities as ascribed by the Constitution and that charity should fall under God's authority, not government's authority.
"...I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
- then Gov. Ronald Reagan 
  • I believe a "libertarian doctrine", that is uniform to all libertarians on all issues, is IMPOSSIBLE; for a libertarian is free to chose his own stance on any issue; but all libertarians MUST unite in defense of an individual's rights of conscience; and as an American, I must also defend all the rights in the Bill of Rights, and the original intent of The Constitution of the United States; and these are the only absolutes in defining an American Libertarianism.
 
                                                     
                                               
Tags: libertarian  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Unintended Mistakes of Integration

I found this piece to be very interesting and makes a lot of sense and at the same time, raise some eyebrows. 


Is “acting white” a legacy of integration policies that shortchanged blacks?

1:06 am February 27, 2010, by Maureen Downey

Atlanta Journal Constitution


As the white adoptive parent of two black children, Harvard Law graduate Stuart Buck began to read about education and race and became intrigued by the “acting white” epithet sometimes directed at at high-achieving minority students.

That personal interest grew into a professional one that culminated in a book due out in May, “Acting White, the Ironic Legacy of Desegregation.”

A doctoral student in education at the University of Arkansas, Buck says his research led him to a surprising conclusion, that the “acting white” criticism had its roots in desegregation that wrenched black students from schools and communities they knew and threw them into new schools where they were often reviled, shunned and underestimated.

“The analogy I would draw is treatment for cancer,” said Buck, speaking by phone from Arkansas. “Segregation is like a cancer that we had to get rid of, but the treatment that saved our lives had unintended side effects.”

While black students often attended segregated schools that lacked the resources of white facilities, Buck says the schools served as the connective tissue in a community that historically valued education.

“In segregated schools, black children had consistently seen other blacks succeeding in the academic world,’’ he says. “The authority figures and role models — teachers and principals were all black. And the best students in the schools were black as well.”

While black parents welcomed integration, they had hoped for a merger of black and white schools. Instead, they witnessed the destruction of black schools and the erasure of the culture, community and closeness that the schools had created. Their children marched off to white schools where they experienced hostility and were tracked into lower-level classes. In his research, Buck found many examples of where even new facilities that had housed black schools were abandoned because white parents weren’t willing to send their kids to black schools.

“They did not want to send white schoolchildren into black schools, to be taught by black teachers and disciplined by black principals,” he says.

A University of Georgia and Harvard Law graduate, Buck cites Butler High School in Gainesville, which was built in 1962 but closed seven years later as part of the desegregation plan.

Black principals were demoted or fired, and teachers made to feel unwanted in the integrated settings. Buck notes that Gainesville had 115 white teachers and 70 black teachers in 1966. Three years later, 22 black teachers remained.

The loss was significant to the city’s black students because black teachers usually lived in the same community, knew the families of students and delighted in their successes.

There was an affection that was not easily replicated with white teachers who did not live in the same communities, attend the same churches or shop in the same stores.

In losing their school, Gainesville’s black students lost their mascot, their school colors, their yearbook and newspaper. Buck says the uprooting of black students from familiar and supportive environments was made even more difficult by the reception in their new schools.

Buck draws on news accounts of the era in which white students commented, “This is our school and they are just going to have to adjust.” White female teachers, raised to fear black men, were not comfortable teaching black high school boys.

Buck cites the research showing that capable black students are still less likely to be in advanced classes than white peers. Either out of overt racism or “liberal guilt,” Buck says white teachers did not hold black students to high expectations.

Once reassigned to desegregated schools, black students “were sitting in a classroom with mostly other black students in what they believed to be the ‘dumb’ class, watching as the white students headed to the ‘smart’ class down the hall,’’’ writes Buck.

Dispirited, black students began to associate achievement with white students and ostracize peers who joined the white kids in the ‘‘smart’’ classes down the hall.

Among the research that Buck mentions: The findings of Harvard economist Roland Fryer Jr. that while the popularity of white students rises with grade-point average, black children become less popular the better their grades.

He cites the experience of Ron Kirk, the first black mayor of Dallas, who recalled getting beat up at his newly integrated junior high school for being black and again in his neighborhood the same day for not being black enough.

Buck believes it is important to understand anti-school attitudes because he believes that students must be willing partners in education. “From youngest ages, children love learning, but something happens around 10, 11 or 12,” he says. “We have to understand why it is that children, black or white, don’t want to learn.”


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

God's Gift to Humanity

 


 Reason is Mankind's most valuable and potent weapon given to us by God. We are born to this Earth fragile, weak, and unable to survive for even a few days without the reasoning mind of our parents or family who have learned to control perils the world prior. But God has bestowed upon us our greatest asset; our reasoning mind, and it begins to formulate, assimilate, and make complex connections about our world, our human interactions, and other infinite sources of information from the very minute of our birth. The great minds of the Enlightenment like Locke and Aquinas particularly asserted that the mind of the individual was the single greatest force on Earth and it is given to each of us as individuals by our Creator. It was a tenet of Natural Law and the basis for our very own Bill of Rights and our Constitution. Therefore, I am weary and defensive whenever the consensus of others claims to own the truth, because there is no collective mind or collective reason. We as individuals have our own motivations and reasoning powers and no consensus of men can manipulate the reason of another. As Free Men we have the right to exist for our own sake, and that is justification enough for our existence under Natural Law. Therefore, for the sake of the individual and independent reasoning mind it is a duty for free men to use reason first but to be prepared to use force when reason is under siege. I believe the Founding Fathers viewed the issue very similarly and ordered the First and Second Amendment accordingly. Reason and logic as the primary form of human interaction, but armed defense and force to protect reason and logic for when they are under attack by those who would choose to assert their "reason" in place of ours.

by Wesley Hatcher


Tags: reason   ethics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Arizona, you're full of it.

  I heard Jay Leno say something funny, yet profound; he asks, I paraphrase, "Why can't America deport thirty million people? Mexico did it."  He's right. Mexico did it by overspending and taxing; thus, destroying opportunities for prosperity and so the people left for a place that had good economical opportunities....America.  Now Arizona's economy is the second worst next to California's. Arizona is billions of dollars in debt and resembles the Mexican government's, with over spending and taxing. Thus, over the last couple of years, driving away businesses and workers, both legal and illegal.  The recent Census will show this decrease in illegal immigrants and the Governor of Arizona will try to spin this as a result of his recent actions. This is not entirely true.  So this current attempt by Arizona falls far short of any great answer for the immigration.  The solution is simple, OBEY THE LAWS. Federal laws and in Arizona's case, State laws prohibit American businesses from hiring illegal immigrants, so enforce it.  If someone does not have the proper identification for employment then he or she can not be hired.  This will result in a limitation of economical opportunities for illegal or undocumented workers; also, people in Mexico will not risk crossing the desert, if the opportunities for work do not exist.

   So why does the Federal government look the other way? Maybe it's because businesses, who chose to break the law by hiring illegal workers, are now at the mercy of the Federal government; which in turn empowers the politicians over the wealthier businessmen. Now the Immigration Department can be used for political muscle, much like the IRS.  We often hear politicians say "Immigrants are doing the jobs Americans do not want to do".  This is hogwash. This idea tries to justify a crime as a business's need and benefits the community.  Americans do not want to work hard for lower wages, not when we can make more money on welfare or "hustling" (black market--selling drugs, identity theft, stealing).  So if you take away welfare, then poor Americans will have to work these jobs; and share rent with others in the same position, like the illegals have to, in order to decrease the cost of living. Oh the humanity! 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ammo Bag


Here's some ammo:






  Quotes:


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

  American philosopher and poet George Santayana (1863-1952)



“I submit to you that if a man hasn’t discovered something he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.”

Martin Luther King Jr.




"God forbid we should ever be twenty years
 without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all,
 and always, well informed. The part which is

wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the
importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they
 remain quiet under such misconceptions,

it is lethargy, the forerunner of death
 to the public liberty. ...
And what country
 can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not

warned from time to time, that this people
preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them
take arms. The remedy is to set them right as

to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What
signify a few lives lost
in a century or two?
 The tree of liberty must be refreshed from

time to time, with the blood of patriots and
tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

Jefferson


 
"There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh - get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants forever. It will be said that we do not propose to establish kings. I know it. But there is a natural inclination in mankind to kingly government. It sometimes relieves them from aristocratic domination. They had rather have one tyrant than 500. it gives more of the apperance of equality among citizens; and that they like. I am apprehensive - therefore - perhaps too apprehensive - that the government of these states may in future times end in a monarchy. But this catastrophe, I think, may be long delayed, if in our proposed system we do not sow the seeds of contention, faction, and tumult, by making our posts of honor places of profit. If we do, I fear that, though we employ at first a number and not a single person, the number will in time be set aside; it will only nourish the fetus of a king (as the honorable gentelman from Virginia very aptly expressed it), and a king will the sooner be set over us."

Benjamin Franklin
  


"The man who builds a factory builds a temple; the man who works there worships there."

Calvin Coolidge


  If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

 Samuel Adams




I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious

Thomas Jefferson

 
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.

 Thomas Paine




The Bible…is the most Republican book in the world, and therefore I will still revere it…I believe to be the only system that ever did or will preserve a Republick in the World.

John Adams




No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. 

Samuel Adams



 
"The grand object being obtained, the independence of the States acknowledged, free from ambition, devoid sanguine thirst of blood, our hero returned with those he commanded, and laid down the sword at the feet of those who gave it him. Such an example to the world is new."
"When the Constitution first made its appearance in Virginia, we, as a society, had unusual strugglings of mind, fearing that the liberty of conscience (dearer to us than property or life) was not sufficiently secured."

Quote from a letter sent from the United Baptist Churches in the State of Virginia to George Washington for context purposes.



"In the establishment of Societies the Constitution is to the Legislature what the laws were to individuals."

Rufus King, Founder

It is a duty certainly to give our sparings to those who want; but to see also that they are faithfully distributed, and duly apportioned to the respective wants of those receivers. And why give through agents whom we know not, to persons whom we know not, and in countries from which we get no account, where we can do it at short hand, to objects under our eye, through agents we know, and to supply wants we see?

Thomas Jefferson



We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

Congressman Davy Crockett



No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience.

Thomas Jefferson




There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. 

James Madison



  "There are periods in the history of man, when corruption and depravity have so long debased the human the weight of the oppressor’s hand and becomes his servile-his abject slave; he licks the hand that smites him;  he bows in passive obedience to the mandates of the despot, and in this state of servility he receives his fetters of perpetual bondage."

Patrick Henry



"if men were angels, government wouldn’t be necessary."

James Madison


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.

 Thomas Jefferson



"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers"

-John Adams




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jeffersonian Mood


This is a reply on Dakota Voice by Bob Ellis.

I've heard, "the world has changed" and variations of it argued many, many times and, being as polite as I can, "it holds no water, whatsoever!"
 
    The scope, authority, and intent of the U.S. Constitution is 100% applicable for a small rural group of 13 former colonies, and is just as applicable in a 50-state technological superpower...and it would be just as applicable and useful were we to have 500 states spread over several planets in this solar system 1,000 years from now. The Constitution was inherently designed to deal only with those things which (a) concern us as a whole nation (e.g. defense, foreign trade, etc.) and (b) to referee internal things that involve more than one state (e.g. interstate commerce, protection of those God-given "inalienable rights" that all Americans are entitled to enjoy).

    The reason the U.S. Constitution is still fully applicable (and will never inherently become obsolete) is because it does not deal with material specifics such as travel, communications, technological innovations, etc. The individual States are more than capable (as well as retaining the rights under Amendment IX and X) of handling any regulation these areas require, and pursuit of "best practices" thinking will indirectly ensure don't change into wildly different creatures over time.

    Instead of dealing with tangible things, the Constitution deals with
principles, with ideals, with values, and course of human nature. The U.S. Constitution was set up the way it was, and limits government in the manner it does, is because the Founders understood the principles of good government, and they also understood the fallen, sin-predisposed nature of humanity.

   The principles of good government will never change. Limited government will always work better to protect liberty, innovation and a healthy society than a large, intrusive government. Government that ensures justice and equality of opportunity will always foster a more healthy, energetic society than one that perverts justice and attempts to
force certain attributes to be equal which can never be equal. And so on.

    Human nature will also never change. Humans will always have a tendency to feather their own nests and over-use power. Humans will always have a tendency to want to force others to do for and pay for things for them, if they believe they can get away with it.

    Our constitution was designed to maximize principles of good government and negate the fallen nature, which human beings tend to display in the absence of restraints. These things will never, ever change, and therefore the U.S. Constitution will
always be fully adequate to keep a healthy nation thriving....provided we strive to be the kind of people, John Adams said our Constitution was designed for:

    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    And a people, who refuses to be these things, can never have the kind of incredible civilization that the U.S. has traditionally been; no constitution or form of government can possibly be devised which will guarantee freedom and prosperity for an irreligious and immoral people. Societal immorality always makes freedom impossible because people cannot trust one another--or those representing their government--to be fair and just with one another.
.
 
Thank you Bob.  Bob Ellis is the owner/operator of DAKOTA VOICEcom.  If you haven't been there and you're a serious minded person,  you should.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

States' Rights Can Live Again.


Federal Power v. States Rights v. Individual Rights
so...

 If you take away or limit the powers from the federal government, then the fight for power is between the States and individuals' rights.....right?  Well, that's what our Constitution intended.


 
  There is a loop hole that the Federal Courts have been using for years. Millions of us over the years have wondered, "How can the government do that?" or "That's not in the Constitution, is it?"  No, it is not!!  So how? Answer: " IMPLIED POWERS OF THE CONSTITUTION"  Please let me explain.
 These powers are implied not expressed or enumerated!  The courts and Congress have found a home for these implied powers in article 1, section 8, in the final clause (Necessary and Proper clause) of the section.  This issue of implied powers is what split our Founders.  No sooner had the Constitution gone into operation than a bitter argument arose between those who favored a strong central government and those who favored a central government of limited powers with strong governments in the states.  The first group is known as Federalists and the second as Anti-Federalists.  .The Anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and Patrick Henry, would have had the Constitution construed strictly, according to the letter.  The Federalists, led by Hamilton, and John Adams, favored a broad interpretation which would render the Constitution adequate to the expanding needs of the country.  The issue of whether or not Congress was to enjoy implied powers, became an important major issue between political parties.
  Unfortunately, the first two Presidents were Federalists; Washington and Adams. Subsequently , the first two Chief Justices were Federalists; John Jay, and Ellsworth.  When the leader of the Anti-Federalists, Thomas Jefferson, won the election of 1800, Adams, before leaving office, appointed  several federalist judges,  most influential  was John Marshall , an eminent Federalist, as Chief Justice.  Marshall's expansive decisions on the Necessary and Proper clause loosened it to mean simply helpful not necessary.  In one of his decisions he wrote, "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding."  Since the 1930, Congress has enjoyed continual growth of power with the loosening of the Necessary and Proper clause, combined with expansive readings of Commerce clause, Spending and General Welfare clause. 
Over the years, these "implied" precedents and case law decisions have resulted in: Federal Education, Social Security, Medicare, HHS, HUD, AFT, DEA,FDA,OSHA,EEOC, EPA, most recently, TARP,  Stimulus Bill, government take-over of banks and auto manufactures, and the list goes on and on.
  So what do we do? I would like to see a re-Declaration of Independence.  Instead of King George, it will be Federal Government that will be addressed.  In this declaration it will have to mention:  Absolutely No Implied Powers are Given to Congress,  All Executive Orders must be in the open and go through Congress or a possible abolishment of ALL Executive Orders. ALL  POWERS ARE RESERVED FOR STATES, EQUALLY.  We have to identify where we went wrong  and how we will get out of it.  I believe that if we want this change, we can NOT look towards the next  President or Senator.  WE THE PEOPLE have to demand that our STATES REVOKE ALL IMPLIED POWERS.  If implied powers are revoked, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments will finally become RELEVANT for the first time in our history.    All States will need to unite again and have a Constitutional Convention.  The Convention must reverse the Implied Powers Doctrine and many other
expansive implications, misinterpretations, and exclusions of the Constitution. This Convention and conversion of bureaucracies could take years. It can be done.
    If you agree, whether Democrat or Republican, you should concentrate on how to change the system using the Constitution and our country's history as a common guide.  Once the federal government is CONTROLLED by the Constitution, then it will NOT matter who is President, or Congressman, or a Supreme Court Judge.  But first and ALWAYS, we demand from our politicians, a strict interpretation of all constitutions and that this issue alone, be the standard for getting elected and/or staying in power.  Next time they swear into office, they better mean it. We must let our federal leaders know, the game is over, we all know your tricks and our children will know and their children will know.
 
 
"NO MORE IMPLIED POWERS!  NO MORE IMPLIED POWERS!"
 
There is a bill called HR 450 "Enumerated Powers Act" that could use OUR SUPPORT.  This will
require Congress to enumerate, not imply, when passing Bills. I like it. You can find it at : HERE
Leave it up those Birchers, God bless em.

Good luck fellow Americans and fellow Hoosiers. God speed. 

 

 
Recently, this blog was posted by Dr. Theo at Dakota Voice and sparked some interesting comments and discussions. Linked here: Dr. Theo



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »