Monday, November 28, 2011

Immigration in America 2011

"The importation of foreigners into a country that has as many inhabitants as the present employments and provisions for subsistence will bear, will be in the end no increase of people, unless the new comers have more industry and frugality than the natives, and then they will provide more subsistence, and increase in the country; but they will gradually eat the natives out. Nor is it necessary to bring in foreigners to fill up any occasional vacancy in a country for such vacancy will soon be filled by natural generation."

Benjamin Franklin - 1751

"The ongoing migration of persons to the United States in violation of our laws is a serious national problem detrimental to the interests of the United States."
Ronald Regan - Presidential Proclamation 4865, September 29, 1981

Newt Gingrich has proven for months now that he is a serious GOP candidate to consider. But now with his position stated on the immigration issue it seems Mr. Gingrich can handle his positions on policies with true conviction of thoughtful and "American" consideration. I will not put words or un-intended thoughts to Newt but my guess is that he has a position on illegal immigration that considers the huge lack of government application of current laws and available department resources that has generated a delinquent immigrant mentality over the last few decades that needs thoughtful but prudent correction.

It is not the fault of those illegal aliens here for ten or twenty years that our government has not been conscientious in its duty to correct their misbehavior in a timely manner and allow them a false sense of entitlement undeserved. They are simply being the “spoiled rich teenager with no boundaries” that the “irresponsible, selfish, uncaring parents” have allowed them to become. But it is time those “parents” be replaced and rules, regulations and character be instilled as they should be. It will not be easy but should be fair to those “teenagers” who have proven American character and help pay for their share by going through the right “adoption” procedures to be productive citizens. Otherwise they should go back to their real “parents” and live by their rules. This whole immigration mess is as much the fault of an uncaring, dysfunctional government that needs to become the “Uncle Sam” it should be and lovingly discipline and correct the immigration situation.

"America must not be overwhelmed. Every effort to enact immigration legislation must expect to meet a number of hostile forces and, in particular, two hostile forces of considerable strength. One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength (broad backs) at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages. The other is composed of racial groups in the United States who oppose all restrictive legislation because they want the doors left open for an influx of their countrymen regardless of the menace to the people of their adopted country."
Samuel Gompers - Letter to Congress, March 19, 1924

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

American Values; What Are They and Why?

"The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Where, some say, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, He reigns above."
Thomas Paine

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

Our country is more divided by politics than ever before. That is not to say there has never been difference in opinion on how our values should be communicated. Even the early founding fathers and the people struggled with how to convey our principals. But those beliefs were held by all who decided on our constitution. John Adams quoted above and the more liberal Alexander Hamilton knew the republic we enjoy is based on rights granted by our Creator.

“You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator to the whole human race, and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, February 23, 1775

The key to understanding the American political advantage is to know what John Adams and the rest of the founders appreciated; that we need a republic and not a democracy.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
John Adams

We have lost most from the 1920’s until now by ignoring or misunderstanding that our nation is a republic and not a democracy. I quote someone who determines the difference and says it better than I could.

“These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see. In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

So how do we help close the gap between right and left today? Some conclude the fix of opposing political partisan positions is by making sure you sit in the middle or as a moderate. This will only work for those who have not truly defined all they believe and why they believe it. I'm not talking about those who "like" what they think the America way should be but one who is a student of American politics and can defend that position based on our founding as a nation. I will not go into details here but our founding fathers struggled with many of the same types of issues and they found this nation on a philosophy that created a republic that can grow and continually form to that vision when the people understand and work within it. The answer is not necessarily keeping the majority corralled in the middle but that the middle is found on conclusions reached by civil debates about what our republic is and/or should be. It’s time “We the People” learn what our republic means, live by the principals it was found upon and be that people it was formed for.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

American Vision - Tea Party vs. Progressives

“I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be. I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Thomas Jefferson.

For several years the news seems to emulate a growing malevolence animosity, by the far left, which paints a much distorted image of anyone on the political right. I’m convinced it’s a revealing truth of a decaying facade worn by the core socialistic principal embraced by very left leaning progressive liberals. I’m not saying something similar from the radical right is not possible, but that the progressive element is more veiled as patriotic. Recently many reports have been revealing this bigoted attitude for conservative, small government, fiscally responsible elements that our founding vision was developed upon. No, bigot is not an incorrect assumption when using statements like William Yeomans in his opinion piece in Politico, “The tea party’s terrorist tactics”.

“...America looks weakened in the eyes of the world, the tea party’s hostage-taking has evolved into the intentional infliction of harm on innocent Americans to achieve a political objective – terrorism.” (Emphasis added)

When someone with this twisted view of our republic is mimicked by the vice president of the United States (see here), it’s a telling narrative of where the White House stands. They believe the American people need all kinds of “being taken care of” by a large, big spending social government that Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers felt as an anathema to the free, liberty based, capitalist republic. This frightens those in government who wish to drive our nation away from our founding principals and they react much like a slave owner in the 1800’s who anticipated their cause was threaten by an awaking educated people who saw the flaw mirrored in principles of “We the people ...” and other documents written by our founders; they react by attack in frustration, using bigoted slurs.

Most tea party conservatives reflect the ideas our nation was and is meant to be. If that means we are terrorist of any kind, it is on those who feel threaten that their un-American attitude is revealed.

“Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God. Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire, called conscience.” - “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
George Washington.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Enemies of the USA

“Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of (t)his country."
John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, May 17, 1776

Osama bin Laden was an enemy of the USA. Americans are safer with his demise and it is not the first time in our history an enemy to our way of life has been defeated. We have had and still have many such adversaries to our republic but when it is so uncomplicatedly obvious to most of us, such as terrorism, “we the people” easily applaud the results. I know there are some who would use the opportunity to try and point out our founding fathers were terrorist and others who don’t agree with the methods used, but I don’t wish to address such divisive counterpoints to an obvious win for freedoms we hold dear and true as Americans.

It’s the more subversive enemy we struggle to decipher. As a matter of fact, besides the aforementioned Osama type, the term “enemy” might only apply relevant to the very far fringes (left or right) of the political spectrum. Otherwise it might better be explained as a misguided or dissimilar goal oriented brother or sister. Not that they are the enemy but rather their path and aspiration is the antagonist to the founding principals of the American republic. We see it played out in the infancy of our nation as the Federalist verses the anti-Federalist. Then the ambitions seemed similar but the path to it different. Now it is not always the same objective we strive for. And in that respect we might label some as enemies of our republic by virtue of directions that chip away or blast destructively at the foundation our nation was created upon.

Today, I would label the opposing political philosophical viewpoints as progressive liberal (left) and conservative constitutionalist (right). Both have extremists that are enemies of our republic but not always evident because whether intentionally (enemy) or unintentionally (misguided) they work against our founding principals in veiled pretense of the “American Way” but is not the case when examined. Most of these people do not agree, believe or comprehend the full vision our founders used to give direction our republic is meant to be. It is with these religious, I dare say, Judean-Christian principals and philosophies the framers all agreed necessary for the common people to govern themselves. It has always been fundamentally recognized as the government is to assist the people (small and less control) and not government to rule the people.

So when John Witherspoon, John Hancock, the other signers of the Declaration of Independence and founding statesmen refer to Americans enemies, Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are easily identified. Others, such as Cass Sunstein, Suzanna Sherry, George Lincoln Rockwell or Elijah Muhammad we need to study and understand their platforms but could easily argue they too are enemies from both polarized spectrums of the political arena. It is a debate people more in the middle could have and find some common ground, which leads me to question how you might feel about what Acting Solicitor General, defender of ObamaCare, had to say yesterday (May 11th, 2011). He “admitted that he believed Congress could force individuals to buy certain foods, like wheat” in an oral argument on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law on March 23, 2010. Would he be considered an enemy of our American Republic way of life?

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
John Hancock, 1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Friday, April 15, 2011

Planned Servanthood?

"Self-love . . . is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others."
Thomas Jefferson

First the premise question: Is Planned Parenthood equal to Planned Severanthood?

Now some foundation.

The Founders and early Americans understood better than most today why our republic works. And we will do best when we follow the fundamentals of these great people. As a nation we struggled when faced with contradictions that our founding principals were formed on. Slavery is just one example. From the beginning it was realized by the founders to be an inconsistency related to the founding beliefs. Patrick Henry in March of 1775 said, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

It took longer than maybe it should have but in time our nation, only because of ethics our foundations demanded, put the idea of slavery practiced in early America as the anathema it is mirrored by our founding principles. But what happens when we decide to ignore, change or replace these ethics? What if, as Thomas Jefferson suggests, self-love overshadows our moral duties? We might have today something akin to Planned Servanthood.

Analogy - America’s (Caucasians) could legally have Blacks as property and slaves unless such time they decide to free them with a status equal to Whites using a proclamation and forms of proof that the White owners submit giving Blacks permanent equal status as Like White. This came about because the Supreme Court ruled it is legal and Blacks are not human based on criteria most Whites agree represents human nature. Let us just say that the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, never over turned, was enforced and built upon until consciences were quelled and the law prevailed. To help families or individuals deal with these relationships and make good decisions a group develops, supported with Federal funding, called Planned Servanthood. Most Americans decide to give Blacks Like White status but there is still a large portion of slaves waiting for the same distinction with no rights other than what their owners decide. As a matter of fact, slave owners have the right to blow a Blacks' head off his shoulders to rid any inconvenience they bring to life rather than bother with the process for Like White status. Perfectly legal because the Supreme Court says so. Generally that’s not done because a professional in the field will get rid a Black for you so you won’t have to deal with the mess. Planned Servanthood is the best place to go for these services. Oh, they will help with other services too, like assist with setting up Like White procedures and even financial help for Black costs until then. But there is quite a bit of money to be made by the professional Black Eliminators, so often that route is more convenient, faster and a permanent solution. The nation becomes divided into Pro-Black and Pro-Choice factions vying against one another about the legal and ethical aspects of the situation.

Sound familiar? Planned Parenthood offers the exact same divisive posture because most arguments ignore the root ethical dispute. Is a Black human? Is a fetus human? Why is Planned Parenthood so vilified? Yes abortion is legal, but should it be? Does Planned Parenthood offer some good services? Of course, but should it be federally funded? All answers to these questions depend on whether it is ethical, not whether it is legal. Individuals may determine their own ethical compass but this nation was founded upon certain ethical criteria that no laws should supersede, because when it does that foundation is eroded and needs repair. Abortion is just as abhorrent as Black elimination, not because our laws tells us so, but because the principals those law are suppose to represent dictate it so.

"When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil."
Thomas Jefferson

"A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest Man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society?....The Scriptures tell us "righteousness exalteth a Nation."
Abigail Adams

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
Patrick Henry March 23, 1775


Thursday, February 24, 2011

James Madison or Madison Wisconsin

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." 
James Madison

I hope you can appreciate James Madison’s sentiment. What’s ironic here is that the “Union” protests in Madison WI and Democrats fleeing the state instead of doing their job proves his concern. There are those who prefer to assume our American foundation is a pliable, changing, and evolving democracy that can fit within a socialist type system in order to appease licentious leaning, self-serving amoral beliefs that are contrary to our republic foundation. To simplify, “our text should not separate from our historical background”.

Still trying to make out what I mean? First let me say that I’m not suggesting Americans should never grow in the understanding of our founding government or make improvements based on the intent our founders mapped for us. We have managed throughout our history to correct things the moral compass of our founding directed us. Slavery is wrong and eventually we corrected it. Racism is immoral and again we strive to discourage and eradicate any cause that supports it. This is maturing, getting wiser by the knowledge of our principals we hold as truths.

Current events related to what is taking place in Wisconsin more represents values “separate from the text” of our nation. It falls more in the realm of modern progressive self-serving entitlement rights that are contrary to what our founding fathers had in mind. The Unions (the system, not most members) and progressive leaning Democrats have high jacked the American Dream to pervert it into something even Martin Luther King would find appalling, say nothing about the founding fathers. Public servants need to realize that their Unions have garnered job entitlements beyond what the taxpayer can now afford. The private sector has made adjustments for such mistakes so both business and the employees can survive or they have gone out of business. Or they should have but for bailout money taken from the taxpayer, which will only prolong the inevitable and further burden him. Public employees are only being asked to adjust like the private sector  and in most cases not even as much, but they are stomping their feet, pouting like a spoiled teenager who believes their allowance should be larger and call his parents anything but good.

The taxpayers are the ones who should be negotiating with public employees, not the Unions and that is what the Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, is attempting. Anything different is only a “distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government”. There is a huge difference between what our founding republic intends as moral, unalienable rights and the freedom to pursue happiness and property and the new unconstitutional socialistic entitlement philosophy that is muscling in disguised as a false American Dream.

Which side do you find yourself standing on? James Madison or Madison Wisconsin?

“The Constitution of the United States was created by the people of the United States composing the respective states, who alone had the right.”
James Madison

Monday, January 31, 2011

We Need Tea Without Lemon

“The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
Thomas Jefferson (to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819.)

One needs to understand that the founding fathers were very concerned that people, either intentionally or unintentionally would not comprehend their wisdom, which they laboriously applied when penning the documents of our republic government. These great men labored upon forming a government steeped and molded in the Christian-Judean philosophy that all involved concurred was the only way a people could govern themselves. That is not to say this is a “Christian” nation (though there are many good arguments for it) but a religious one that works well within Christian beliefs.

Many court decisions made the last fifty years play into exactly what Thomas Jefferson (and others) were concerned about when he made the above statement. One came to mind when I recently read a new policy directed by the Board of Education of Massena Central School in New York. Not to pick on them exclusively but it represents many such moves by school systems and other public organizations attempting to use court decisions that play into the progressive, liberal ideology that removes Christian influence from our government. This particular school policy may sound familiar and if it does read on why I think it is unconstitutional by intend.

Policy 2011 8360 SUBJECT: RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM – “…the District will be guided by three concepts when making decisions about the appropriateness of activities for inclusion in the school program: the activity should have a secular purpose; the activity should neither advance nor inhibit religion; and the activity must not foster an excessive entanglement of "government" with religion.”

There is obviously more but the policy derives its “meat” from the court decision of LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), which in recent years has been used less successfully but still cited. The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
  1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
  2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
  3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
Our founding fathers would have no issues with number 2 and 3, because they address them in our founding documents. What I have problems with (and the founders would also) is number one. What is a secular legislative purpose? Many would contend that secularism is the only model that encompasses a neutral philosophy or void of any religious connection, thus supporting the “wall of separation” needed to keep God out of American politics. But take a look at a definition of religious from Merriam-Webster.

Religious : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity (emphasis added).

Christianity and Secularism are both religious philosophical ideas: one based on deity and the other on different acknowledged reality. Both are based on faith and both can find certain scientific evidence to support it is true. So, for those who will quote secularism as a system that rejects all forms of religious faith I contend that it is a religion that simply opposes others. Any government action that supports a philosophical secular legislative purpose is just as lawless as one that might support a Christian philosophical purpose; based on the twisted logic purposed by Justice Burger in this court decision.

People need to understand our democratic republic, what it is based on and the intention the Framers had when they wrote the documents that make this nation such a great beacon for the rest of the world. Understand why you consider yourself patriotic and uphold the principals our government works best with, whether you consider yourself religious or not. Vote for people who understand these principals, direct your representatives to support the Founders principals or vote them out; whether it is a school board member or the President.

The Founders believed all people are on an equal legal footing. But the Framers did not espouse pure pluralism. Non-Christian-Judean philosophies could exist only insofar as they stayed within its principal boundaries - no sacrificing virgins, no polygamy, no pagan perversions. We were one nation "under God" - a particular God, with particular moral standards. The current Tea Party movement needs to keep pure. No Lemon please.

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
John Adams

Monday, January 17, 2011

Nuts on Right, on Left and Just Plain Nuts

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”.
“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.”
The Federalist NO. 10 - Thursday, November 22, 1787 [James Madison]

Every American should have a grasp of our founding fathers vision for our republic and a great place to start is the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers written during the birth of our nation. Federalist Number 10 deals with “factions”, which means people with different ideas about how things should be. Sound familiar, like it might apply to today? You bet and today’s news just highlights it.

A right wing nut, Brett Reese, is airing an editorial four times daily - up from two - on his station KELS-FM 104.7. He is unapologetic that portions of the editorial that call King a "plastic god," a "sexual degenerate," and "an America hating communist". The Mountain States Anti-Defamation League has asked Reese to stop broadcasting the editorial. The Greeley school board passed a resolution last week supporting the holiday and calling the editorial "inflammatory and detrimental to our district and community." The vote came after Reese walked out of the meeting.

A left wing nut, James Eric Fuller, was arrested after shouting “You’re dead!” at Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries, said Pima County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Jason Ogan. Fuller was shot in the knee and back Jan. 8 when a gunman opened fire at Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords event that day. Fuller linked the shooting to conservative leaders associated with the tea party, including Sarah Palin, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck and Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle. “It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target,” Fuller said.

The act of Jared Loughner is fairly simple to discern if you just look at the facts; he is just plain nuts. The news media is having a hay-day with his story though. In our republic it is expected that we will have varying ideas but as Madison alludes to, the voice of the people pronounced by a body of representatives is more conformable to the interest of the community. He argues large republic against a small republic for the choice of “fit characters” to represent the public’s voice. In a large republic where the number of voters and candidates is greater, the probability to elect competent representatives is broader.1 The effects of the Tea Party movement is exactly what Madison refers to. Given time and with a majority of the people understanding the principals our country is founded upon, it can heal and work for the common good the government is meant to preserve. “We the People” need to be the characters our founding fathers developed this country for so ALL the nuts will stay in the can where they belong. What it all boils down to is our republic works only when the people understand the ethics, philosophical integrity and religious foundation the founding fathers based it on. I finish with this quote I used before but it fits here best.

“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."
John Adams – 1798


Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Control Hate Speech

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter, 23 December 1791

First, we need to pray for congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her family and all those who suffered at the hands of a madman. But there are many who would rather politicize it and again claim hate speech and point finger to stir people up. They declare it is the fault of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Interesting these same people don’t suggest that on June 2008 when our current President said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” is similar talk. I’m intelligent enough to know Mr. Obama never intended this to be meant as hate speech and encourage violence. Both sides say things like this and if you are going to condemn one you have to do the same with the other.

OK, so using one of the examples pointed at, let’s see what he said about hate speech and the actions of Jared Loughner. Look at the challenge Glenn Beck (here) put forth to everyone, including those blaming him and other conservatives for the tragedy. Ignoring what others say, if you can (??) and looking ONLY at what Glenn’s statement says against violence (you will need to read it for yourself!) tell me the statement is wrong. Can you? You might think it is a simple lucid moment in an otherwise deranged individual but is it wrong? How would you feel about it if I said a liberal wrote this (I’m sure many could)? Would someone who writes this be one who would purposely direct others to commit violent acts? I do not always agree with Glenn, but he has never intentionally provoked hate like some people and organization have. The very hate speech they condemn they use to make their point. Even Richard Cohen of the Washington Post (a liberal) believes the right wing has little to no bearing on the actions perpetrated by Jared Loughner.

Hate speech can not be controlled through legislation. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers argued that point in many ways and at numerous times. What could we possibly use as a measure to determine what hate speech is? We know it when we hear and it is different for every individual. The only thing that will deter and limit this kind of behavior is for everyone to understand their personal obligation to strive for integrity found only in God’s commands for us to live by. It has to be taught, needs to be learned and then practiced by each person who wishes to mature.

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, (A)nd 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

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

More Tea Anyone?

 [Samuel Adams] argued that the Tea Party was not the act of a lawless mob, but was instead a principled protest and the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights. 
Samuel Adams1 - Wikipedia

As 2010 closed and I sit here conjecturing (there’s a unique verb for you) on 2011, it intrigues me that the American people have developed a taste for tea over other favorite “drinks” of the recent past. I know you realize I speak of something other than the refreshments we part-take of on a daily basis, but let us just continue with the analogy for the fun of it.

Last year I wrote about my fascination and reflections of all the flavors of tea. I found myself too busy to finish quarter four with details and insights about those who hate tea and want to outlaw it and those so fanatical about it they understand nothing else. But I will try to pick up where I left off and see how the current tea fascination may play out this year.

A popular flavor of the herb has made it into our US House for the next few years and seems to be making an overall commotion from the aroma before anyone has even tasted it! I think I’ll wait for a sip before any judgment of the quality. But I do like tea and hope others discover the value it has. Unlike other drinks, like strong alcohol for instance, tea has major medicinal qualities, can be used in large quantities without major complications or ill effects and without worry of developing a destructive addition.

So, as we begin this year keep track with me how the Tea Party promotes or provokes political changes and how well governance absorbs and reacts to the taste “we the people” demand they serve us; because they haven’t had to deal with the cakes, cracker and crumpets we like ... yet.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry

"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." 
George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

1 John K. Alexander, Revolutionary Politician, 129