“What have
you given us Mr. Franklin, a monarchy or a republic?” Benjamin Franklin
replied, “A republic, if you can keep it!”
December 6, 2013
Until the founders made their declaration
of independence and gave us the Constitution, humanity’s condition was that of
ruler and subject. That relationship had changed little for 5000 years. And
then, for the first time in history, America
While the rest of the world was
enslaved, died, were slaughtered, starved imprisoned, impoverished, gassed or
gulaged under Socialism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism, our Constitution
protected our rights: besides life (and the freedom to protect same), and
liberty, our founders realized our God given rights included the freedom—not
the right—to succeed. For the first time in history it was understood
and written in our Constitution that these were inalienable rights, and they came not from a ruler or a king, but from our
creator! But what if most came to believe there was no creator—no God?Hold
that thought a minute.
For the most part our servants—our elected and appointed
representatives—obeyed their oath to uphold the mandates of our contract, and
we became the country of “American Exceptionalism.” Free from the stranglehold
of oppressive government, we became the economic powerhouse of the world and the singular example
of what truly free citizens could accomplish. But now that is changing, and
changing rapidly.
Regardless of a growing history of
failure, there are always those who embrace all or parts of those isms. And regardless of all those isms’ history of
disaster, there are always those that sell class envy and the promise of: if only they could be in charge they would create a utopia
for the oppressed—the little guy. But in America
So, in the face of unlimited freedom,
opportunity for prosperity and a constitution that had served us so well, and
the abject failure of every ism in history, would be usurpers of power realized they would
have to accomplish their goals by subterfuge—by, as the Marxists Antonio
Gramsci wrote and taught his acolytes (Saul Alinsky, et al)—“by a long walk
through the American culture. (8) In order of
priority, they would have to obtain hegemony over:
1. education
2. media
3. pop culture
and more
They have succeeded beyond their
wildest expectations!
Those who would seize power realized
there would have to be fundamental
change in thinking; if not the words themselves, then what people thought the meaning of the constitution was—hence hegemony at every level of
education was paramount and first in priority giving us programs such as Common
Core. Hegemony over the media and pop culture was considered a must to
popularized progressive ideas from education with the uninformed—with our
youth. And so it began—the end game being the total elimination of the greatest
political document ever.
Just the highlights of the
subterfuge—there is much, much more:
1. The
Constitution is a living breathing document that must change with the times. To change
and eventually eliminate the constitution, would-be usurpers realized they
would have to convince the population that the constitution was a relic of
former times: when rich white men ruled over the rest of the population—that
the constitution must therefore change with the times. Even though the
Federalists Papers are replete with arguments to the contrary, those desiring
to implement their ism teach our children otherwise.
2. The law is
what the judges say it is. Early on,
usurpers decided to use the courts—particularly, the non-elected Supreme
Court—to find this power by making rather than simply interpreting
law and offering
their advice to our elected representatives as the founders intended. (1)(5)
Once made, the courts would invoke Stare Decisis. (3)When they found new meaning in the
constitution a precedent was set, and they made it difficult to revisit that
decision.
Before going on, ask yourself one
question: Why would we the citizen ever allow our servants—and those entrusted
to interpret and enforce our contract—our constitution—to also change
it? We didn’t and wouldn’t. (1)The hubris of those that say so is difficult to
comprehend. (2) But they did because we the people and our elected
representatives let them! Remember Franklin
3. Change the
meaning of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. (4) With the assumed power to make rather than interpret
the law, representatives circumvented the difficult Article V process to change
the Constitution. Now, those wanting unlimited power would interpret the General Welfare clause to mean ‘anything goes’ (5) as long
as it was perceived for the general welfare. That change alone would allow our
elected representatives to appeal to
disparate groups of society and buy their votes under the guise of their general
welfare.
In 1937, Roosevelt used the
supreme court to facilitate his own brand of New Deal socialism.(5) Our
representatives swore an oath they would not allow this to happen, but not
enough objected. Power not authorized by we the people was usurped and the
precedent was set. (2)(5)
We the people and our elected representatives let them do this!
Again, Benjamin Franklin's words: “You have a
Republic, if you can keep it!”
Free from the restrictions reserved
only for the states, they could now use federal tax receipts for programs never
envisioned by the founders nor found in the enumerated powers to solidify
personal and party power. Power for pork, power to get re-elected at the
expense of unknown opposition without this power. And use it they did to the
extent we now owe 17 plus trillion dollars that can never be repaid. At some
time in the near future, we will suffer great privation to restore this
country.
4. Over time,
eliminate Federalism. Enable
un-named bureaucrats (not our elected representatives) to make and write laws
that subvert our constitutional rights incumbent not just on federal
bureaucracies, but on the states, individuals and their property. Again, in
Article 1 Section 8 the courts abrogated the constitution’s all-important limits of the enumerated powersas well as
powers reserved only to the states. Perhaps James Madison said it best in a
letter to James Pendleton in 1792.
"If
Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will
promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one
possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular
exceptions." For a history of the original intent see (4) The Federalist
Papers are replete with such references.
5. What came next? Having thus seized this power to make, rather than interpret and
advise our constitution’s meaning,
the courts were free to interpret the meaning of the Commerce Clause, the
Necessary and Proper and other parts so carefully reasoned and thought out by
the founders as to almost re-write the meaning of our contract to the extent it
is almost meaningless. Just think of the recent Robert’s decision on the ACA.
Even though a majority of citizens did not want ACA, and no Republican voted
for it, Roberts found law for the administration and K street that will no doubt be
challenged and debated for years all at the expense of we the people, and all
under the guise of helping the oppressed—the little guy.
Again, we the
people and our elected representatives let our
servants change our contract! But even at this late hour, “You still have a Republic, if you can keep it!”
6. Invent a meaning
that takes God out of the Constitution and public life. Maybe a clause in the constitution (that does not
exist) that says there must be a separation of church and state. Use the courts to re-enforce the notion. From
kindergarten through college, use your acolytes in academia to hammer the
notion home: no prayer in public places, no Christmas scenes ad nauseum. Use
the media and pop culture and political correctness to drive the notion home and
make God and religion un-cool.
Far too often, our first term
idealistic representative seeking change is bombarded by K street Washington
A few thoughts: If we are to have the
slightest chance for our republic to endure, we must insist that our
representatives and appointees adhere to the powers granted to them and nothing
more. We must return to the original intent of the founders especially with
regard to Article 1 Section 8. Almost everyone understands their must be
provisions for the indigent and those in our Republic that cannot care for
themselves. Over time, thought, we must phase out government welfare programs
keeping only those that we can justify though constitutional processes. We must
totally re-think letting faceless bureaucrats make law through the pernicious
CFR’s enabling government to promulgate total control dogma such as Agenda 21.
Adhering to the original intent of the constitution will greatly reduce the
constant pressure from K street Washington
Now, for that thought from the
beginning: So what might happen if the majority came to believe that there is no God—a thought so assiduously
promulgated at all levels of education, pop culture and government? Would it
not logically follow that there are no
inalienable rights? Would that notion logically suggest that any rights we do have come from government, and therefore
may be repealed by government?
The return to the constitution will
require education of citizen and representative. No longer can we tolerate
representatives whose attitudes and ignorance put the future of the republic in
peril. (See (6) for an example) Through our national retreat from god as our
creator, and from our collective silence and ignorance of the constitution, we
have left the door wide open to usher in the next ism and tyranny! In a little over 220 years, we have almost reverted to the natural state of the
previous 5000—the condition of government as master, and we the people as
servant. We are in a freefall into
tyrannywith judges and legislators leading the way aided by the
complicit, the ignorant and the silence of we the people. But right now we
still have a choice:“You still have a Republic, if you can keep it!”
These thoughts are my opinions. I
have made them after considerable research and a lifetime of observation and
engagement.
Louis Stannard
Just a few references: there are many
more.
(1) Federalists 78 McLeans
edition
(2) Is the constitution what the
judges say it is?
(3) The argument against precedent
(4) The General Welfare Clause—the
original interpretation
(5) Roosevelt Supreme Court
interprets the General Welfare Clause
(6)The total lack of knowledge and
responsibility of our representatives
No comments:
Post a Comment