The Patriot Institute Presents
"CORRELATING SCRIPTURE &
THE FOUNDING
DOCUMENTS"
A Series of 5 Free Monthly Workshops
Location: 219 S. Nash St , Hillsborough , NC
Save the
Date
Saturday January 18
For
further details
Showing posts with label founding documents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label founding documents. Show all posts
Monday, January 6, 2014
IF THIS IS NEAR YOU, YOU WILL WANT TO ATTEND!
"CORRELATING SCRIPTURE &
A Series of 5 Free Monthly Workshops
Friday, July 13, 2012
"The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy"
These are the words of Daniel Webster and Chief Justice John Marshall who lived in the days of the Founders.
Americans have recently witnessed the Supreme Court upholding a legislative act passed by congress that is one of the most oppressive measures in our Nation's history.The Founders' formula for individual freedom not only excluded this kind of taxation, but the Constitution they wrote specifically forbade Congress from doing the very thing the Supreme Court said they could do.
It is another powerful example of what has happened as we have ceased studying the Founders' freedom formula and have let powerful, anti-American philosophies enter into our thinking and transform our great Nation before our very eyes. Here is how it happened.
One of the driving forces motivating the Founders to declare independence 236 years ago was the oppressive nature of King George's taxes. The Founders knew governments had to have financial means to survive. But their study of history proved that it is the nature of almost all men who come to power, to abuse the people by taking more and more from them through government taxation. It was for this reason that the first government of the Unites States of America (the Articles of Confederation) contained no power in the national government to levy any kind of tax. If taxes were to be levied they would be by the states, and the national government would then request each state to voluntarily give its fair share to the National government.
It was not long after the Revolutionary War began that the Founders realized this system was too weak. General Washington was in the field seeing his men starve, freeze, and die. His pleadings to Congress for more help were answered mostly by an apologetic excuse that the states had been requisitioned and it was up to them to send Washington the needed provisions. Some did and some didn't. No one knew the desperate need for more energy or power in the federal government than George Washington. Nevertheless, it would be many years before he would see that happen. Meanwhile, he had a war to fight and the inability of Congress to raise the necessary funds was one reason we almost lost the war for independence.
As a result of many years of trial and error, the Founders learned some powerful lessons about taxes:
1. Just taxing the states is impractical, since the only way to enforce such taxation is to send in an army.
2. There is a difference between direct and indirect taxes. Direct taxes are levied on a person or his property and must be paid by the individual. Indirect taxes are levied on things and are paid indirectly by those collecting the taxes on goods sold. Direct taxes are harsher and sometimes involve force to collect. Indirect taxes are more discretionary.
3. It was felt that the federal government's limited roles would be supported entirely by tariffs on imports. The Founders did not anticipate the government needing to reach inward to the people for support in ordinary times.
4. It was recognized, however, that in an emergency such as war, there would be less imports on which to collect tariffs. At the same time the demands for money would necessarily increase. It was for this reason that the Founders provided a way to tax the people directly in dire emergencies.
5. In these very limited situations where taxes would need to be collected from the people or the states, the allocation would be on one basis and one basis only - population. It would be done according to census or enumeration. Taxes would not be based on any other premise - not on income, not on wealth, not on inheritance, not on those who chose to buy a certain product or not buy a certain product - only on counting people. It would be as simple and unobtrusive as counting heads!
The Founders felt so strongly about the need to control government officials in their desire to get more money that they put the following restrictions on the taxing power right into the Constitution:
"Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states ... according to their respective numbers."
"No capitation [tax of so much per person regardless of circumstances] or other direct tax shall be laid except in proportion to the census or other enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
With these limitations in mind, the Founders felt confident that future generations would be spared the heavy-handed oppression of tax collectors who would invade one's privacy and confiscate large portions of a person's property.
The very wording of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution shows how the restrictions on the power to tax have been completely eliminated:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "
CONTINUED: http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/jul12nl.html
Americans have recently witnessed the Supreme Court upholding a legislative act passed by congress that is one of the most oppressive measures in our Nation's history.The Founders' formula for individual freedom not only excluded this kind of taxation, but the Constitution they wrote specifically forbade Congress from doing the very thing the Supreme Court said they could do.
It is another powerful example of what has happened as we have ceased studying the Founders' freedom formula and have let powerful, anti-American philosophies enter into our thinking and transform our great Nation before our very eyes. Here is how it happened.
The Founder's Fear of the Power to Tax
One of the driving forces motivating the Founders to declare independence 236 years ago was the oppressive nature of King George's taxes. The Founders knew governments had to have financial means to survive. But their study of history proved that it is the nature of almost all men who come to power, to abuse the people by taking more and more from them through government taxation. It was for this reason that the first government of the Unites States of America (the Articles of Confederation) contained no power in the national government to levy any kind of tax. If taxes were to be levied they would be by the states, and the national government would then request each state to voluntarily give its fair share to the National government.
It was not long after the Revolutionary War began that the Founders realized this system was too weak. General Washington was in the field seeing his men starve, freeze, and die. His pleadings to Congress for more help were answered mostly by an apologetic excuse that the states had been requisitioned and it was up to them to send Washington the needed provisions. Some did and some didn't. No one knew the desperate need for more energy or power in the federal government than George Washington. Nevertheless, it would be many years before he would see that happen. Meanwhile, he had a war to fight and the inability of Congress to raise the necessary funds was one reason we almost lost the war for independence.
The Founders' lessons about taxation
As a result of many years of trial and error, the Founders learned some powerful lessons about taxes:
1. Just taxing the states is impractical, since the only way to enforce such taxation is to send in an army.
2. There is a difference between direct and indirect taxes. Direct taxes are levied on a person or his property and must be paid by the individual. Indirect taxes are levied on things and are paid indirectly by those collecting the taxes on goods sold. Direct taxes are harsher and sometimes involve force to collect. Indirect taxes are more discretionary.
3. It was felt that the federal government's limited roles would be supported entirely by tariffs on imports. The Founders did not anticipate the government needing to reach inward to the people for support in ordinary times.
4. It was recognized, however, that in an emergency such as war, there would be less imports on which to collect tariffs. At the same time the demands for money would necessarily increase. It was for this reason that the Founders provided a way to tax the people directly in dire emergencies.
5. In these very limited situations where taxes would need to be collected from the people or the states, the allocation would be on one basis and one basis only - population. It would be done according to census or enumeration. Taxes would not be based on any other premise - not on income, not on wealth, not on inheritance, not on those who chose to buy a certain product or not buy a certain product - only on counting people. It would be as simple and unobtrusive as counting heads!
Constitutional limitations on the power to tax
The Founders felt so strongly about the need to control government officials in their desire to get more money that they put the following restrictions on the taxing power right into the Constitution:
Article I, Section 2:
"Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states ... according to their respective numbers."
Article I, Section 9:
"No capitation [tax of so much per person regardless of circumstances] or other direct tax shall be laid except in proportion to the census or other enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
With these limitations in mind, the Founders felt confident that future generations would be spared the heavy-handed oppression of tax collectors who would invade one's privacy and confiscate large portions of a person's property.
The Sixteenth Amendment destroys
Constitutional Safeguards against abusive taxation
The very wording of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution shows how the restrictions on the power to tax have been completely eliminated:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "
CONTINUED: http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/jul12nl.html
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
National Center for Constitutional Studies--March Newsletter
America 's Search for a Constitutional Executive
The Founders of America did not have a very good experience with executives, either in their study of history or in their own day. Whether they were known as kings, monarchs, protectorates, dictators, tyrants, or whatever else, the Founders knew that once a person comes into some authority either by choice of the people or by conquest, he almost always begins to accumulate more and more authority over those whom he governs. They knew it was the nature of mortal man.
Itemizing the tyranny of King George III
No better record exists showing the tyrannical actions of a run-away ruler than what the Founders themselves itemized in the Declaration of Independence. They listed about thirty grievances against the king. The Founders surely recognized that this is the pattern of power-hungry executives. Below are listed seventeen of the thirty grievances. As you read and ponder them, perhaps you will sense that most of them sound very familiar to modern-day Americans because they seem to recur every time an executive begins to act like a dictator. The Founders wrote:
CONTINUED:
http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/mar12nl.html
The Founders of America did not have a very good experience with executives, either in their study of history or in their own day. Whether they were known as kings, monarchs, protectorates, dictators, tyrants, or whatever else, the Founders knew that once a person comes into some authority either by choice of the people or by conquest, he almost always begins to accumulate more and more authority over those whom he governs. They knew it was the nature of mortal man.
Itemizing the tyranny of King George III
No better record exists showing the tyrannical actions of a run-away ruler than what the Founders themselves itemized in the Declaration of Independence. They listed about thirty grievances against the king. The Founders surely recognized that this is the pattern of power-hungry executives. Below are listed seventeen of the thirty grievances. As you read and ponder them, perhaps you will sense that most of them sound very familiar to modern-day Americans because they seem to recur every time an executive begins to act like a dictator. The Founders wrote:
CONTINUED:
http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/mar12nl.html
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Sun Journal Letter to the Editor by CCTA Chairman, Nancy Murdoch
If something is said as truth enough times, many will assume that it is true.
However, regardless of how often it is said, the phrase separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Church, and is co-opted by those wishing to establish a secular, progressive state without God's love or wisdom.
The First Amendment simply states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A prayer before a public meeting does not establish a religion, but prohibiting of prayer certainly is in conflict with the free exercise thereof. Why exactly is the ACLU so offended? Why is the left so adamant about removing any reference to God or our Creator from the public square?
Anyone who has studied the framing of our Constitution or the formation of our Country knows full well that God and religion had a huge part in determining the form of government we would have. Our Founders were not perfect, but they wished to form a more perfect union. They knew that men are not angels and needed the restraints of religion and morality to guide them. Writings from almost all the Founders show a deep commitment to God and morality, and knew that those precepts were needed for a nation of free men and women to survive. Can anyone argue that as we have drifted away from those guidelines that our Country has not drifted away from freedom and more toward serfdom and tyranny?
Often the left has taken the Bible or religion to boost its own agenda, cherry picking verses to back up their idea of social justice or fairness, all the while ignoring the parts not fitting their ideology.
How ironic it is that the ACLU would fight to remove the Ten Commandments from public places, but does not fight for those same principles of honesty and decency espoused therein. When did edicts like thou shall not steal, commit murder, lie, or covet become a threat? Perhaps when it was permissible to overlook the lying, stealing, coveting and adultery of our public officials. We don't like to be reminded of how far we have fallen away from decency and honor.
Is the USA to become like Europe: full of beautiful churches and empty people?
Agree: Yes
However, regardless of how often it is said, the phrase separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Church, and is co-opted by those wishing to establish a secular, progressive state without God's love or wisdom.
The First Amendment simply states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A prayer before a public meeting does not establish a religion, but prohibiting of prayer certainly is in conflict with the free exercise thereof. Why exactly is the ACLU so offended? Why is the left so adamant about removing any reference to God or our Creator from the public square?
Anyone who has studied the framing of our Constitution or the formation of our Country knows full well that God and religion had a huge part in determining the form of government we would have. Our Founders were not perfect, but they wished to form a more perfect union. They knew that men are not angels and needed the restraints of religion and morality to guide them. Writings from almost all the Founders show a deep commitment to God and morality, and knew that those precepts were needed for a nation of free men and women to survive. Can anyone argue that as we have drifted away from those guidelines that our Country has not drifted away from freedom and more toward serfdom and tyranny?
Often the left has taken the Bible or religion to boost its own agenda, cherry picking verses to back up their idea of social justice or fairness, all the while ignoring the parts not fitting their ideology.
How ironic it is that the ACLU would fight to remove the Ten Commandments from public places, but does not fight for those same principles of honesty and decency espoused therein. When did edicts like thou shall not steal, commit murder, lie, or covet become a threat? Perhaps when it was permissible to overlook the lying, stealing, coveting and adultery of our public officials. We don't like to be reminded of how far we have fallen away from decency and honor.
Is the USA to become like Europe: full of beautiful churches and empty people?
Agree: Yes
Friday, March 2, 2012
The John Locke Foundation Cordially invites you to A Citizens' Constitutional Workshop in Morehead City, NC
with our special guests Dr. Troy Kickler and Dr. Michael Sanera
- Dr. Kickler is Founding Director of the NC History Project and Adjunct Professor of U.S. History at NCSU
- Dr. Sanera is Director of Research and Local Government Studies and Adjunct Professor in Political Science, NCSU
March 17 (Saturday), 2012, 9:00 am – 3:00 pm
Citizens' Constitutional Workshop
Workshop #2: "What would the Federalists and Anti-federalists say about the current political and economic crises?"
The workshop will be held at Joslyn Hall, Carteret Community College Morehead City , NC 28557 . The price is $5.00 and does not include lunch.
Register here: http://www.johnlocke.org/events/event.html?id=966
Join us for this exciting workshop on the U.S. and North Carolina Constitutons.
What would the Federalists and Anti-federalists say about the current political and economic crises? In a continuing effort to understand how the Founding Era relates to our current constitutional crisis, we offer this new workshop that focuses on what is arguably the most important debate of the Founding Era. The Federalist supported and Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution written in Philadelphia in 1787. Their arguments about the fundamental principles of our constitutional government still speak to us 224 years later.
Understanding this debate among some of our most famous founders enables us to clarify our present predicament. Even though they engaged in a vigorous and sometimes bitter debate over the meaning of the Constitution, both sides would be horrified with how the Constitution has been twisted and distorted by the progressive ideology, liberal court justices and presidents and congressmen all too willing to expand government to assure their immediate re-election.
A more fundamental understanding of this Founding Era debate will help us restore the Constitution to its proper place as the bedrock of our Republic.
Register here: http://www.johnlocke.org/events/event.html?id=966
Monday, January 2, 2012
THE MORNING BELL: New Year's Resolutions for Conservatives
The key to keeping your New Year's resolutions is to make them more realistic. Rather than try to drastically change the way you live, why not start with the more modest goal of changing the way you speak? And what better place to start for conservatives than with America's Founding principles?
As conservatives continue to rediscover the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it is important to use words and embrace ideas that are consistent with our Founding principles.
If you're fond of the term "states' rights," have a soft spot for nullification, are tempted by isolationism or are wary of equality, here are four simple resolutions to begin getting right with America's principles. Once you have these down, you can start correcting your friends and move on to other core concepts.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/02/morning-bell-new-years-resolutions-for-conservatives/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
As conservatives continue to rediscover the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it is important to use words and embrace ideas that are consistent with our Founding principles.
If you're fond of the term "states' rights," have a soft spot for nullification, are tempted by isolationism or are wary of equality, here are four simple resolutions to begin getting right with America's principles. Once you have these down, you can start correcting your friends and move on to other core concepts.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/02/morning-bell-new-years-resolutions-for-conservatives/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
WALTER WILLIAMS: Gross Media Ignorance About the Founders
July 5, 2011
Gross Media Ignorance About the Founders
By Walter Williams
There's little that's intelligent or informed about Time magazine editor Richard Stengel's article "One Document, Under Siege" (June 23, 2011). It contains many grossly ignorant statements about our Constitution.
If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say Stengel's article is part of a leftist agenda to undermine respect for the founding values of our nation.
Stengel says: "The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms -- freedom of speech, assembly, religion -- but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College." (I GET SO MAD WHEN I HEAR LIBERALS SPOUT THIS LIE!!!--Lynn)
My column last week addressed the compromise whereby each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College.
Had slaves been counted as whole people, slaveholding states would have had much greater political power. I agree the framers were not gods and were not infallible, but they had far greater wisdom and principle than today's politicians.
The framers held democracy and majority rule in deep contempt. As a matter of fact, the term democracy appears in none of our founding documents. James Madison argued that "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
John Adams said: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Stengel's majoritarian vision sees it as anti-democratic that South Dakota and California both have two senators, but the framers wanted to reduce the chances that highly populated states would run roughshod over thinly populated states. They established the Electoral College to serve the same purpose in determining the presidency.
The framers recognized that most human abuses were the result of government. As Thomas Paine said, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil."
Because of their distrust, the framers sought to keep the federal government limited in its power. Their distrust of Congress is seen in the language used throughout our Constitution.
The Bill of Rights says Congress shall not abridge, shall not infringe, shall not deny and other shall-nots, such as disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given, or natural, rights, they would not have provided those protections.
I've always argued that if we depart this world and see anything resembling the Bill of Rights at our next destination, we'll know we're in hell. A bill of rights in heaven would be an affront to God.
Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances, and several anti-majoritarian provisions, such as the Electoral College, two-thirds vote to override a veto and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes to the Constitution.
Stengel says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so." That statement is beyond ignorance. The 10th Amendment reads:
"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."
Stengel apparently has not read The Federalist No. 45, in which James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Stengel's article is five pages online, and I've only commented on the first. There's also little in the remaining pages that reflects understanding and respect for our nation's most important document.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/05/gross_media_ignorance_about_the_founders_110460.html
at July 06, 2011 - 04:43:19 PM PDT
Gross Media Ignorance About the Founders
By Walter Williams
There's little that's intelligent or informed about Time magazine editor Richard Stengel's article "One Document, Under Siege" (June 23, 2011). It contains many grossly ignorant statements about our Constitution.
If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say Stengel's article is part of a leftist agenda to undermine respect for the founding values of our nation.
Stengel says: "The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms -- freedom of speech, assembly, religion -- but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College." (I GET SO MAD WHEN I HEAR LIBERALS SPOUT THIS LIE!!!--Lynn)
My column last week addressed the compromise whereby each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College.
Had slaves been counted as whole people, slaveholding states would have had much greater political power. I agree the framers were not gods and were not infallible, but they had far greater wisdom and principle than today's politicians.
The framers held democracy and majority rule in deep contempt. As a matter of fact, the term democracy appears in none of our founding documents. James Madison argued that "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
John Adams said: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Stengel's majoritarian vision sees it as anti-democratic that South Dakota and California both have two senators, but the framers wanted to reduce the chances that highly populated states would run roughshod over thinly populated states. They established the Electoral College to serve the same purpose in determining the presidency.
The framers recognized that most human abuses were the result of government. As Thomas Paine said, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil."
Because of their distrust, the framers sought to keep the federal government limited in its power. Their distrust of Congress is seen in the language used throughout our Constitution.
The Bill of Rights says Congress shall not abridge, shall not infringe, shall not deny and other shall-nots, such as disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given, or natural, rights, they would not have provided those protections.
I've always argued that if we depart this world and see anything resembling the Bill of Rights at our next destination, we'll know we're in hell. A bill of rights in heaven would be an affront to God.
Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances, and several anti-majoritarian provisions, such as the Electoral College, two-thirds vote to override a veto and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes to the Constitution.
Stengel says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so." That statement is beyond ignorance. The 10th Amendment reads:
"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."
Stengel apparently has not read The Federalist No. 45, in which James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Stengel's article is five pages online, and I've only commented on the first. There's also little in the remaining pages that reflects understanding and respect for our nation's most important document.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/05/gross_media_ignorance_about_the_founders_110460.html
at July 06, 2011 - 04:43:19 PM PDT
Saturday, March 19, 2011
THE EFFECTIVE PATRIOT
I came across this today. As I was feeling sorry for myself, and more than a bit overwhelemed at the effort to help other Americans see the severity of what is going on in this country. I guess we all have our moments, when we tire, when we doubt what we can do. Sometimes God just leads you to what you need to see or hear. Enjoy, Lynn
THE EFFECTIVE PATRIOT
Posted by Paul Phaneuf on March 18, 2011 at 9:28pm
I wrote this on March 9th and sat on it because I found myself confronting my own human nature and the internal struggle of living up to what I know to be true. Sometimes reacting with anger is simply the way we would like to go because venting offers a type of relief. The effective patriot must cultivate a paradoxical and counterintuitive mindset.
It's not about blaming ourselves, it's about empowerment. The area of maximum effectiveness in the universe I inhabit is the attitudes and thoughts I allow in my own mind. If I change me, if I draw that line in the sand and take a stand, I change the whole world. I am powerless to enforce change in others, but I am mighty if I am willing to persuade with example and forthright and effective communication.
We change the world one person, one mind at a time and the easiest place to start is with ourselves. This is not irrelevant psychobabble; it is the real world in practice.
As I become better informed, I have more to share. As I practice tolerance, not of the victim doormat variety, but in a gentle teacher mode, I influence. I do not compel. As the old saying goes, a mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.
The goal is to help others have that “Ah-Ha” experience. We are enablers in the sense that we want to see the smile that reflects the dawning of the light of truth. This does not happen with a bludgeon. It happens when you realize that in possessing the truth, you have the cookie and if you offer it properly, in the end, eventually, everybody wants the cookie. You don’t force feed it. You offer it. If someone isn’t ready: NEXT! You have better things to do than to pee into the wind.
Passion is a must but if we forget that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we fail to notice when our passion is received as anger or nagging and rather than an open mind, our approach causes others to raise their defenses. Likewise, we need to accept that there are many who are entrenched in their views. Don’t waste your time. Find someone who is hungry.
Obviously, as conservatives we believe that liberals are standing in quicksand, their wagons are hauling emotional baggage, their minds are darkened by a plethora of baseless opinions disengaged from fact, and if they are among the elite, they alone can claim to be a member of the rare and pure among us who can get up from the morning throne and swear to the presence of the fragrance of lilacs as they lift their trousers.
But the ordinary run of the mill liberal is usually a misinformed but well intentioned and otherwise decent human being who just happens to be wrong. Since the mind expanding awareness of Obama’s pathologies has crept into the consciousness of the voting public, many of them have internalized a sense of unease and can smell the rot.
No one wants to be wrong. None of us part easily with our cherished beliefs, but most of us will keep one eye open to find the door that leads to a new comfort zone if our foundations are shaken.
Make no mistake about it. The liberal next door is probably one of the many sleeping Americans who have simply surrendered unwittingly to the programming of the Progressive elites and their liberal media cohorts. In the right circumstances, free from peer pressure, if offered the cookie and not the stick, they’ll sneak a nibble.
Think about it, a mind starved of truth, swallowing mental swill from the pigsty of liberalism. How can they not be hungry? How long can you eat poison and not get an upset stomach? Set it up, watch for the smile cause, baby, that nibble of the truth cookie tastes good. It satisfies.
I start with me. You start with you. We find someone hungry. We share a delicacy with them: truth, served on a platter of resolute determination, garnished with kindness, tempered with understanding. After all who among us has not overslept or pressed the snooze button more than once? I’m not talking phony Pollyanna pleasant here, but you don’t make an ally out of an enemy.
For the love of God don’t jam a funnel down their throat and unload a fifty pound bag of cookie dough in it. They WILL throw up and run like hell. Bring them along. Offer them reading, websites, social media. Try to share compelling information and insights in smaller doses.
Stay away from the deep edged fringe when you talk to someone you want to win to liberty’s cause, even if you’re convinced that you have uncovered the ultimate truth, because the uninitiated will not relate to you and will not be able to overcome their suspicion that you are a fruitcake and are a danger to the world as they perceive it. Their eyes will glaze over, they will internally shut you down, and they will back away.
And for the record, ff you tell me you don’t care about that, then you’re a jaded fool and I guarantee you’re a liability to the cause of freedom, not an asset. I am repulsed by arrogance because it plays into the enemy’s hands.
Stick to core values and principles based on our country’s Founding documents. I remember always that I am a sovereign man under God and so is the person I’m talking to even if we disagree. And offer something really radical: patience and non judgmental friendship. It’s the first step to becoming an effective Patriot.
You do it one person at a time. Steadfastly, you move on to the next. Now you’re changing the world.
http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/the-effective-patriot
THE EFFECTIVE PATRIOT
Posted by Paul Phaneuf on March 18, 2011 at 9:28pm
I wrote this on March 9th and sat on it because I found myself confronting my own human nature and the internal struggle of living up to what I know to be true. Sometimes reacting with anger is simply the way we would like to go because venting offers a type of relief. The effective patriot must cultivate a paradoxical and counterintuitive mindset.
It's not about blaming ourselves, it's about empowerment. The area of maximum effectiveness in the universe I inhabit is the attitudes and thoughts I allow in my own mind. If I change me, if I draw that line in the sand and take a stand, I change the whole world. I am powerless to enforce change in others, but I am mighty if I am willing to persuade with example and forthright and effective communication.
We change the world one person, one mind at a time and the easiest place to start is with ourselves. This is not irrelevant psychobabble; it is the real world in practice.
As I become better informed, I have more to share. As I practice tolerance, not of the victim doormat variety, but in a gentle teacher mode, I influence. I do not compel. As the old saying goes, a mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.
The goal is to help others have that “Ah-Ha” experience. We are enablers in the sense that we want to see the smile that reflects the dawning of the light of truth. This does not happen with a bludgeon. It happens when you realize that in possessing the truth, you have the cookie and if you offer it properly, in the end, eventually, everybody wants the cookie. You don’t force feed it. You offer it. If someone isn’t ready: NEXT! You have better things to do than to pee into the wind.
Passion is a must but if we forget that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we fail to notice when our passion is received as anger or nagging and rather than an open mind, our approach causes others to raise their defenses. Likewise, we need to accept that there are many who are entrenched in their views. Don’t waste your time. Find someone who is hungry.
Obviously, as conservatives we believe that liberals are standing in quicksand, their wagons are hauling emotional baggage, their minds are darkened by a plethora of baseless opinions disengaged from fact, and if they are among the elite, they alone can claim to be a member of the rare and pure among us who can get up from the morning throne and swear to the presence of the fragrance of lilacs as they lift their trousers.
But the ordinary run of the mill liberal is usually a misinformed but well intentioned and otherwise decent human being who just happens to be wrong. Since the mind expanding awareness of Obama’s pathologies has crept into the consciousness of the voting public, many of them have internalized a sense of unease and can smell the rot.
No one wants to be wrong. None of us part easily with our cherished beliefs, but most of us will keep one eye open to find the door that leads to a new comfort zone if our foundations are shaken.
Make no mistake about it. The liberal next door is probably one of the many sleeping Americans who have simply surrendered unwittingly to the programming of the Progressive elites and their liberal media cohorts. In the right circumstances, free from peer pressure, if offered the cookie and not the stick, they’ll sneak a nibble.
Think about it, a mind starved of truth, swallowing mental swill from the pigsty of liberalism. How can they not be hungry? How long can you eat poison and not get an upset stomach? Set it up, watch for the smile cause, baby, that nibble of the truth cookie tastes good. It satisfies.
I start with me. You start with you. We find someone hungry. We share a delicacy with them: truth, served on a platter of resolute determination, garnished with kindness, tempered with understanding. After all who among us has not overslept or pressed the snooze button more than once? I’m not talking phony Pollyanna pleasant here, but you don’t make an ally out of an enemy.
For the love of God don’t jam a funnel down their throat and unload a fifty pound bag of cookie dough in it. They WILL throw up and run like hell. Bring them along. Offer them reading, websites, social media. Try to share compelling information and insights in smaller doses.
Stay away from the deep edged fringe when you talk to someone you want to win to liberty’s cause, even if you’re convinced that you have uncovered the ultimate truth, because the uninitiated will not relate to you and will not be able to overcome their suspicion that you are a fruitcake and are a danger to the world as they perceive it. Their eyes will glaze over, they will internally shut you down, and they will back away.
And for the record, ff you tell me you don’t care about that, then you’re a jaded fool and I guarantee you’re a liability to the cause of freedom, not an asset. I am repulsed by arrogance because it plays into the enemy’s hands.
Stick to core values and principles based on our country’s Founding documents. I remember always that I am a sovereign man under God and so is the person I’m talking to even if we disagree. And offer something really radical: patience and non judgmental friendship. It’s the first step to becoming an effective Patriot.
You do it one person at a time. Steadfastly, you move on to the next. Now you’re changing the world.
http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/the-effective-patriot
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Origin of Law by: John Ainsworth
What is the Origin of Law in our country?
A few quotes from our founders will help us, “We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” ~James Madison
READ MORE AND WATCH THE BRIEF VIDEO: http://americasremedy.com/index.php
A few quotes from our founders will help us, “We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” ~James Madison
READ MORE AND WATCH THE BRIEF VIDEO: http://americasremedy.com/index.php
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Citizens' Constitutional Workshop
The Eastern NC Teaparty and Dr. William Kozel and Pastor Gerald Fowler invite and encourage you to attend the following event.
The John Locke Foundation Cordially invites you to
A Citizens' Constitutional Workshop in La Grange, NC
Saturday, February 19, 2011 -- 10:00am-4:00pm
with presenters Dr. Troy Kickler & Dr. Michael Sanera
- Dr. Kickler, founding Director of the NC history Project & Adjunct Professor of United States History, NC State University.
- Dr. Sanera, Director of Research & Local Government Studies & Adjunct Professor in Political Science, NC State University.
What the Founders and the State Ratification Conventions Can Teach Us Today
Trinity Free Will Baptist Church Auditorium: 6260 Washington Rd. La Grange, NC 28551
Price: $7.00- includes lunch
Pre-registration is strongly suggested, purchase tickets at the bottom of this page.
The past 100 years of Progressive ideology have almost destroyed the US Constitution. This generation must restore the Constitution's original intent of limited, federal government based on the rule of law.
This workshop provides today's Patriots with the intellectual tools to restore original intent and repair the damage done. It explains what the framers meant by phrases such as the "general welfare," "necessary and proper" and other so-called "elastic" clauses. In addition we explore the North Carolina ratification debates and reveal how the Tar Heel State ensured that the Bill of Rights was added. By examining the important role of the states in the nation's beginning and providing constitutional commentary based on the founders' words, this workshop is a must for Americans interested in preserving the United States and a federal form of government.
What the experts are saying about "A Citizens' Constitutional Workshop"
"The John Locke Foundation's workshop on the Constitution will provide a solid foundation for anyone interested in understanding the Founders' experiment in republican government. By taking a federal perspective upon the original understanding, students will learn how the Revolution was fulfilled by the Constitution -- and gain insight into the divergence between the world of James Madison, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson and the USA of today." ~ Kevin Gutzman, History Professor, Western Connecticut State University. Author of Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution and Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush.
"While we have paid much attention over the years to the Constitution's drafting, we have paid relatively little attention to the intricate process by which it came to be ratified, and the role that the ratification debates played in the shaping of the Constitution's final form. Thanks to Pauline Maier's splendid recent book on the subject, however, attention is finally being paid to these fascinating, and still very germane, topics. This workshop will be an expression of that renewed interest, which is not only an interest in the Constitution itself but also in the true sources of its legitimacy." ~ Wilfred M. McClay, SunTrust Chair of Excellence in Humanities, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Author of The Masterless: Self and Society in Modern America
"A constitution is meaningless if its original intent is not preserved. "A Citizens' Constitutional Workshop" has embarked on a project to retrieve the original intent of the Constitution through the most reliable, yet overlooked, means at our disposal--the states. The innovative method of this project combined with its ambition to retrieve our Constitution, and with it the true meaning of limited government, makes it the most important project of its kind. Troy Kickler and Michael Sanera are following in the Founders' footsteps by bringing this discussion to a public forum which is certainly the best place to start." ~ Kyle Scott, Ph.D., Department of Political Science and Honors College, University of Houston. Author of The Price of Politics:Lessons from Kelo v. City of New London and Dismantling American Common Law: Liberty and Justice in our Transformed Courts.
"The Key to the Constitution, as James Madison said, is the State ratifying conventions, and North Carolina played a pivotal role in defining the nature and scope of federal power. The American people will gain a better understanding of the original intent of the Constitution if they can digest how members of the State ratifying conventions argued for and against the document." ~ Brion McClanahan, Ph.D., History Instructor, Chattahoochee Valley Community College. Author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers.
Please register at: http://www.johnlocke.org/events/event.html?id=874
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Federalist No. 59
Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members
New York Packet
Friday, February 22, 1788
To the People of the State of New York:
THE natural order of the subject leads us to consider, in this place, that provision of the Constitution which authorizes the national legislature to regulate, in the last resort, the election of its own members. It is in these words: "The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators."1 This provision has not only been declaimed against by those who condemn the Constitution in the gross, but it has been censured by those who have objected with less latitude and greater moderation; and, in one instance it has been thought exceptionable by a gentleman who has declared himself the advocate of every other part of the system.
Read the full paper: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41357
New York Packet
Friday, February 22, 1788
To the People of the State of New York:
THE natural order of the subject leads us to consider, in this place, that provision of the Constitution which authorizes the national legislature to regulate, in the last resort, the election of its own members. It is in these words: "The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators."1 This provision has not only been declaimed against by those who condemn the Constitution in the gross, but it has been censured by those who have objected with less latitude and greater moderation; and, in one instance it has been thought exceptionable by a gentleman who has declared himself the advocate of every other part of the system.
Read the full paper: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41357
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Happy Bill of Rights Day!
Celebrate Bill of Rights Day on December 15th and help guarantee our freedoms endure!
The amendments in the Bill of Rights do not “give” anyone anything. However, the Bill of Rights protections do stop the government from doing certain things. This kind of limited government is the essence of liberty: the freedom to act without unauthorized restraint.
The addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution was celebrated as a victory for the champions of individual liberty. But for the Bill of Rights to remain more than what Madison referred to as a “parchment barrier,” citizens must understand the content and meaning.
On Bill of Rights Day, please join us and commit to reading through the first ten Amendments with your family, friends, and co-workers as a reminder of the rights we have as American citizens.
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/teach/freeresources/foundingdocuments/Docs/TheBillofRightsInstitute_BillofRights.pdf
The Bill of Rights: Introduction
http://www.billofrightsday.com/about/
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, George Mason and Elbridge Gerry called for a bill of rights to be included in the document. They pointed out that since the Constitution was supreme over state law, state bills of rights were no security. These appeals were rejected, however. The Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, and the stage was set for a national debate about the need for a bill of rights. Those in favor of the Constitution as written became known as Federalists, while those demanding a bill of rights were called the Anti-Federalists.
Who Were The Federalists?
Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton from New York and James Madison from Virginia, did not believe a bill of rights was needed. They strongly supported the Constitution as written, because the Constitution carefully limited the government’s powers. If a specific power was not listed, it meant the government did not have it. Hamilton and Madison also worried that a list of rights might make the people too aggressive in asserting those rights, causing people to abandon the moderation that self-government requires. Federalists also knew it would be impossible to list every right. They believed that what would be at best a partial list of rights might lead people to think that the rights that were not listed were less important.
Who Were The Anti-Federalists?
Anti-Federalists, including Mason and fellow Virginian Patrick Henry, were not convinced. They feared a strong central government would threaten the freedoms they had fought a revolution to preserve. They believed that the “necessary and proper” clause gave Congress too much power, and pointed to the national government’s power to tax and its supremacy over state law as other signs of danger. Thomas Jefferson, who was serving in Paris as ambassador to France during the Constitutional Convention, received a copy of the Constitution and was anxious to share his thoughts with Madison. Jefferson immediately objected to “the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly…for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies,” and other rights. Jefferson challenged Madison’s concerns about listing rights, arguing that when it came to securing liberty, “Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.”
What Was Madison’s Role In Securing The Bill of Rights?
As states proceeded to debate ratification of the Constitution, there were repeated calls for the addition of a bill of rights. Madison realized that the addition of a bill of rights was in the new nation’s best interest. In 1789, he began convincing his fellow congressmen, who were mostly Federalists, to support a bill of rights that would highlight some of America’s most important freedoms without undermining the recently ratified Constitution. After a summer-long debate, the House sent a list of seventeen amendments to the Senate. The Senate approved twelve amendments, which Congress sent to the states for ratification in the fall. After Virginia ratified the amendments on December 15, 1791, ten of the twelve amendments had become the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution—the Bill of Rights.
Celebrate Bill of Rights Day: We hope you join us in celebrating Bill of Rights Day. Here are a few ideas of how to incorporate this into your day.
http://www.billofrightsday.com/celebrate-bill-of-rights-day/
The amendments in the Bill of Rights do not “give” anyone anything. However, the Bill of Rights protections do stop the government from doing certain things. This kind of limited government is the essence of liberty: the freedom to act without unauthorized restraint.
The addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution was celebrated as a victory for the champions of individual liberty. But for the Bill of Rights to remain more than what Madison referred to as a “parchment barrier,” citizens must understand the content and meaning.
On Bill of Rights Day, please join us and commit to reading through the first ten Amendments with your family, friends, and co-workers as a reminder of the rights we have as American citizens.
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/teach/freeresources/foundingdocuments/Docs/TheBillofRightsInstitute_BillofRights.pdf
The Bill of Rights: Introduction
http://www.billofrightsday.com/about/
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, George Mason and Elbridge Gerry called for a bill of rights to be included in the document. They pointed out that since the Constitution was supreme over state law, state bills of rights were no security. These appeals were rejected, however. The Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, and the stage was set for a national debate about the need for a bill of rights. Those in favor of the Constitution as written became known as Federalists, while those demanding a bill of rights were called the Anti-Federalists.
Who Were The Federalists?
Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton from New York and James Madison from Virginia, did not believe a bill of rights was needed. They strongly supported the Constitution as written, because the Constitution carefully limited the government’s powers. If a specific power was not listed, it meant the government did not have it. Hamilton and Madison also worried that a list of rights might make the people too aggressive in asserting those rights, causing people to abandon the moderation that self-government requires. Federalists also knew it would be impossible to list every right. They believed that what would be at best a partial list of rights might lead people to think that the rights that were not listed were less important.
Who Were The Anti-Federalists?
Anti-Federalists, including Mason and fellow Virginian Patrick Henry, were not convinced. They feared a strong central government would threaten the freedoms they had fought a revolution to preserve. They believed that the “necessary and proper” clause gave Congress too much power, and pointed to the national government’s power to tax and its supremacy over state law as other signs of danger. Thomas Jefferson, who was serving in Paris as ambassador to France during the Constitutional Convention, received a copy of the Constitution and was anxious to share his thoughts with Madison. Jefferson immediately objected to “the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly…for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies,” and other rights. Jefferson challenged Madison’s concerns about listing rights, arguing that when it came to securing liberty, “Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.”
What Was Madison’s Role In Securing The Bill of Rights?
As states proceeded to debate ratification of the Constitution, there were repeated calls for the addition of a bill of rights. Madison realized that the addition of a bill of rights was in the new nation’s best interest. In 1789, he began convincing his fellow congressmen, who were mostly Federalists, to support a bill of rights that would highlight some of America’s most important freedoms without undermining the recently ratified Constitution. After a summer-long debate, the House sent a list of seventeen amendments to the Senate. The Senate approved twelve amendments, which Congress sent to the states for ratification in the fall. After Virginia ratified the amendments on December 15, 1791, ten of the twelve amendments had become the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution—the Bill of Rights.
Celebrate Bill of Rights Day: We hope you join us in celebrating Bill of Rights Day. Here are a few ideas of how to incorporate this into your day.
http://www.billofrightsday.com/celebrate-bill-of-rights-day/
Friday, November 19, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
REALITY REPORT #59 - DOJ Defines Constitutionalists as Terrorists
Family reports child's textbok, "American Government," by Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, distorts the role of government, glorifys hate groups and aligns itself wit CNN educators! And more! Founding Documents are threats to Federal Government! and
Other stories: $50,000 federal grant for RFID Chips to track Preschoolers!
ABC, NBC, and CBS: 710 employees of these major networks donated $1 Million
to the Democratic Party in 2008, $461, 000 was to Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHe_gbxPzak
Other stories: $50,000 federal grant for RFID Chips to track Preschoolers!
ABC, NBC, and CBS: 710 employees of these major networks donated $1 Million
to the Democratic Party in 2008, $461, 000 was to Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHe_gbxPzak
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
