Negative Liberties

In a 2001 radio interview, our President said, in part, "... that generally. the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, ..." Ever since I first that quote, and there is a larger context with other things in it I took issue with, the term "negative liberties" has bugged me. I do not ever remember reading anything by our Founding Fathers that used that term. So I did a little investigating and found out where the term came from. Generally, the term is the modern-day equivalent of what our Founding Fathers called "natural rights".

Doesn't the term "negative liberties" sound like a bad thing? Well, it's not but it is an interesting choice of terms. Pres O used it correctly but it further points to his basic belief that the government should be doing more for the people. This concept of deeper government intrusion into people's lives to provide social justice and equally distribute wealth are among concepts that our President has voiced support of on many occasions. Health Care and the new Financial bill are just two examples.

The basic assumption here is that people will never do the right thing until the government steps in and makes them do it. Charity will not happen without the government forcefully removing wealth and redistributing it to those who do not have it. Care for the sick and needy will never occur unless the government mandates it as law. It is unfortunate that our President has such a low opinion of the American Spirit. I guess we should just ignore the fact that we are the most generous nation on the earth and that this fact is common knowledge among all nations.

The term "negative liberties" was not used by our Founding Fathers because they did not think of our liberties as a "negative" anything. Yes, the term does mean liberties that may not be restricted and, hence, the term "negative" but there are better and less derogatory ways to refer to them. Unless, of course, you're trying to convince people that there is some fundamental flaw in our Constitution. Then use of the term makes a lot of sense.

Our President is a man of words. He carefully chooses the words he uses to get the correct emotional response from the listener. He is a man who always wants you to feel that he is on your side and sympathizes with you even when he could care less. He is very much someone who says whatever is expedient and then goes out and does whatever he wants. Basically, we, the American people, do not figure into his plans (other than to finance them).

The Founding Fathers saw us as imbued with all kinds of rights, so many that enumerating them in a document was ridiculous. It was a lot easier, and shorter, to enumerate what the government could restrict for the common good. Scribes get tired, you know. So the government cannot restrict the rights given to me by God unless explicitly granted the power to do so by the Constitution. This includes taking my property under the guise of "redistribution of wealth". I am entitled to keep my property and that includes the wages I earn for a living. I can distribute it as I see fit but the government has no right to it. This concept is complete at odds with our President and his philosophy of government and the current operation of the Federal government.

So the concept of our government, as delineated in the Constitution, is for me to be personally responsible for exercising all my various rights (right to succeed or fail, right to property, right to life, right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness to name a few) and the government should basically stay out of my business. There are few things our government should be doing for us (like providing for the common defense) and that is a good thing. People should be self-sufficient. It builds character and makes for a peaceful society when people have purpose and are gainfully employed. It also makes for a prosperous society and everyone benefits from that.

Feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless were intended to remain the domain of the Church. Man, have they dropped the ball. Churches should be doing so much for our sick and indigent that there should be no one available to make use of a government program. This, unfortunately, is not the case. Churches are doing what they can. Homeless shelters and charitable organizations are doing all that they can but funds are limited. People would contribute more if they had more to contribute. But taking my money as taxes and giving it to someone who wants to build a tunnel under a highway to accommodate turtles is just plain sinful.

We are being driven in the opposite direction from the Founder's vision of how this country should work. Time to put on the brakes and turn this bus around. The only way we are going to do that is to vote everyone out of office this November. A complete purging of the House will be a good start. We'll retake the Presidency and Senate in 2012.

The correct hierarchy of power in this country was intended to be God then the people then the states and last, but least, the Federal government. Let's get back to that and restore We The People to the driver's seat.

Why God Needs To Be Removed From American Society

You are probably aware of the move afoot to secularize American society. We have all heard of the battle to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency as well as the demonic effect that having the 10 Commandments in a courtroom or classroom causes. Refusal to say "One nation, under God" in our pledge of allegiance, the misused and misrepresented arguments about the separation of Church and State as well as the horrors of Christmas displays on government property.

There is a segment of American society that is bound and determined to make sure that God is never mentioned in anything governmental. They believe that God and government do not mix. But is that viewpoint correct? Is that what our Founding Fathers believed?

The men that founded this country and who authored the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were well studied in what does and does not work in governments throughout history. One thing they discovered in their studies was that a Federal Republic was the wisest form of government for this nation to have. However, in order to make it work properly and to maintain it's longevity, they also realized that it would be necessary for the leaders running the government to be moral and virtuous.

And what produces moral and virtuous leaders? A moral and virtuous people. And what creates moral and virtuous people? Well, W. Cleon Skousen has part of the answer in the 2nd principle that our Founding Fathers held to in creating this nation. Ben Franklin said it best, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

George Washington then finished the thought for him in his Farewell Address, "Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with cauthion indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education ... reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in the exclusion of religious principle."

Yes, religion is critical in maintaining a moral and virtuous people. The churches in our nation play a vital role in making our government work as it should. Without religion, and God, our leaders become "corrupt and vicious". And we are seeing that played out in Washington today. Imagine if God was removed from government altogether. We're pretty close to that happening.

The other reason why God can never be removed from American society lies in the Declaration of Independence. It reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." No God, no unalienable rights. It's that simple. And if God does not grant us our rights, who does? The government. If the government grants rights, it can easily take them away. Can you say "Hugo Chavez?"

When the government is totally in control of your life you are either living in a Dictatorship or an Oligarchy (rule by the few) or the like. You are definitely not living in a constitutional republic. Suspend God from society and government and you suspend the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Without these documents, we are not America.

The lame argument of separation of church and state is used to justify this action of removing God and all religious references from our government. But this is a ruse. First off, the words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in any any of our founding documents. Second, it is a perversion of a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to someone explaining why there should never be a State-run church. However, our Founding Fathers, as you have already read, fully intended for the church to influence the government and for God to be the authority that people could appeal to when the government was out of control. The people's authority to run this country comes from God alone. Not from law, not from the government. God grants the people the rights to govern themselves and government is subject to the will of the people in executing their duties in governing.

There is a natural order to this and it is not for our government or anyone else to violate that natural order.

So it breaks down simply to this: No God, no America. Therefore, we can never be a secular society. God must remain in our government to remind the governing that they serve the people only by God's grace. Thus the term Public Servant.

Then what is the goal of those who would secularize America. It can only be to destroy this nation and what it stands for so that our God-given rights and form of government can be replaced with something that does not include God such as Socialism or Communism or a Dictatorship or an Oligarchy or a Monarchy.

We need to push back. The Ten Commandments need to be restored to all courts in America. People should have to swear on a Bible prior to giving testimony. "One nation, under God" needs to remain in our pledge and our money should continue to read "In God We Trust".

Now I realize that all this causes a problem for Agnostics (people who don't know what they believe) and Atheists who do not believe in God. They will just have to work this out if they want to live in this country. There are plenty of places in this world they can live that do not involve God in their system of government. America is not one of them and should never be.

This November, go behind the candidates into their private lives. Make sure they are moral and virtuous people before committing your powerful vote to them.

The Number One Issue For The Tea Party

Seeing as how I've tea-bagged myself into the Tea Party, I think I should pontificate on what I think their number one issue should be for this election. Two words: TERM LIMITS. I believe that everyone who is Tea Party approved for the November election should support getting term limits placed on Congress.

We have seen what constant re-election brings out in Senators and House members over the years: arrogance and entitlement. Some of the current members of Congress have been there so long they believe it is their right. I remember the news media referring to Scott Brown's seat in Massachusetts as the "Kennedy" seat and how that infuriated me. No one has a right to claim a Senate or House seat as their own. For Heaven sakes, they are there to serve the public not the other way around.

We've all seen what spending too much time as a lawmaker has done to Princess Nancy and Prince Harry. If only the little people could understand their plight. Only they carry the burden of knowing what is good for us since we are unable to decide that for ourselves. How unselfish and humanitarian of them.

And let's keep this term limits thing simple. Two terms in either house and you are through with that section of Congress. Thank you for your service, now give someone else a chance at governing. Yes, that does mean that someone could spend two terms in the House and two in the Senate but the worst we would have to suffer is 16 years of them. Now there is lots of room for negotiation here. I would be open to one term in the Senate and/or three terms in the House for a total of 12 years. Fewer years is better. I would also be open to other combinations but let's keep to serving for a max of 10-15 years total.

Term limits have the distinct advantage of providing fresh blood to Washington and keeping the special interests from becoming entrenched. Does this guarantee an end to corruption? No, but electing people of character will do that job.

So this year, push the candidates on the issue of term limits. See if the person you will be voting for will support term limits or not. How? Email them and ask them or give them a call.

The ruling class in Washington must be disbanded before we end up with a Dictatorship or an Oligarchy (rule by the few). Let's get our voice listened to again in Washington. Vote for Tea Party approved candidates that support term limits for Senators and House members.

Oh, yeah, and while we're at it, let's try and get Senators appointed by State Legislatures again rather than being elected by popular vote. Our Founding Fathers thought it was the right way to run this republic and we should get back to it.