If you would be a king, you must have subjects. But as it is no longer possible to command an army and go off to invade and conquer some unsuspecting country, how do you subdue your own countrymen, particularly if they are a truly free and independent people? For the progressives, this has been their primary question and the answer has been 100 years in the making. Aided and abetted by the evil of despotic progressivism in Europe that resulted in both World Wars, the self-perceived intellectual elites have slowly and carefully twisted the inherent goodness and morals upon which the Founding Fathers created this great nation. Asking over and over that those who would work hard and achieve be “thy brother’s keeper” they forged the chains of modern slavery in the form of federal taxes, Social Security taxes, and Medicare taxes. Insidiously, they have born down upon the Declaration of Independence’s statement that “all men are created equal” to craft class after class of “victims”, whole groups upon whom they could impress the idea that they were somehow not truly “equal”; conveniently forgetting that the Constitution promises us only equality in the freedom to choose, not equality in the inherent consequences of our choices.
This is not to say that America’s evolution of the definition of equality has not had some merit. To be sure, to insist that women and all people of color and ethnic origin may have equal opportunity to the inalienable Right to pursue their own, individual Happiness is a good thing, for Liberty is, in Her own way, as blind as Lady Justice and therefore anyone may take their hand. The problem has come from removing the Great Blindfolds and forcing someone else’s vision of equality of outcome because this can only be accomplished at the expense of others.
That so many Americans have fallen victim (sorry!) to these distortions was seen in the election of Barack Hussein Obama. On the surface, for America to elect its first black president (even though he is only half black, which makes all the hoopla over it rather half-assed, in my not-so-humble opinion) was, indeed, a vindication of our Constitution. Yet, as has been proven in the year since, his election was also a most wicked and reeling blow to it. All his teleprompted rhetoric spoke not to the basic, fundamental and Constitutional values of America, but to the twisted distortions of those values so long and patiently pandered by progressives. And so America elected a man who would be king, not a president.
There wasn’t a moment of hesitation before he began his inside job of enslaving his fellow countrymen and, whether they understood why it was happening or not, Americans have watched in worried concern as:
The feds deliberately crashed Wall Street and thereby deliberately trashed the housing market.
The feds took over 2/3 of the American automotive industry.
Unemployment reached double-digits nationwide.
The feds continue to take down the banks.
Unemployment benefits were extended because businesses cannot or refuse to hire under current circumstances.
Congress voted to allow the federal government to take over the health care industry.
Congress voted to allow the federal government to take over the business of student loans.
The feds are now forcing banks to modify loans for the unemployed or underwater or overspent.
Social Security has officially run out of money.
And it is slowly starting to dawn on Americans that all of these activities are being paid for by them. I recently came across a 2008 article about taxes. In it, Matt Towery noted:
“…there’s a huge segment of the American population that believes they pay no taxes at all!
You read right. We polled full-time employed Americans and asked them, “Last year, did you pay taxes to the federal government, get a refund or both?”
An amazing 40 percent of respondents said they received a refund only. They didn’t say they paid taxes and then received a refund. They only said that they received a refund.
Nearly half the country believes that they don’t pay taxes to the federal government. They probably know they pay sales and other taxes, such as tolls. But because of our system of payroll withholdings, these folks never notice that on their pay stubs, it says clearly that they are taking home a lot less money than they are being paid by their employers.
So is it any wonder that when this vast portion of the American public is asked whether they believe we should all pay more taxes, in order to bankroll certain popular causes, that they’re often all for it? “
It’s almost laughable. And while I know that in most of the circles I travel regularly there isn’t anyone who isn’t aware of their federal tax payments, there are some, and dare I say too many, who are really that stupid. Perhaps most infamously exemplified by this exchange that was broadcast on WJR radio in Detroit, Michigan during the 2008 presidential campaigns:
ROGULSKI: Why are you here?
WOMAN #1: To get some money.
ROGULSKI: What kind of money?
WOMAN #1: Obama money.
ROGULSKI: Where’s it coming from?
WOMAN #1: Obama.
ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?
WOMAN #1: I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. (laughter) I don’t know where he got it from, but he givin’ it to us, to help us.
WOMAN #2: And we love him.
WOMAN #1: We love him. That’s why we voted for him!
WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)
And another one:
ROGULSKI: Did you get an application to fill out yet?
WOMAN: I sure did. And I filled it out, and I am waiting to see what the results are going to be.
ROGULSKI: Will you know today how much money you’re getting?
WOMAN: No, I won’t, but I’m waiting for a phone call.
ROGULSKI: Where’s the money coming from?
WOMAN: I believe it’s coming from the City of Detroit or the state.
ROGULSKI: Where did they get it from?
WOMAN: Some funds that was forgiven (sic) by Obama.
ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get the funds?
WOMAN: Obama getting the funds from… Ummm, I have no idea, to tell you the truth. He’s the president.
ROGULSKI: In downtown Detroit, Ken Rogulski, WJR News.
All this from Lydon Johnson’s poster child “Model City”, of course. A place that remains a staunch Democrat outpost, represented by the likes of long-past-expiration-dates John Conyers and the Levin brothers. A place that has become a veritable melting pot of progressive labeled “victims”: blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, and union workers, just to name a few.
Sadly, these people were raised to think this way. Raised by the progressive ideology that because they are some sort of “victim” they are entitled to the fruits of another’s labor. And in other, similarly progressive strongholds like California, I can’t help but feel concern as I watch them decide to put the legalization of marijuana on their ballot. It strikes me as just the thing a modern would-be king and his potential court would do in order to continue to dumb down and subdue a population they wished to conquer. Oh, sure, the state government is thinking there is money to be made that could help their billions of dollars of debt, and were we governed as intended by the Founding Fathers I personally don’t think I’d have a problem with all drugs being legal and taxed and with appropriate consequences when consumption of them causes harm to another person, however, we don’t live in our Founding Fathers’ world any more, Toto. No, we live in a land where freedom and responsibility have been disconnected and the consequences of actions are beholden upon the class of “victim” to which you belong, defined by the whims of the federal government.
After the Senate passed a “fix-it” bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an “income shift” to help the poor.
“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said. “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”
Never mind that the so-called “wealthy” have been progressively and arbitrarily redefined to be anyone making over $250,000 a year, the vast majority of them very hard-working small business owners who, after paying their employees and all other business expenses, realistically find themselves living on far, far less than that. No, sir, they are now a pesky problem, the selfish oafs, and must be forced to share with those who have been taught from their welfare-funded birth ’tis better to receive than to give.
All of this, then, leads to the thought of serfdom. That place where one is born, one lives, and then one dies for no other purpose except that of being an object, a tool. Needs are provided solely to the extent they allow you to be productive in the manner the overseer requires to benefit the elite. There is irony in the fact that America’s first black president is hell-bent on enslaving Americans to that same measure as was once so prevalent in Europe during the Middle Ages; though in some dark, unexamined cranny in the back of his blind and narrow little mind it is perhaps perceived more as some sort of poetic justice, a seed-thought planted there by the likes of left-wing terrorists, communists, and radicals, Ayers, Davis, and Wright.
It is hard to imagine that the descendents, both physical and spiritual, of those who took their freedom from King George and later stormed the beach at Normandy in but one in a long series of defenses of liberty would allow themselves to be placed into the servitude of those who have never performed an honest day’s work in their lives. And yet that is exactly the unintended consequence Americans now face in electing as president a man who would be king.
Serfdom, USA.
Bob Nuckolls says
The Honorable Legislator’s Creed: This I Believe
I. This I believe: Liberty is a state of existence where one is free of force or fraud against their persons and their property. Defense of liberty for every citizen is the foundation upon which our nation stands. No individual or agency of government has a right to command anything of any honorable citizen. Nor may they confiscate value from the property of any honorable citizen. It is a fundamental right of every honorable citizen to be left alone. Anyone who rationalizes an attack upon liberty as: “an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice for the greater good” is displaying symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
II. This I believe: Honorable behavior is the mechanism by which liberty is defended. The honorable citizen defends liberty for themselves and their family. The heroic citizen assumes personal risk in protection of liberty for their fellow citizens. Anyone who counsels patience and passive restraint while waiting for individuals bearing tools of defense to race to your aid is displaying symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
III. This I believe: When confronted by dishonorable behavior, the honorable citizen has a duty to employ what ever tools of defense are at hand for the purpose of mitigating risks generated by that behavior. Any force up to and including deadly force may be employed to protect the person and property of themselves or any other citizen. Anyone who seeks to deprive the honorable citizen access to any tool for the protection of liberty is displaying symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
IV. This I believe: The Constitution of the United States was written in plain English for the benefit of all citizens. There are no hidden meanings that require interpretation beyond that which any educated citizen might read and understand for themselves. Individuals offering extraordinary, mystical or elitist interpretations of words in the Constitution are displaying symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
V. This I believe: The law under our constitution is a public extension of the private citizen’s right to self defense. The law is about securing justice for the dishonorable behaviors of others. The consequences of dishonorable behavior call for investigation, apprehension, detention, impartial examination of fact, and just consequences for individuals found guilty. The law is a tool for applying a measured and just response to dishonorable behaviors of individuals. The law cannot be a shield. Further, the law under our Constitution is NOT a tool for the despotic progressives to effect social engineering or plunder.
VI. This I believe: The Constitution is quite clear in the enumeration of duties and powers chartered to the federal government. Nonetheless, the legislative behaviors by the federal government of the United States have been running amok for over 100 years. Worse yet, the courts have torturously revised history of the nation and the court’s own case records to validate a despotic progressive rampage through a legislative candy shop. The result is that a vast majority of federal legislation over the past century is decidedly unconstitutional. Anyone observed to minimize, ridicule or brush aside questions of constitutionality are displaying symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
VII. This I believe: No citizen, no officer of government, no court has a charter under the Constitution to force any honorable citizen to do anything. Anyone who proposes, supports or implements any law or regulation that attacks the liberty of any honorable citizen is displaying the symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
VIII. This I believe: The law under our Constitution is blind to age, sex, religion, physical condition, or ethnicity. The only status which the government may question is that of legal age and citizenship. Constitutional law is a response to an attack upon the liberty of a citizen and applies equally to every citizen irrespective of cultural, economic or societal station. Anyone who promotes, supports or implements any law or regulation that sets one honorable citizen apart from another is displaying the symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
IX. This I believe: The honorable legislator under our Constitution will propose no law nor will they support any law which attacks the liberty of an honorable citizen. Any candidate for office who does not embrace this first principal of government is not qualified to hold office under our Constitution.
X. This I believe: The honorable legislator under our Constitution will act at the federal level to either rescind or otherwise disable any existing law, regulation, or institution of government, which violates the liberty of any honorable citizen. Employees of government involved in the promotion and enforcement of unconstitutional law will be ordered to immediately cease and desist all such activities. And further . . .
XI. This I believe: In crafting the Kentucky Resolution of 1799, Thomas Jefferson tells us that when the federal government brings an unconstitutional law into effect the states have recourse to declare such laws unconstitutional, null and void. The honorable federal legislator under our Constitution will encourage their home state’s legislature to take judicial notice of unconstitutional action by the federal government. Each state can then take remedial action to restrain if not eliminate any violation of state’s and/or citizen’s rights by federal mandate.
XII. This I believe: In order that articles X and XI may be implemented with dispatch and efficiency, honorable legislators and staff serving in the federal government should be employees of their respective states. Their home state should be responsible for setting salaries, benefits, retirement packages, operating budgets, and expenses for all activities in Washington.
Nothing of value is to be transferred to the use or control of any state employee from any outside source which includes the federal government and all private interests foreign or domestic. Violation of this rule is a dishonorable activity that disqualifies the offending individual from holding this or any other position of responsibility. Washington facilities owned or leased by states in Washington DC should be as inviolate as any national embassy on foreign soil.
XIII. This I believe: The only reason an honorable citizen should feel compelled to vote is to remove a dishonorable legislator from office. The only reason the dishonorable citizen is compelled to vote is to secure for themselves a larger piece of somebody else’s pie. The dishonorable citizen is not qualified to vote under our Constitution.
XIV. This I believe: Application of these simple-ideas to the conduct of citizens and their government under our Constitution abides no moderation, bi-partisanship or compromise. While the behaviors of dishonorable individuals may be conducted with any frequency and magnitude, the honorable citizen maintains rigid expectations for the behavior their legislators under our Constitution. Failure to embrace any of the foregoing demonstrates a lack of qualification for office in the government of the United States. The foregoing also illustrates the critical nature of honorable behavior. Without it, we do not have a nation. Without it, prospects for all peoples of the world are exceedingly bleak.