Net Roots vs. Grass Roots and Community Organizers vs. Community

At first blush many seem to see the activists opposing Obamacare and those pushing for it as very similar. Both use websites, e-mails, and cell phones to stay connected and to mobilize their forces. But, there is a fundamental difference between them that a little research quickly reveals. One side actually had “net roots” while the other actually had genuine “grass roots.” Though President Obama likes to claim that his was a grassroots movement, it really had “net roots.” A few years ago leftists realized that they needed to mobilize and “organize” people on a grand scale to push their agenda. They turned to their most tech savvy folks to carry the water for the leftist leaders. The leftist leaders, especially those who were tech savvy however, set the agenda. This means the movement was not truly “grassroots” in nature. It was slick and well organized by people who were old hands at what is called on the left “community organizing.”  

For the left “community organizing” basically means that activists go out into the community to “educate” people about why they should be angry and to convince them that they are owed something by those who are either in government positions and can redistribute tax money in some way to them or simply have more than they do. They work hard to stir them up and sometimes have to pay some of them to show up and protest. That, in fact, is what is going on now among many of the crowds who rally in support of Obamacare. You can see they have a big well organized machine behind them and sometimes big organizations that hope to get money in some way from the taxpayer for their members by things like their being bussed to the location, wearing matching shirts (ACORN and SEIU for example) and their professionally made signs. Often they are given their marching orders by leftist leaders, increasingly by leftist leaders in the government.

On the other side, the true grassroots, you have no central command. Instead what you have are conservative websites that had been trying to have an impact and pretty much failing up until about a year ago. They had no activists to go out a “organize” people and frankly would have been pretty inept at it if they had tried. What happened was that individuals in the community began to see things being done by the government that upset them. First the bailouts came, under both Bush and Obama, and then the rush to push cap and trade through the House. The upset individuals had begun communicating with their friends, sometimes using the new media, and searching for sources of information and advice. They stumbled upon conservative websites that were willing to help or, in some cases, created their own websites. They are so individualistic that no one can presume to give them marching orders. Instead, what they are doing is seeking information. Their questions are things like: For what is the stimulus money really being used? What is in the cap-and-trade bill? How will it affect my family? Why is my tax money being used to help someone else get a nicer car? Why is Congressional leaders and the President in so much of a hurry to pass these bills that they don’t want anyone to have time to read them? What is really going to be in the plans for health care reform and how will it affect me and my family? Why is the government committing us to paying of such a huge debt? Are they going to raise my taxes either openly or in a hidden way? 

People seeking answers for these concerns were frustrated by two things. The White House and the Congressional leadership were in too much of a hurry to let anyone read what was going to be in the legislation and when they did get access to some information about what was in the bills, it frightened them. It looked like government officials wanted to run every aspect of their daily lives and make all their decisions for them. This got a lot of them wondering about whether the government was behaving as it should. They then found sources for acquiring copies of the Constitution of the United States and as they studied it they found that government had long been violating what was supposed to be the supreme law of the land. The politicians were not obeying the document that they had sworn an oath to protect and defend. This made them angrier.

This is the process in place now. If they finally become an angry mob, it will be because of the abuse and disrespect they have been shown by some the people they helped elect; it will be because of distortions, obvious untruths, and slick maneuvers of the White House and of the Congressional leadership. For over 90 years the Progressives/Statists have been getting closer and closer to absolute control of the American people. They saw the election of President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress as giving them their best chance ever of total government control and to get there they are trying to run roughshod over true Constitutional governance and the will of the people. The President is now appointing Czar after Czar (certainly a position that has no support from the Constitution) and these unaccountable creatures of the White House are trying to run roughshod over the people’s liberties. It is almost as if the leftists in Congress and the White House are trying to provoke an actual Civil War. 

Do they really think the descendents of the heroes of 1776, the sons and daughters of risk taking immigrants, the off spring of those who gave their life’s blood to end slavery will passively submit to a new tyranny? Ordinary Americans have left their dead on hundreds of battlefields around the world in the defense of freedom. What makes those here in America, who would impose government tyranny, so bold as to believe they can get away with it? As more and more people begin to clearly see their agenda, the true “grass roots” opposing them Independents, Republicans, and yes Democrats will rise up and say no, no to your chains, no to you telling me what we can eat, what we can wear, what we can drive, how much health insurance we can have, or any other dictatorial plan you might have for us. If you keep pushing us, you will lose and people who think like you will never be allowed near the levers of power again.

Dear Lanny Davis,

I read that you wanted us, the people who are protesting the health care take over, cap and trade, and the stimulus (really spending and sharing the wealth with our buddies and allies at the expense of ordinary Americans) plan photographed and investigated. So, your sides bully boy tactics can continue. It is very interesting how outrageous the left can be, destroying property, beating people, blocking access, etc but that is all just genuine grass roots activism. But if someone opposes the left, even with just a few harsh words, you start shouting fascism. No sir. Fascist tactics are what people on your side of the political argument have been doing for years.

I have been involved in Tea Party activities. No one paid me. In fact, to raise money for what we do, such as advertising our protests or our meetings where I live, we literally pass a hat. We are just as angry at squishy Republicans as we are at Leftist Democrats, like you.  So don’t you dare claim this is a political party thing. We will vote for anybody who stands up for the Constitution, as understood by the founders, and tries to maximize American freedom from government control. We stand for the rights of the individual and are very tired of your trying to divide everyone into interest groups. You only divide so you can conquer.

 These are my first protests. Like most of the folks in this movement my time for protesting is limited by the necessity of supporting myself and my family. That is why, if you look closely, you will see that many of the faces in the protests are elderly. We would have thousands more at our protests if we did not have to work for a living. No its your friends at ACORN and the SEIU that pay protestors.

The policies of your friends in Washington have resulted in this backlash that evidently has panicked you. Probably, for the first time in your life you are seeing what a real grassroots movement looks like. We are not Astroturf. That is what you guys do with all that lovely money provided by billionaires like George Soros.   This movement is fueled by genuine frustration with a government that is trying to ram down our throats a socialist agenda that rewards the corporate sponsors of a leftist agenda at our expense. We are studying the Constitution and we are not going to let Leftist lawyers tell us any more that it means something other than what it actually says.

You guys wanted a political revolt to change things but you did not realize it might turn out to be a revolt of ordinary citizens against the Left. That is what you are facing. You have awakened the sleeping giant. The founders are inspiring us from their graves. We are reading their ideas in documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist, the Anti-Federalist Papers, Common Sense, and The American Crisis. We genuinely believe in the principles of the founders of this great nation and we want our country back.

Concerned Citizen, Bill Sumruld

 A Few Words from George Washington on the Constitution and a Challenge

“The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can, and undoubtedly will, be recalled.” George Washington (1787) The Writings of George Washington by John C. Fitzpatrick, GPO, 1931-44. Vol. 32:2

Notice what the hero of the American Revolution and President of the Constitutional Convention had to say about that document in the quote above. First, he reminds us that the power in our government was meant to always reside in the people and that it is only entrusted “for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period” to representatives of our own choosing.  We must study the Constitution for ourselves. It was meant for the people to read. We must know what the limits of the U.S. government are supposed to be so that we can demand that government not exceed those limits. 

Those “certain defined purposes” are spelled out in the Constitution itself. This is why as patriots we must diligently study its text. It was meant for us to understand and when he says “defined purposes” that means that if our government officials go beyond what is specifically defined in the Constitution as their powers, they are acting unconstitutionally. For over a hundred years now, progressives in congress and the white house have been doing just that, though usually trying to cloak their efforts in legalisms. Today, they often don’t even bother with those. We must hold them to account for their violations of the constitutional limits which our founders placed on the central government. Too long, we have allowed them to subvert the system and accrue power to the central government which by rights is and should be in the hands of the states and the people.

According to Washington, we have no excuse. We must stop voting back into office people who are working against what is in the best interest of the liberty of the American people. It is up to us to call government to account and some of us have started doing that. More of us need to. Remember the real power is in our hands not theirs. Don’t let them condescend to you, talk down to you, or try to intimidate you. Look them square in the eye and tell them that you intend to vote them out if they do not listen and that you will do your best to convince your neighbors and friends to join you in doing so.

Also note that George Washington felt himself as President to be constrained by the text of the Constitution. In 1790, he wrote that “The Constitution of the United States, and the laws made under it, must mark the line of my official conduct.” (Ibid. 31:9) He tried to live up to that. For example, he never appointed a shadow-cabinet of Czars who, thereby, avoided the need for the advice and consent of the Senate to hold office.

Washington also feared that people might try to twist the meaning of the Constitution to gain power. In 1796, he wrote “Towards the preservation of our government…it is requisite…that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.” (Ibid. 35:225) For many years this is what many in our government, especially those on the left, have been doing. Washington was warning us, future generations, that we must “resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles.” We must roll back what the left has been trying to do in this country for over 100 years. Progressives want a managed society, not a free one. They do not trust ordinary Americans to run their own affairs. They crave the power to tell us how to live and what we can and cannot do. It is up to us to stop them. We must return to the basic principles of the Constitution and remove their disastrous innovations that have been slowly choking the life out of our freedom. We must root their weeds from the garden of American law. They have undermined the system for years and appear to be about to try and overthrow it openly. Now is the time to heed the first President to serve this nation under our Constitution. Now is the day of battle.

One of the most important sections of the Constitution is in Article I. Article I deals with the specific powers of Congress as related to the nation as a whole. It provides of list of those things Congress is allowed to do. 

First on that list is the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” These were to be the sources for funding the government. Of course you know what taxes are and you probably either know or can easily find out that duties are pretty much the same things as tariffs (taxes on imports) but what are imposts and excises? Imposts are taxes that deal specifically with goods and not persons and include such things as commodities, financial transactions, and estates. As used in the Constitution, it was understood to deal with form of taxation on imports. Excises were taxes on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods within the country.

It is important to remember that Congress is the government branch that has the power to tax. Presidents and judges were not given this power. According to the Constitution all national taxes have to be approved by the representatives of the people and the states. You should remember that whenever our media mistakenly calls a tax related action or national budget by the name of any president that they are misspeaking. Every budget ever approved in the United States is ultimately the responsibility of the Congress. Presidents can propose budgets and try to put political pressure on members of Congress but the budget is always ultimately the responsibility of Congress. The only thing a President can do is either try to veto the budget or spending bill and/or simply try to not spend all the money allocated for that budget or bill.

The next clause after the one about having the power to lay and collect Taxes stipulates for what the taxes are to be used. It says they are to be used “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

It is clear the founders expected the country to pay its debts. Their insistence on this and the American record of paying its debts in the past is what gave this nation the best credit rating of any nation on earth. Now, our government is amassing debts that it may not be possible to pay. Congress, at the request of the President, is failing in this Constitutional duty.

The second reason for collecting the taxes is to “provide for the common Defence.” Military spending for national defense is one of the expenditures literally required by the Constitution. The founders understood the need to protect the nation from foreign enemies. All that talk about us needing to fund other things and make the military hold bake sales to get the weapons it needs would have sounded downright traitorous to the founders.

The third reason for collecting the taxes is to provide for the “general Welfare.” Some in Congress today may think the founders were talking about charity. They were not. First, they knew charity is given to specific people and they insisted the money raised was to provide for the general welfare. In other words, it had to be used to equally benefit all Americans and could not be targeted to individuals no matter how worthy of help. The founders also did not think of Welfare as having the same meaning as charity. The dictionaries of their day used the term welfare to mean health, happiness, prosperity, or well being. For them it was not a synonym for the word charity. They expected the tax money to be used to help all Americans equally to achieve prosperity and well being. The concept of redistributing people’s wealth through government is totally alien to our Constitution.

Following this opening of section 8 there is a long list of specific powers. It includes the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. This is a power specifically given to Congress not any Executive branch departments and certainly not to a Federal Reserve. Congress also was to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Indian tribes.

Congress was to establish a uniform rule for naturalization (how foreign immigrants can become citizens and a uniform set of laws regarding bankruptcies. Congress was also given the responsibility of coining our money, regulating its value, and establishing a national standard for weights and measures. It was also to represent the people and their will in providing for the punishment of counterfeiters.

Congress was given the responsibility for establishing post offices and post roads (mail routes) and setting up rules for patents to encourage authors and inventors by giving them exclusive rights to the fruits of their labor.

Congress was made responsible for setting up all the federal courts below the level of the Supreme Court. It was also up to Congress to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.” The founders never expected this nation to turn over any of its sovereignty to other nations.

Next time I will continue through the list of Congressional powers found in Section 8 or Article I of the Constitution of the United States. Have you noticed how many of these powers and responsibilities Congress has turned over to Executive branch agencies or non-governmental entities like the Federal Reserve. No wonder Congress has time to pass so many bills it doesn’t take the time to read.

The second half of Section 8 starts with a bang. The Constitution also gives Congress (as the representatives of the people and the States) the responsibility and power for declaring war. They are also charged with granting “Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” This gave Congress the right to engage in issuing licenses, during time of war, to private parties to engage in warfare against the nation’s enemies on a for-profit basis. Letters of Marque and Reprisal were authorizations for private individuals to engage in warfare against our enemies under the legal protection of the United States. In naval warfare these military entrepreneurs were called “privateers.” In a sense, it was a legalized form of piracy and was engaged in by most of the maritime nations up into the 19^th century. It is also part of the reason the Congress was given the responsibility to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” In the era, in which the Constitution was written, it was common to give sailors and soldiers a share in the profits of whatever was captured. Congress was given the job of putting together rules about what those shares would be.

It was also the job of Congress to raise and support armies. The need to “raise an army” came from the founders’ assumption that there would be no national army during times of peace. In fact, many founders saw the existence of such an army as a temptation to tyranny. Congress also had to limit its appropriations for the military budget to two years. This was another measure based on the idea that it was dangerous to trust even the representatives of the people and the states with too much power. It was also the job of Congress to provide and maintain a Navy and “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” We call these rules, put in place and sometimes amended by Congress, the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

When soon-to-be-President Clinton promised pro-homosexual supporters that he would get rid of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” by executive order, he was either knowingly lying to them, showing a profound misunderstanding of how our Constitutional government works, or he believed others would let him get away with this in spite of the clear text of the Constitution. Constitutionally, only Congress could change such a policy because they are the ones who set the rules for our military. The founders put this power in the hands of Congress because they are the elected representatives of the people and states and it was felt they would serve as an effective watchdog against a future commander in chief (the President) from trying to make the military an instrument of tyranny.

Congress was also charged with providing for “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” In the Federalist, James Madison explained what the founders had meant by the “Militia.” He identified the militia as numbering three million; about the entire population of the United States at the time. In fact, when the Civil War came this is how the army that fought it on behalf of the Union was formed. Congress was actually to share the responsibility for the militia of the United States with the state governments. Congress was to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Those of the militia called upon by the national government were to receive arms, organization, and training from the Congress but the states were given the right of appointing the officers (so they would be less tempted to suppress state sovereignty to a tyrannous central government) and the “Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” So, during the emergency which required the raising of the militia, the militia was to receive its training in the home state according to some guidelines prepared by Congress. Sadly, our government has completely abandoned the idea of the militia of the United States and created the so-called National Guard system instead.

Congress was also given sovereign authority over the District of Columbia to legislate there in “all Cases whatsoever.” It was also charged with exercising a similar power within the District for building forts, magazines (ammunition dumps), arsenals (places to store weapons and ammunition), dockyards and “other needful Buildings.”

Finally, Congress was given the power and responsibility to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.” It is this clause which has, perhaps, been the most abused by our Congress and previous Congresses. They have focused on the parts that say “make all Laws,” “all other Powers,” and “in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” They have failed to take seriously the language in the clause which put limits on the laws, powers, U.S. government and its departments and officers. It does not say they can make whatever law they wish but it does stipulate that they must make only those laws which “shall be necessary and proper.” Clearly, they have often overstepped these bounds. Many of their laws are in direct violation of the limited government philosophy which rings from every page of the Constitution. Also the only government powers which the Constitution authorizes them to enhance are those “vested by this Constitution.” When Congress invents new powers for our government or goes beyond what is necessary and proper it is acting in a tyrannical and un-Constitutional manner. When our Representatives and Senators do these things they are violating the sacred oath they took; the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Although we are not using guns, we are now engaged in a great civil war.  Like the founders of our country we find ourselves battling an unresponsive self-styled elite which is intent of making us slaves to their will.  They have either forgotten or oppose the basic principles on which this country was founded.  Instead of liberty, they offer us false promises of security.  Instead of the opportunity to make our own way to success, they offer and, perhaps, force upon us the equality of the ant hill.  They see us as equal slave-laborers for their own glory.  But, we were never meant to be a collective of conformity to their will.  Our founders knew we are created with certain unalienable rights and one of the most important of these rights is liberty.

The self-styled elite manipulate language to deceive and confuse.  Even the word “liberty” in their use becomes a word for the collective, for the group, not the individual.  They claim liberty means things like freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom from hearing things that displease.  Most their “freedoms” are about eliminating real decisions and enforcing conformity.  What they push is not freedom but conformity to their ideas.  For example, many who say they are pro-choice don’t really want women to know all the potential consequences of their decision.  The “elite” purposely prevent women from hearing other alternatives and push as hard as possible for them to get the abortion.  Why?  It is because what they want is to increase the number of abortions and line the pockets of the abortion providers, who then contribute to other morally bankrupt political collectivist causes near and dear to the heart of the “elite.”

Real freedom involves real choices which require both risk and hard work.  Real freedom involves self-discipline and responsibility. To be really free you must have choices with real consequences.  Even teenagers know this instinctively.  And, wise parents know that part of growing up is learning that our decisions and actions have consequences.  We need freedom from a government that wants to suppress our real freedom to make choices.  They want to tell us what we can eat, what we can drive, and how much money we are allowed to make.  They are mad with and mad for power.  Their attitude and efforts are the very definition of tyranny and oppression.  And now, and now they want to even make all our health decisions for us.  This is the ultimate “usurpation.”

“Usurpation?”  Gee that is an old-fashioned word.  It may be old-fashioned but it is also accurate.  The founders used this word in the Declaration.  Usurpation means taking away someone else’s authority, their right to make their own decisions, their competence to take care of themselves.  This is exactly what many in our government and bureaucracies today are doing to us.  They are usurping our authority over ourselves, our responsibility for ourselves.  They want us to be mindless drones in their giant utopian machine.  They are forging our shackles in Washington.  If we do not stop them we will see a new slavery, which will rob us both of our adulthood and our freedom. 

We are also fighting for virtue.  Gee, that sure is an old fashioned word too.  We must hold each other and our leaders to account for our moral failings.  Real freedom requires virtue and the self-discipline that comes from genuine virtue. For example, they tell us raising taxes to take care of the poor is the charitable thing to do. That is not charity. Forcing someone to support the unfortunate through the coercive force of government is not charity. It is not virtuous. It is, instead a form of theft. If I voluntarily give some of my money to help someone else that is charity and is a virtuous act. If someone else points a gun at me and takes my money, even if he intends to give it so someone in need, that person has committed the crime of theft. It is very interesting how little the Joe Biden’s of the world give to charity voluntarily. It is also very interesting how they equate forcing others to pay more in taxes with virtue. They do not know what real virtue is.

I am so tired of being lectured by these moral failures in government. And, boy do we have a lot of those in government today.  I do not care if the candidate has a D, an R, or any other letter after his or her name.  If that person cannot be trusted by his or her own family then why should we trust them?  But, let us not stop at infidelity.  Aren’t you tired of being lied to?  If they can’t tell the truth, if we prove them liars by their actions, we must remove them from office. 

Some of our opposition even tries to distort the very concepts of truth and lie.  Their definition depends on the circumstances.  If someone they agree with politically tells a bald faced lie they race to find ways to justify it but if someone on the other side is just mistaken about something, he or she is roundly abused for “lying.”  I am tired of that game and I hope you are too.  Are you tired of that old game?

Another game that is getting tiresome is their attempts to ruin people through assaulting the reputation and by bankrupting them through frivolous lawsuits. The perfect example of this is what they have done to Sarah Palin and her family. Not only is every move she makes and word she says twisted beyond recognition in an attempt to “get” her. They stoop to personal attacks on her children and husband. On top of that, since the election they have brought 15 bogus lawsuits about “ethical violations” against her and nearly bankrupted her family. All of the suits have been thrown out but look at the cost in time and money that she had to waste to defend her self and her family.

Our opponents are the opposite of virtuous. They are despicable moral bankrupts who will do anything to exalt themselves. They have little or no virtue.

Virtue was an old Roman word.  Virtue is what you have when you keep your promises no matter the consequences.  Virtue is when you stand by your principles and do the right thing even when abandoning your principles might benefit you financially or socially.  Virtue is when you stand by your principles in the face of threat and attack.  And virtue is what we should expect of ourselves and of those who serve us, the politicians and bureaucrats. 

Yes, I said serve us!  According to the Declaration the purpose of government is to secure our rights, to protect them and government must have our consent in order to govern.  They are supposed to be our servants, not our masters, and they have forgotten that. And, we seem to have forgotten that self-discipline and virtue are requirements for maintaining our God given right to freedom. We have sold our freedom for promises of goodies from a false god, the idol of government. We have been worshipping an idol and not the God who created us.  We have sought our blessings from government but government is not the source of blessings. 

Our blessing of liberty was given to us by God and government was instituted only to protect that blessing.  We Americans instituted this particular government, we set it up, and we let it grow out of control to usurp our authority.  Many of us Americans came to worship what our own hands had made and expect from it the blessing which only God and our own hard work can provide.  We must smash the idol of government in our hearts and return to the liberty God gave us.  Quit expecting so much from government.  We must clip its wings and take back the authority which has been usurped from us.  We must, as one of our states’ mottos says, “Live free or die!” Government can give none of us anything that it has not already taken from some of us. Don’t let the tyrants buy you with your own money!

July 4^th, 1776, with a continental colonial army in the field fighting for their rights as Englishmen, the Continental Congress prepared to sign the document that many felt might be their own death warrant.  Several grim and dark jokes seem to have been made about hanging in that chamber but the actual mood was very somber and serious. They did not commit themselves fully to a struggle for independence from the greatest empire the world had ever seen without counting the cost. This is, perhaps, why the final words of the Declaration of Independence, just above their signatures, read “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

With those words they pledged themselves as a sacrifice for freedom. Some of them, indeed, lost their lives. Others, rich before the war, ended it penniless. Others to keep their honor sacred refused offers of the release of beloved family members from horrible and almost always fatal British prison ships in spite of their breaking hearts. They meant what they said. As the people of that day would have put it, they were in earnest.

Earlier in the Declaration they had referred to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” It was more than a rhetorical flourish. These well educated men were very familiar with the background for such a formulation. Back in the 16^th century, the Protestant theologian John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (a very popular book in colonial America), had stipulated that “the law of God which we call the moral law, is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.” Many of the men gathered on that solemn occasion were lawyers, steeped in English law and jurisprudence, and were, therefore, very familiar with the statement of the famed 17^th century English jurist Sir Edward Coke that “The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart” and with what the most popular law commentator of their own day, William Blackstone had written in his classic Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone had written that “As man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will. This will of his maker is called the law of nature.”

Their self-evident truths and rights endowed by man’s Creator shows that they believed God was calling them to do what they did. With feeble steps of trembling faith, with reliance on one another and on the protection of God, they launched themselves into implacable war with an empire which had the world’s best army and the world’s best and largest navy. For them the “Providence” on which they depended was not merely simply the way things happened in the world. For them, providence, as John Calvin had earlier summarized, meant that God “as keeper of the keys” actually “governs all events.”

Samuel Adams, John’s relative who had formed the Sons of Liberty and was the mastermind of the first Tea Party, noted that the British had tried to make the state a god. He argued that Americans had seen through that folly. On analyzing the Declaration, he wrote “We have explored the temple of royalty, and found the idol we have bowed down to has eyes which see not, ears that hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone.” He claimed that through the Declaration and its emphasis on providence that “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient.”

Samuel Adams dismissed the argument that Americans had to always obey the government in order to obey God. He felt the success of America had given it the responsibility to not give up. He wrote, “The hand of heaven appears to have led us on to be, perhaps, humble instruments and means in the great providential dispensation which is completing. We have fled the political Sodom; let us not look back, lest we perish and become a monument of infamy and derision to the world.”

The American pulpit took up this same theme. Before the war, many ministers had called the reverence and deference for the king a form of idolatry. Now they spoke boldly in favor of the cause of independence. In Philadelphia, George Duffield argued that America’s forefathers had fled Europe to escape tyranny and oppression and that freedom is God’s gift to us because we hated tyranny so. He gave thanks for God’s “adorable goodness” and said that Americans “were born the heirs of freedom.”

So, today it is time to throw off idolatry and reject the idea that government is our ultimate security and refuge. Government is made up of human beings and those human beings have all the failings and sins of human beings. Instead we must liberate ourselves from the clutches of a new and growing tyranny in this our most imperial of presidencies. We must refuse the state’s claim to become our new god. The state will prove a false and destructive god. We are the heirs of freedom, meant to make our own way. We are free to obey God or refuse but God never intended us to give his role to a mere president, or to a bureaucracy. It is time for us to cast down these false idols and realize that we must take responsibility for ourselves. We must quit expecting government to do everything for us and to solve every problem and remember that we have a birthright to fend for ourselves. God created us with the ability, right, and duty to make decisions for ourselves. Expecting government to take care of all our problems is selling our birth right for a one time offer of a bowl of soup. If we sell it, it will be hard to get it back.

Today, I decided to let James Madison do my thinking for me.   What follows is an excerpt of an article written in the National Gazette, March 29, 1792. It is Madison considers property rights and especially the definition of property. I will follow his comments with a few of my own.

Madison:

This term (Property) in its particular application means “that domination which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where and excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own….

Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and inalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle….

If there be a government then which prides itself on maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification of the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the inference will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property of rights.

Sumruld:

One must wonder what Madison would make of the modern United States. We have already had a Supreme Court ruling which justified local municipalities taking property, in the form of land and dwelling, from individuals to give it to others simply because the city or county would reap more in taxes from the new owner. Here we see a violation of property rights. We also are seeing a growing “excess of power” on the part of our government which is threatening our opinions (new hate speech laws), our persons (government health regulations), and our possessions.

Though our government was instituted to “protect property of every sort” including those which lie “in the rights of individuals,” it has ceased to be a just government by Madison’s definition. Remember Madison would know perhaps better than anyone else what our founders had meant our government under the Constitution to be. After all, he got the moniker “Father of the Constitution” the old fashioned way, he earned it. He envisioned the new document, wrote its first draft and fought for it in the convention and in the ratification fight. A truly just government, according to Madison, “impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” It does not use empathy as an excuse to pass out rewards to its favorites at the expense of others. For Madison, as for the other founders, charity was a voluntary act by the individual. He would have viewed our approach to government welfare as a form of state sanctioned theft.

Note also how much Madison would have objected to the idea that our consciences can be judged by the law, which is a basic assumption of the new hate crimes law making its way through the Congress. He even said a government that perfectly respected the sacredness of private property (our government has ceased to do this) would have no right to “invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred.” 

According to Madison, no government which violates our rights to our opinions, religion, persons, or our actual possessions can be a pattern for the United States. This, however, has become the pattern. We must turn back the tides of tyranny for the day has come when the United States does not “equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights.” Our government has become an elitist tyranny which respects neither the rights of property nor the property of rights. It is time to change that.

The Nobodies

In this age of celebrity it is important to remember who really makes this country strong, who really works to make its streets safe, defend it, keep it healthy, fight its fires, help their neighbors, make its products, counsel its emotionally wounded, meet its spiritual needs, handle its waste, produce its energy, and teach its children. It is us, the nobodies.

When thousands of us turn out for the Tea Parties, celebrity “talking heads” on television belittled, lied about, and insulted us. A celebrity president mocked us. Celebrity columnists joined their television brethren in assaulting our motives and intentions, trying to paint us as radical extremists. “We are the celebrities; must listen to us and do what we say because we are better and smarter than you” seemed to be their message.

But the truth is they are nothing. What makes them celebrities is us. All we have to do to dethrone them is stop paying any attention to them. Celebrities in Hollywood would disappear if enough nobodies quit going to their movies. Celebrity news casters would soon be off the air if enough nobodies quit tuning to their channel. Celebrity columnists would soon be out of a job if enough nobodies quit buying the newspapers and magazines that they write for. And, our celebrity president will be history by 2012 if enough nobodies protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and vote him out.

The nobodies are the real power. Without us to buy their products and/or invest in them corporations go out of business. Without our tax money all our president’s grandiose schemes for more power become mere dreams. We are the real power and we must not let them deter us. We, who see what is going wrong in our country, must help educate our fellow so-called nobodies. If enough of us nobodies unite then almost anything is possible. Don’t ever give up. Don’t ever let the celebrities convince you that it is hopeless. The only power they have is the power so-called nobodies have given them.

We nobodies, otherwise known as “We the People,” made this country and are the real legitimate rulers of this country. We have the natural right, as the Declaration of Independence says, to alter it in any way we see fit. We have the power to restore it to the original vision found in the Declaration of Independence and the other founding documents. Because the truth is that we are not nobodies we are citizens, we are fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers, we are the real power of this nation and the reason why it was founded. We made the celebrities and we can break them just as easily. We the People have the power to take our nation back and if we can arouse enough of the people to the dangers before us, we will win. Keep spreading the truth, keep protesting, keep calling, keep organizing ourselves for resistance, keep doing what is necessary to return power to “We the People” and end the rule of the experts who think they know what is best for us and believe they must take care of us because we cannot take care of ourselves. The truth is we do not need them. We can rise up and replace them at any time with people (from among our ranks) who would probably be better at their jobs than they are.   So, don’t listen to the elites, who think they can browbeat you into submission. You are somebody and all of us together can easily overcome them. We just need to wake up some of our sleeping brothers and sisters.

The philosophical heart of The Declaration of Independence is found in its second paragraph. It is there that the signers let you know what they truly believe regarding government and the people. 

It starts out with the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” What does that mean? A self-evident truth was and is a truth which does not need proof. It is so obviously true that to deny proves the denier is mad. To deny these truths is like denying that when you step of the edge of a cliff you will fall. To deny these truths is like trying to deny your own existence. Our founders believed these things were undeniable by any rational or reasonable person.

The second phrase of the paragraph, “that all Men are created equal” is often misunderstood by the critics of our founders. They did not say that all people were treated equally in the society as it existed or even that there would come a day in human society when all would be treated equally. And, when they used the word “Men” they were not talking about gender but about humanity. Until recent years and the rise of identity politics it was clearly understood that this is what they meant. What the founders meant by “all Men are created equal” is that humans all humans have an inherent equality before God. All of us are equally human. This, in many places in their day, would have been considered radical. They lived in a world where it was common place to consider people of a lower social or economic status as something less than fully human. This way of looking at people had prevailed, for the most part, in the Ancient World; with, save for a few philosophers, the relatively early exceptions to this kind of thinking being found in the context of Judaism and later Christianity. Egalitarian thought in this regard was not a legacy of our Greco-Roman heritage but of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

The third phase in the paragraph, “that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,” acknowledges first of all that there is a creator. The founders, even the least overtly Christian among them, had no trouble in believing that there is a God who created mankind and oversees the affairs of mankind. The so-called Deism of Jefferson and Franklin did not fit very well with English and continental forms of that outlook since, from their own writings and actions, it is evident they expected God to intervene in the affairs of men. They all also believed that God had given something to all humans; that is what the word “endowed” means. God had given to all humans “certain unalienable rights.” The word “certain” meant that these rights could be clearly defined and understood. The word “unalienable” meant that these rights were not something that could be separated from us as human beings. They are part of what it means to be a human being. We might be restricted in our exercise of our rights but we could no more lose them than we can cease to be humans. That these are “rights” means that they cannot be granted by government or by any other human; they are irrevocable gifts from God. No government can give you these rights. The most a government can do is get out of the way so you can freely exercise these rights.

The next phrase “that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is also extremely important. Note the words “that among these are.” The founders did not limit our God-given rights to just those related to the three issues they later listed.  “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” are merely three examples among many self-evident rights that we were given by God. 

It is very important to look at our right of “Life.” It was given equally to all of us. There is never anyone who should not have been born. There may be some who made horrible choices that we wish they never made but none that should never have been born in the first place. Life is sacred. God placed a high value on human life according to Judeo-Christian thought. Each of us is precious, much more precious than property. We were intended to have a culture of life not a culture of death. Every one of us, even those considered the most useless or unnecessary by some in our society were viewed by the philosophy of our Declaration as having a right to life. Many of us feel our founders would have extended that right to the yet to be born. Note also that the right to life implies the right to defend life; the right to use forceful means to defend the lives of others and of ourselves. This is the first and most fundamental of all rights and is, perhaps, for that reason listed as the first example.

“Liberty” is the second right in their list of examples. The question is what did they mean by the word? One thing is for certain, considering the subsequent words and deeds, is that they did not equate “Liberty” with libertinism. They did not think “Liberty” meant the right of commit illicit sex acts; promote illicit sex acts, talk about illicit sex acts in front of children. They did not see liberty as the license to do whatever we want no matter who it hurts. They also were not so naïve as to think people will always get what we desire or even that we should get it. They clearly understood that societies had to have rules in order to avoid descending into chaos and perpetual strife. So, what did they mean by “Liberty”? That is made clear by the war they fought and the arguments which they made for that war. For our founders “Liberty” was a freedom from something. It was freedom from undue government interference with and obstruction with the God given rights of the individual human being. As their comments later in the Declaration make clear, they opposed governments which did not maximize an equal liberty for its citizens by picking winners and losers, by handicapping people because of their birth, wealth or lack thereof. They wanted a government that served all the people equally and left the people free to make their own choices about who they associated with, where they lived, how they managed their own health and welfare, what they thought or read, etc. 

The third right expressed sort of fits within the second. “The Pursuit of Happiness” is the result of real freedom. We get to make the choices in life that we think will make us happy. We may be wrong and may wind up unhappy but it is not the role of the government to try and guarantee our success or happiness. Our “Pursuit” is up to us, not the government. If we think money will make us happy, we are free to try and legally accumulate as much as we can. If we think community service will make us happy, we are free to do as much of it as we can. Government must stay out of trying to direct our lives. It must not be an obstacle to our “Pursuit of Happiness” nor must it try to ensure outcomes. Trying to ensure outcomes takes away our freedom to try and fail and learn. Instead, it permanently infantilizes people.

Following a hyphen, to separate the rights from their ideas about government, the founders’ next phrase is “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” They believed the purpose of government, the only legitimate purpose of any government, was to make it easier for people to freely exercise their God-given rights. Government was to protect people’s rights from those who would try to check them. It was to protect people from crime, conquest, etc. 

The next phrase is extremely important. The founders insisted that “deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed” meant that government must be answerable to the people. Any government that lost the consent of the people it governed had ceased to secure their rights because one of their most fundamental rights was to be governed as they chose. Without the consent of the people government had no right to exist. Its purpose is to serve the interests of the people, all the people. Any time government begins to focus of serving only the interests of some over the interests of all it is in danger of becoming an illegitimate government. Government’s authority and legitimacy depends on the willingness of its citizens to continue obeying it. When the people begin to see the government as their enemy, its doom is sure.

The next thing the founders agreed to in this document is what constitutes its heart. Written next are the words “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” They will go on to contend, and give examples, that the British government, both king and parliament, has become destructive with regards to the colonists God-given rights. Far from securing these rights, the founders will argue, the British government is violating them. The idea is that, since people create governments to protect their rights, it is the God-given right of the people to change their government. They clearly believed government is the servant of the people not their master.

According to the founders, they did not only have the power to change governments; but that they had the power of “laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Again, according to the founders, the people are sovereign. It is up to the people to set up the government they want and to structure it in whatever way they think will protect their rights most effectively and will aid them in their free and equal pursuit of happiness the most.  Again, their idea is that government must be the servant of all the people not their master.

The next sentence explains things a bit more. “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, that to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.” What the founders are acknowledging in this sentence is that it is really foolish to have a national revolt unless you have really good reasons for it. They also, however, note that people almost always are more willing to let things go to far than to revolt and overthrow government. Part of this they claim is because people don’t like to change things they are used to and comfortable with in return for an unknown future. It is sort of like the proverb about the “devil you know.”

The next sentence summarizes their argument for the War for Independence, which will follow later. This is the beginning of a transition from political philosophy to concrete history and a call to action. The sentence argues “But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under Absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards to their future Security.” The idea here is that when a government goes to far, when government abuses of power and takeovers of areas of responsibility not consented to by the people reveals clearly that those in government are trying to become the masters of the people instead of protecting their rights, that it is the right and duty of the people to replace such a government.

In the next sentence the founders began to apply their philosophy and their hypothetical situations to what had happened to them. It reads “Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.” Here the founders are saying it was not all hypothetical after all. They have seen a growing abuse of power by a government that has shown that it wants to treat them as slaves to its power. They now reserve for them selves the right to revolt and establish their own government in its place.

It is now they will turn to the historical record. The last two sentences of the second paragraph will be the transition to a long list of British governmental abuses of the colonists. After that list, they recorded all their efforts to avoid rebellion and then declared independence. This transition sentence reads “The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this let Facts be submitted to a candid World.” After explaining that the British government, especially in the person of the king (head of England’s executive branch at the time) has through repeated actions aimed at making the people of America servants to government that does not protect their rights but, in fact, violates them; the founders wrote that they were going to list specific examples of these actions.

So, the Second Paragraph gives us a clear picture of the fundamental political philosophy of America’s founders and the limits they wanted to place on government power. They believed we have God-given rights which are always ours and that government’s job is to protect those rights. Among those rights was also the right to change government when it did not do its job of protecting our rights. It their view, the people were the source of whatever legitimate authority government might have and that it automatically lost that authority when enough of the people said it had. They believed that if government tries to become our master instead of protecting our rights that it is our duty to call it to account and, if necessary, change it.

I was thinking today about Samuel Langdon, President of Harvard College, and the sermon he preached before the Massachusetts legislature in May of 1775. Some at the time were wondering if disputes over taxes were worth all the sacrifice might result from a revolt the British government. Langdon assured the members of the legislature that fighting had been made necessary by a growing cultural divide between the colonists and the leadership in Britain. He claimed that “The general prevalence of vice has changed the whole face of things in the British government.” He also raised the issue of what the pursuits of the British leadership were. His answer was that they now sought “titles of dignity without virtue” and sought “vast public treasures continually lavished on corruption till every fund is exhausted, notwithstanding the mighty streams perpetually flowing in.” That sounds kind of familiar doesn’t it? Langdon knew that the corrupt politicians in London would never be satisfied. They had virtually bankrupted England and now saw the American colonies as a proverbial golden goose which they could use to enrich themselves and their friends.

Langdon had cited as his text for the sermon Isaiah 1:2. In the NIV the passage reads, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: ‘I have reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me.’” He saw England’s problem as the rebellion against God of its leadership. Americans at the time were as likely to see their struggle for independence as a moral crusade as they were to see it as a tax revolt. There was a reason for that. 

The pulpits of America had not been silent. The church in America had truly been doing what the left always claims it does. They had been speaking truth to power. They had been challenging the corrupt leaders of England for over 20 years and now things were coming to a head. One of the things that is left out of most of our history books is how important a role America’s religious leaders played in the build up to the revolution. Sermons in that era were often printed in their entirety in the newspapers and were the topic of almost everyone’s casual conversation. And, for over 20 years the pastors, priests, and rabbis of America had castigated the leadership of England for its moral failures.

Langdon, in his sermon, said that the British government’s claim that Britain’s immense debt was because of the Seven Years War, which was partly fought in America, (often patently accepted as valid in current textbooks) was a mere dishonest pretext. According to Langdon, the claim that Britain’s “immense debt” was because of its “defense of the American colonies” was false. He saw the real root of England’s money problems in the political and moral corruption of her elites and their corruption and oppression of her people. He insisted that no amount of increased taxation would ever be able to keep up with the immoral lusts and greed of England’s leadership. He said, “The demands of corruption are constantly increasing, and will forever exceed all the resources of wealth which the wit of man can invent or tyranny impose.” The only solution, he argued, was for the government in London to eliminate its “vast unnecessary expenses.” 

Langdon went on to claim that if true moral reform were to sweep through England and rid it of “all those vices which bring misery and ruin upon individuals, families, and kingdoms’ then and only then could the “public debt, great as it is…in a few years be cancelled by a growing revenue.” Later, after the war, even without revenues from America, England would regain its prosperity. In the event, Langdon proved somewhat prophetic. Moral and political reform was a big part of what brought England back from financial profligacy.

America has also now developed both moral and political corruption which demands revenues that no amount of taxation can ever provide. Where are our Landons sounding the alarm? Moral and political reform must sweep this country or its corruption will lead to its collapse. We must act. We must have the courage of a Samuel Langdon and the courage of that Massachusetts legislature of long ago.

It’s 1854. We should watch closely to see if any political party decides to make our agenda its own and give them our backing if they do. If none of them do, then we must form a new political party. Back in the 1850s, a populist movement against the spread of slavery did just that. That was how the Republican Party was born. If they could do it in the 1850s, we can do it in the 2000s. Also note, they ultimately met their original goal. Not only was the well-entrenched institution stopped from spreading, it was ultimately eliminated in the U.S. We too can meet our goal if we are committed enough. So, if we cannot get the existing parties to listen to us, like the Antislavery people of the mid-1800s couldn’t, then, just like them, we will start our own party, the Tea Party.

Sorry if this seems to be a rant but to me the above seems more than obvious.  Wake  up.  The Dems and the big government Repubs want to be "Massa."  We need to do what that populist movement back in the 1850s did and reverse the expansion of slavery.

No serious investigation by the FEC of Obama's campaign had me puzzled.  With all the apparent fraudulence in his fund raising and donation schemes, including removing the fraud protection safeguards from his web based donation sites, why was his campaign not being grilled seriously by the Federal Election Commission.  Why was this watchdog doing nothing?  And then today, I ran across a reference to what I had missed.  It was in a News Max article found here http://www.frontpagemag.com/.  The relevant passage said, "Helping to cripple the FEC was the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who placed a 'hold' ona Republican nominee in October 2007.  That action had the effect of keeping the commission on the sidelines for the entire primary season."  To me that looks like premeditation by a man who was already running for President.  I think he was trying to avoid early and serious scrutiny by the commission so that his fraudulent fundraising effort would not be exposed before it was too late.  What do you think?