http://lanternsofliberty.us The Battlefield of Ideas Sun, 26 May 2013 07:44:05 GMT http://lanternsofliberty.us/images/battlefield.png http://lanternsofliberty.us http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=DE44EFA8-123F-7491-A46A72A2E3369189 Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. It is shocking to see this amendment referred to thus, when there is so much more involved in it. To say that the Fourteenth Amendment is "about Citizenship Rights" is to reject the work of the whole Constitution in its original form, and to ignore the latter 3/5ths of the whole amendment: punitive measures against statesmen from Confederate states; passive punishment against the citizens of the Confederate states; and a key to unlock the demon of legislative micromanagement. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. *** In the same manner as previously brought forth against the Thirteenth Amendment, this clause presumes to legislate morality by commanding upright behavior from sovereign citizens. There was no need for this clause, as the Emancipation Proclamation had already laid the foundation upon which men could build a system to free the slaves. As free men, they were to be acknowledged as part of "all men are created equal", and thus automatically granted an equal standing among all others of majority age. As in the case of an adopted child or a cousin brought in after the death of a family member, poor or unequal treatment to them-ward by one's own children should never be tolerated by the parents; thus, any mistreatment of the newly-freed Americans of African descent should have been dealt with swiftly, harshly, decisively, and consistently - making clear to all men that the rights of Americans are the same for all Americans, whether any Americans approve or not. "... In America, Law is King", Thomas Paine declared, and thus it should be that the antecedent conditions of the general equality of men and the provisions of the Emancipation Proclamation should have been upheld as the only needful measures against slavery, these being supported by the provisions of applicable criminal law. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. *** Again, this could have been a matter handled by the laws extant, without the interference of a Constitutional amendment. While the first two clauses of A14 appear to be beneficent - placing a protective arm around the shoulders of those who had little understanding of the laws (beyond that understanding of how they had been abused under the law) and less protection by the courts (filled, as they were, with men whose political power was often the gift of men made wealthy through the institution of slavery) - these clauses do little more than encourage the disenfranchised and outraged to even more harshly abuse the recently-freed Americans of African descent, and for the recipients of this abuse to depend ever-more-heavily upon the central government. These first two clauses appear to presuppose that black people were viewed universally as animals. This cannot be the case. Consider how many slave owners engaged in sexual relations with their slaves; while I imagine many of these men were sexually depraved and given to excesses by their lusts, how many could be expected to pass up a human partner in favor of a horse, a cow, a chicken, or some other animal? Considering the number of historic reports recounting how many children were born to slave women as a result of their masters' attentions, not very many. Further, the excesses of fury and hatred to which men were driven for the next century against Americans of African descent - segregation, lynchings, draggings, terrorizing, egregious inequality in courts of law - all speak to an understanding (and hatred) of the humanity of those being tormented. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. *** The third and fourth clauses only touch on matters that came up as a result of the War between the States - not matters that led up to it. As was mentioned earlier, these are nothing more than punitive measures levied upon the states which had comprised the former Confederacy, and their people. These clauses not only do not belong in any amendment claiming to be concerned with rights of citizenship; they do not belong in any amendment at all. These measures could have as easily been handled through the use of House or Senate Resolutions, without infringing on the integrity of the Constitution - the blueprint and rulebook for our form of government. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. *** This is nothing more than unleashing the genii - giving the government carte blanche (read: blank check) to micromanage the lives of the citizens through legislation. One might even conclude that the declared authority pre-exists such language, since it has already been stated (in Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution for The United States) that all legislative power is vested in a Congress of The United States. It would follow that nobody else has such power, and does not bear saying again. Wed, 29 Jun 2011 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=DE44EFA8-123F-7491-A46A72A2E3369189 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=A90C18FA-123F-7491-A4BDF190A014EFA1 In book 1 (chapter 5) of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", it is mentioned that, "...rents which have been reserved in corn have reserved their value much better than those which have been reserved in money - even where the denomination of the coin has not been altered".  This is, presumably, because coin can (and, historically, had been) adulterated, shaved, and otherwise had its value diminished for the purpose of making more precious metal available for the use of the powers that be.  There was no change in the "face value" of the coin, and alterations in its size, weight, and total content of precious metal were only detectable by those with the right equipment (and, indeed, the interest in doing so); more coins could be struck by the sovereign mint, all of which would appear to be of full value to the unsuspecting observer - and the nation would appear to be richer to all engaging in trade with them. What has happened in our more technologically-advanced age is the debasement of the heretofore stabilizing value of corn.  Corn (indeed all crops, although corn - a generic term for all cereal grains) held a far more stable value because its quality was due to the diligence of the farmers - and because, unlike coin, the value of the farmer's labor would only increase by increasing the output of the corn; if the farmer sought to make his corn more valuable by reducing the number or size of ears per stalk, he would soon fail in his enterprise. The interference of the government in the field of agriculture, less in regulation and safety practices as in subsidized non-production and GMF (genetically-modified foods), has turned away from the basic wisdom of corn economy - wisdom that was part of the return of a dissolute and ruined Great Britain to the heights of Empire under Elizabeth I. This attack on the stabilizing "staff" of the economy is unknown in history except in instances of an invading and beseiging enemy force seeking to break the strength of their prey.  By purchasing the souls of those "farmers" who have less interest in the sacred trust of the farmer and more in making and bequeathing fortune as the foolish rich man (Luke 12:16-20), the powers that be wrest control of food from nature and the steward God placed over it.  More monstrous, by taking the "staff of life" that is corn - cereal grains that grow so abundantly of their God-given nature and nourish so well - and altering it so that it grows only where, how, and WHEN those "masters" of the Earth decree, these wicked and selfish servants of evil work the will of the prince of evil to bring mankind to a place of fear and pain.  By limiting the benison of nature to what they mean for men to have, they can control the souls of weaker men with hunger and with pain at seeing their loved ones suffer. Here we find the meaning behind Revelation 6:6 - "A measure of wheat for (a day's wages), and three measures of barley for (a day's wages)...” Sun, 19 Jun 2011 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=A90C18FA-123F-7491-A4BDF190A014EFA1 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=A8CBC10D-123F-7491-A40ECCE8A3AB24DB Fine work with the cross referencing. I would advise caution in interpretive comparisons. It is an easy thing to become trapped in cleverness, trapped in pride. That is the mistake Muhammad made in annexing the Jewish and Christian scriptures and faiths; when it became necessary to allow his new converts to have their own way (violently overthrowing their hated enemies with the supposed sanction of both God and of antiquity), his cleverness got the best of him and his pride refused to allow him to back away from what he had wrought. Moses' brother, Aaron, did the same with the golden calf - lying to save himself by throwing off all blame (in Moses' eyes, not God's) from himself and onto the people; he saw only the power and wrath of Moses, who was unable to confront the multitude alone - but Aaron did not reckon with the power and wrath of One "who hath power to kill the body, and afterward hath power to cast the soul into hell". As an interesting - and wholly internal - comparison, see how we have a father leading his son to death; a son who bears the weight of the wood upon which he is to be sacrificed; and an exchange of one sacrifice for another. Many centuries later, another Son would be sent by His Father to bear the weight of the wood upon which He would be sacrificed - as a substitute for our sin-spattered souls. It is widely held that it was that very rock, that would be later called Golgotha, upon which Abraham made ready to sacrifice his son. I have not sufficiently researched that point, but it would be a remarkable DejaVu, wouldn't it? Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=A8CBC10D-123F-7491-A40ECCE8A3AB24DB http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=913F5492-123F-7491-A4C5F717FDD4935D "No Child Left Behind"... with our "Safe Schools Czar" roaming the hallowed halls, it really IS "No Child's Behind Left Alone". This idiotic policy does little more than spend millions on awards for embracing mediocrity, while teaching our kids - our FUTURE! - that it is alright to LET someone else win, to throw the fight, to reach the top without merit. It is raising a generation (no, two or three, now) of Americans who actually believe that being the best is not as important as helping the weaker and less-self-sufficient attain to heights and accolades they could never earn. All the while, these "kinder, gentler" (ring a bell?) generations are not only becoming increasingly unfit to be leaders due to a complete and utter lack of competetive spirit - they are causing a weakening in our socio-political and cultural fabric that is becoming rapidly irreparable, leading to a time when America shall have no leaders because there is nobody in America capable of leading! If this means bringing wrestling and boxing back to our schools, then so be it. If it means allowing parents to discipline in the home and creating teachers authorized *in loco parentis*, by all means. If America's future survival demands the possibility of pain in the upbringing, and the public whipping post and gallows, to teach the inevitability of consequences for actions, then I say: NO PRICE TOO HIGH FOR A FREE AMERICA! Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=913F5492-123F-7491-A4C5F717FDD4935D http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=4B26C326-123F-7491-A40808D7641CF61D I cannot state strongly enough that the Commerce Clause precedent is WRONG! So what if they have been getting away with it for such a long time? By that logic, we should release a career rapist because of his long history of violent sexual attacks! The Commerce Clause was always, and only, meant as a clarification of the Federal government's role as mediator between sovereign states in dispute; a perusal of early American history - including the Federalist Papers and the Journals of the 1787 Philadelphia Convention - make this only too clear. The states were to be left sovereign and self-governing - much as one's children are - but they were not to fight among themselves like Europe's nations and petty feifdoms. It was already agreed (per Article I, Section 10(2)) that the states would have to get the approval of the Federal Legislature in order to lay any kind of duties or taxes on goods - from other states as well as other countries. It was understood, under Article IV, section 1, that the states were to behave as brethren - trusting, supporting, helping each the others. Article IV, section 3, supports this desired relationship - requiring all states party to the possible formation of a new state be in agreement before the Federal Legislature would make such a thing happen. Penultimate proof of this desired state, however, is the matter of the Federal Senate before the installation of the 17th Amendment. In the House of Representatives, membership differed from one state to the next due to the varying populations - but the representation by each member of the House was essentially the same, as each had his office due to apportionment according to the population. THE SENATE, HOWEVER, was to represent the interest of each state equally; thus, each state was afforded two senators, regardless of size. Thus it can be seen that the desired relationship was to be that of brothers under a father - a father who would respect his sons' sovereignty and ability to rule themselves. That respect would, of course, be diminished should it be abused - and this was the purpose of the Commerce Clause: that the sovereign interactions of the several states would be subject to the authority of the Federal government when, and if, a dispute arose between two or more of the states. This would allow the Federal government to observe for any needed changes in what the Founding Fathers already acknowledged was a less-than-perfect Constitution. Any corrective changes would, of course, have to be subjected to the Necessary and Proper Clause, the severe Constitutional limits on Congressional power, and the checks and balances limiting the Executive and Judiciary - thus ensuring the most minimal adjustments at any given time. The subsequent abuses of the Commerce Clause - among other abuses of Federal power and authority over the years - have harmed the prosperity of the American nation and people. From Gibbons v Ogden 9 Wheat to Wickard v Filburn to NAFTA, the Federal government has - in its overzeal to do what is "the most good" - chosen to follow the path that Jefferson predicted it would: in appointing itself the arbiter of what is good, it had appointed itself the judge of what was evil - and thus placed itself in the position to decide that what was evil, was good (for the people). This was never intended by the Founding Fathers, and could not have been desired by the men who fought against tyranny to secure freedom. The Commerce Clause precedent is, therefore, not a valid guide to legislative or judicial process. Tue, 12 Apr 2011 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=4B26C326-123F-7491-A40808D7641CF61D http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=DE3130B0-123F-7491-A46BEDBB47349165 This approach reminds me of the time when my wife was yet to be diagnosed with end-stage kidney disease. There we were, with four or five different doctors telling us that she had four or five different things wrong with her - but they did not appear to be communicating with each other, and nobody seemed to have any idea of how to appoach all of these problems. It was quite by accident that the renal connection was found, but the point is this: treating the symptoms is little more than a palliative death watch - keeping the patient comfortable while they slip into oblivion. The only true way to save the patient is to find and deal with the problem. What problem is central to economy, interest rates, prices, and all the other shocks that men's pocketbooks must endure? The Banks. In specific, the "Federal Reserve Bank". Our national debt is not to China - it is to the Fed. The Fed has seen fit to sell that debt to China, so America does indeed owe China a hideous sum - but the debt is actually to the Fed. We (or, rather, our federal government) owes the Fed interest on the money it has loaned to the U.S. government AT INTEREST, which is the whole reason the Income Tax has never been discontinued - Alexander Hamilton's dream of a national debt has been realized, and for so long that many have no idea what it is to live debt-free. The problem of national banks was observed twice before in America's history - both taking place in that historical oubliette known as the first half of the 19th century. These were years of great happenings in America, significant and surprising developments regarding the new Constitution; why, then, are these years largely glossed over in history texts? Why, for instance, is it largely ignored that America was able to reduce her national debt in this time to some $34,000 - down from many millions - under president Andrew Jackson? Why is it that the history of the two first national banks began and ended in this historical dead zone? Why are two presidents - Jackson and Lincoln - targetted for their policies regarding the national bank's money policies (both produced - under honest Constitutional authority - currency through the U.S. Treasury that was interest-free, threatening the profits and power of the national banks). This becomes a pattern of behavior when the matter of Executive Order 11110 is considered. Signed by president Kennedy less than six months before his assassination, it forms a viable pattern for presidents being silenced before the can effect change in the power and wealth of the national banks. There are books purporting to debunk the theory, but the fact that the theory persists even today is evidence that it rings true. The Fed is the problem in America. Eliminate the Fed, put America's money in the hands of elected goverment instead of unaccountable banks, and we shall see America pay her debts off and once again reach her destined greatness. Sun, 10 Apr 2011 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=DE3130B0-123F-7491-A46BEDBB47349165 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=4270A67E-123F-7491-A46714975E73324A The positions of the two top congressional "leaders" have made clear who they are all about. The House of Representatives, being elected by the people and Constitutionally mandated with the representation of the sovereign citizens of the United States of America, is all about US. The Senate, however, is rather more uncertain to most.  Their original mandate - pre-17th Amendment - was to represent the interests of the sovereign states after the same manner as the House represented OUR sovereign interests; the senators were selected by the state legislatures for this purpose.  Now, however the Senate is selected by the citizenry. Why is that?  It is not like we need two chambers of congress to represent us, is it?  The idea of a popularly-selected Senate is foolish and destructive of the republic; the states - as is clearly stated in the Constitution's Bill of Rights (10th Amendment) - are possessed of rights, powers, and freedoms in the same manner as the people, and in greater number than the federal government.  These rights, powers, and freedoms were in need of protection from the federal government, and so the bicameral legislature was established in the Constitution - one chamber for the people, one for the states.  The passage of the 17th Amendment was a needless and harmful incursion on the structure of Rule of Law in  America. Which leads us back to the question: who does the Senate represent?  They cannot represent the people; that is the job of the House.  They cannot represent the country; that is is the job of the president.  They cannot represent the law; that is the Supreme Court's purview.  That leaves - the party. The Senate represents - and has, ever since the passage of the 17th Amendment - the political party.  It has been the job of the Senate, ever since that day, to do the work of party politics - thwarting whatever executive or popular efforts (by the president or the house) did not further their party's interests.  With no true popular authority to guide them and no state authority to rein them in, the party system has been destroying America through the offices of the Senate every since the 17th Amendment was installed. The House may not be perfect, but it is still function according to its original mandate.  The 17th Amendment must be repealed in order to correct this error, or America is finished - destroyed, as was predicted decades ago, from within. Sun, 10 Apr 2011 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=4270A67E-123F-7491-A46714975E73324A http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=21B118CA-123F-7491-A4C9ECEC031D0D43 Arguments and facts against muslims in America ************* Failure to honor the The Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land CAIR's founding chairman, Omar Ahmad ... has flatly argued Shariah law should replace the Constitution. "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," he told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Calif., in 1998. "The Quran should be the highest authority in America." At the same time, Awad reminded Muslim-Americans that they are still, first and foremost, citizens of the global Islamic nation - "We belong to the ummah (the muslim community or people), and we are an extension of the Muslim world", he said. Failure to respect Americans of other faiths (per First Amendment) Wiretap evidence from the Holy Land Foundation terror-finance case put (Council on American-Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad) Awad at a Philadelpia meeting of Hamas leaders that was secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charity. Wiretaps also record them stating the need to deceive Americans about their true aims. Awad told his Muslim audience: "Muslims in America are in the best position to show Islam and to show action and to show vision – not only for a Muslim school, how it should be run, but for an entire society, how it should be run. Who better can lead America than Muslims?" ****************** Muslims have so far been able to convincingly and successfully lie to other countries about their motives and intent - establishing a presence powerful enough to constitute a power bloc that has challenged the native national society.  European countries have smaller populations and populated areas than America - making the infiltration easier; America, being as large and spread-out as she is, takes far more time to influence.  Combine that with the diversity of American opinions and the general cattishness of American opinion - very independent, and not easily herded into conformity - and one can see the unexpected challenge facing the muslim advance. They have been frighteningly successful, in spite of all that, but the infections have been largely encysted - the greater proportion of American people are wising up, and want nothing to do with what they see coming in islam. The next step must be eradication of the invading organism.  A parasite, a virus, a cancer - call it what you will - muslims are invading the American body.  Like a parasite, they take all they can, then breed more of themselves - giving nothing back, and only making more takers.  Like a virus, they exist only to hijack the system and serve their own ends - and usually wind up killing the host system, requiring that they move on to another.  Like a cancer, they take up resources and insist that they are part of the system - while they are (as evident through their behavior) in no way good or healthy for the body. All three of these conditions are pathogenic, harmful to the host system, and - ultimately - fatal.  If we are to save our beloved country, these agents of societal disease must be poisoned, excised, and prevented from getting further foothold.  In no wise should they be allowed to remain in America; their faith makes such a thing impossible.  Islam demands that its adherents subvert any existing system in an effort to install islam (also like a virus); it demands that its adherents deceive non-muslims in order to promote and advance the muslim faith (also like many parasites); it demands - on pain of death and damnation - that every muslim do his utmost to eradicate the infidel (in much the same way as is suggested - in reverse - in this article above) in order to make more room for muslims (like any cancer known). With the clear understanding that islam wants ALL non-muslims either subjugated, converted, or dead, is it unreasonable to then adopt a policy of open hostilities toward it and its adherents within our borders, inviting these toxic elements of our population to leave and take up residence in a country more in keeping with their chosen beliefs - or to remain and die (expecting them to honestly renounce their faith is clearly foolishness, as the policy of taqqiya permits them the out of lying to promote and advance their faith and its designs of conquest)? Mon, 04 Apr 2011 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=21B118CA-123F-7491-A4C9ECEC031D0D43 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=D93F04BF-123F-7491-A4943F88FCDB22CE In a recent interview -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT3BYXc1Hhc&feature=youtube_gdata_player --, (Nation of Islam leader Louis) Farrakhan touches on one issue - American foreign policy - in a way that I must agree.  Our nation's Founding Fathers believed strongly that America should remain neutral in foreign matters, and sought to guarantee the security of that neutrality by:   -- building our domestic prosperity based on internal reliance alone;   -- encouraging foreign commerce, founded on honest and fair dealing, to foster strong bonds of friendship that did not involve political entanglements; and,   -- establishing and maintaining a powerful DEFENSIVE military to discourage foreign foolishness.   The record of America's interference with the governments of other nations - based on political and/or economic concerns - has (as it must inevitably have done) become a matter of general knowledge in those countries where we have unjustifiably interfered, and has made us look very bad.  The reasons for it are rooted in Hamiltonian economics, which rise from the same sources as the British Mercantilist system - a system which turned a small island nation into a world-encompassing empire by using conquest to absorb economic "air supply" so that it could grow its economy further.  Hamilton knew the system would work, but he refused to account for its warlike and arrogant methods; to his way of thinking, the ends - America's future prosperity and glory - justified the means. America, on the other hand, was far less inclined to conquest of other nations at the time; the beckoning western frontiers of this new continent would keep them busy for some time.  Our methods - forced relocation, invasion and conquest, or even genocide - which we had brought with us from Europe would not change, but they would not be pointed at other nations of similar technological and military might; we would not let the discomfort of a few small bands of backwater savages stop us from becoming greater than all other nations under Heaven.  In time, we told ourselves, they would come to thank us. When, however, the great continent had been brought under one tentflap, our economic air supply became considerably more finite.  When, shortly thereafter, other nations became our economic and technological rivals due to our magnanimous largess, their economies began to expand. Soon, there were no new frontiers to conquer and claim.  There would begin a new age for America, an age where Hamilton's economic plan simply would not work - unless America decided it would take up the sword of empire and take the air supply it wanted.   It might have been better if she had, rather than this subtle and dishonest - and, inevitably, treacherous - campaign of suckering other countries into serving us while "permitting" them the illusion of sovereignty.  At least an honest defeat leaves a man (or a nation) with some self-respect; the deceit and skulduggery that results in decades of theft, abuse, and contempt cannot give rise to anything but what we have been seeing from these countries of late: outrage, hatred, and violent action. We would have done better to adhere to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers - among whose number Alexander Hamilton, you may note, is not counted - and saved ourselves this ruinous state and unenviable decision point.   How, in fact do we proceed? Do we withdraw entirely from the world stage - do we isolate?  Not the wisest choice, but it is one open to us. Do we throw caution to the wind?  Do we carefully plot our course and then launch an all-out war of conquest on the rest of the world?  Do we take what we need to survive economically and crush all competition in one crushing blow? Do we choose the hardest course - the separatist way - and temper all of our dealings with other nations as our Founders would have done?  Much more work in this, but the attention demanded by such a long and broad undertaking would slow the process considerably and provide a better chance of getting the best (for America and Americans) results the first time. The time for choosing is NOW. (Look at Farrakhan's heavy in the background; he rolls his eyes up in some kind of impatience or disgust at one point.  I wonder how many other people have noticed this...) Mon, 21 Mar 2011 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=D93F04BF-123F-7491-A4943F88FCDB22CE http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=4C1BBBB0-123F-7491-A4C9F77AFFF11D0D Anyone remember that it was Alexander Hamilton who said, "A national debt will be to us a national blessing"?  He's the one we have to thank for bringing this method of economy building to America! Of course, it is not his fault that we remained with it.  It works to force an economy to grow at a furious pace - look how it boosted the British economy into a world-encircling empire - but it demands the energetic government and the expansionist policies of imperial Great Britain to keep doing what it does.  Think: if you have more debt than you have income, you do everything you can to resolve your debt - selling off unnecessary assets, improving efficiency, working longer hours.  A nation is only different in its means; its methods may be every bit the same. This only worked in America while other economies were small enough to provide "space" into which the American economy could grow; when other national economies began to stiffen up, grow, and eventually resist the outward expansion of the American economy, there was a natural limit placed on the growth of both economies. This was strengthened by the other's country's nationalism and pride - they had established their station in the world, and determined to grow.  There were more than one of these economic obstacles to American growth, but they were well behind the power curve - America was growing at a phenomenal pace, while the rest of the world's closest contenders were hardly mechanized; many were still hitched to tribal or feudal systems.  Their nationalist pride, however, refused to allow the obvious incursion of another country into their sovereign breathing space; they understood the value of having that room to grow, just like having new land upon which to build. When America's economic expansion butted up against these other nations' "air space", there were two options open to America: respect their future; or conquer and absorb their resources.  The latter would be the only way America could hope to continue growing, but it went against the grain of America's foreign policy at the time.  They had not fired upon us, so we had no justification for attacking them (other than a desire to continue growing economically). The great failure in this was America's refusal to change from a debt-driven economy to one based upon self-sustaining thrift.  America continued to allow her debt to drag her economy in any direction that provided room to grow.  Any little corner, nook, or crevice of economic opportunity was sought out and snapped up greedily. Then, in the mid-1940s, we discovered our error.  We looked for a year or two and discovered that there were no more places to grow; all of the foreign economies had begun to make use of industrialization and mechanization that we had sold them, and they were growing rapidly, as well.  There would be no turning them back without going to war with them.  America, however, still had her pride - and that meant that she would have to do whatever it took to stay in the lead. The larger countries - Russia, China - would be foolishness to take on, and we could not find a way to justify that kind of military expansionist tactic yet.  The smaller examples, though, of Korea and VietNam, were bite-sized and could be rationalized to the public.  Keep in mind - WE WERE NEVER MEANT TO WIN THESE.  The only purpose this served was to keep the economy rolling while centralizing the government control of the military forces available at the time.  As long as the nation remained on a wartime footing, money could be pulled from pockets and people could be given work in the military machine - and the population could be controlled by attrition, as a jolly little aside. Korea was a dismal failure for American foreign policy, but it remained a "victory" as long as Korea remained "The Forgotten War".  People would be willing to answer the call to war against the Red Scourge in VietNam if they could be made to forget the ignominy of Korea.  So television and cinema placed dancing images before us, blurring our memories and soothing our pains.  A new generation - born just before or during the Korean war, was turning seventeen to nineteen years old about the time America's government felt the need for more artificial stimulation of the economy. VietNam - another war we were never meant to win (and we didn't win, in glorious fashion).  Not only did we place our nation in even deeper debt and wreak further havok on America's public image - we began to stink at home.  The young people who were unhappy with the idea of going to war for reasons that they did not, would not, or could not support began to hate the nation they should have loved.  They began to hurt the country that gave them all of the freedoms they had to hate it with.  They began to turn that hatred on those who dutifully answered their nation's call.  America's image was in a shambles, her economy was staggering drunkenly, and the rest of the world was taking up every bit of economic ground ceded by a reeling superpower. And still we did not learn. So here we are, with our economy gasping for air and our public image in utter ruins.  Everyone around the world hates us for our being so greedily unwilling to stop growing and allowing them a shot at greatness.  They hate us, too, for exercising our "peaceful conquests" that allowed us decades of access to their economic space - and now they are taking back control of it, forcing America into an even tighter space. That national debt is not so much a national blessing now - is it, Mr Hamilton? Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=4C1BBBB0-123F-7491-A4C9F77AFFF11D0D http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=44DA7337-123F-7491-A4D0E683387C865F Two particular schools of thought exists on this front.   One places the earliest recorded origin of socialist thought at c360BC - with the writings of Plato in his work, "The Republic".  Here Plato - through the agency of Socrates and a number of other notable characters - expounded on the characterstics of a perfect ("utopian") society, and the means of arriving at that end.  Management of education, arts, sciences - the mind's realms - and politics and the economy that depended on them, would (so it was reasoned) be well received by the people of that perfect society because of the benefits obtained as a result of the sacrifices imposed upon them. The idea appears to have gone into a Rip Van Winkle state - likely due to the disfavor it would have met with in the hearts and minds of imperial Persia and Rome, as well as the ongoing power-play chaos of Roman-style rule within the ensuing Holy Roman Empire. The second holds that socialism emerged as a socio-political theory in the early 16th century - most probably due to the thaw that began when the unquenched light of human reason radiated a growing warmth upon the charnel grip of a decadent church - with Thomas More's "Utopia".  As is evident in More's work, there are many similarities between communism (and socialism) and the society of Utopia: total lack of personal property; considerable lack of personal right or privilege; constant redistribution of wealth and resources.  While some areas of Utopian society - positive correction, religious tolerance, and care of the elderly and inferm - are laudable, the methods for achieving these ends would be either questionable or downright offensive to the free man. Socialist thought began to find many favorable proponents in Renaissance and Reformation Europe as a result of the weakening of the Papal grip on various state heads.  The eventual - and total - breakaway of England from that grip that came with Henry VIII's creation of The Church of England dealt a crushing blow to papal power that led to its diminishment on the world stage. It was this sudden release of the minds of men from the intrusive and murderous grip of Rome that led to an explosion of "new thought".  The predictable rediscovery of socialist thought became even more attractive to the newly-freed minds of men because, thought they could not conceive of the long-term results of socialist policy and practice, they knew that they wanted two things in life far more than anything else: total (or near-total) freedom from the rule of others; and prosperity.   The new crop of intelligencia and philosophers - men of sufficient resources and independence that they possessed time to devote to research and deep thought - were only a little more equipped to plumb these issues of politics, economics, and psychology.  Most were every bit of a choler with the general populace because they had all grown up under the same cloud (for a bit of entertaining insight, watch the delightful - and otherwise fluff - movie, "Igor"), and that sentiment steered their judgment as the moon guides the tides: invisibly and implacably. Thus is was that, over the next three centuries, socialist thought would find fields of heart and mind to root and grow in.  The 19th century would be its first great season of blossom and fruit - rising from the humanist plowing and hoeing of the 16th century, the plentiful intellectual and philosophical rains of the 17th, the warm and abundant light of the 18th century's Promethian sun, and many harvesters taking to the fields of the 19th century. Into the great harvest strode minds like Marx and Engels, Cabet and Fourier, Owen and Proudhon and Rouvroy de Saint-Simon.  Each had ideas slightly differing from the others, but the desired ends were the same: removal from each man that which made him a target for crime and a victim of his own pride, so that it could be distributed equally among his fellows; removal of the responsibility of each member of society for his own good; and removal of any incentive for improvement of society, so that nobody EVER had anything better than their fellows. From its earliest modern inception (when it was actually put beyond the theoretical stage and into practice), socialism has failed - utterly, and in every incarnation it has been granted.  These failures have resulted from one key cause more than any others that played a part - human nature.  This is undoubtedly because the utopian minds that conceived of these experiments had in their plans a society that did not deal with real people - only people as they wished them to be.  Governments can be designed, cities laid out, economies planned - and  they may be perfect in their mathematical precision and clockwork integration - but the mathematics and planning fail utterly when injected with the entropic illogic and populous chaos of humanity.   Now we have a move to turn America from its free and capitalist republican society to an autocratic socialist commune.  Nations, throughout recent history, with smaller populations to contend with and with citizens far-less opposed to socialism than Americans, have failed in the socialist experiment; even China has found itself returning to capitalism simply in order to survive and support its people.  The Soviet Union - FAIL.  Cuba - FAIL.  VietNam and North Korea - imminent FAILs.  Everywhere socialism has been tried throughout history, it has FAILED. To try and rationalize the attempt in a nation not only philosophically opposed to socialism but far more grand and diverse in population, is foolishness - and insanity. Sun, 20 Feb 2011 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=44DA7337-123F-7491-A4D0E683387C865F http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=6313DC3A-123F-7491-A4596F0876604A56 Each of us answers for our own acts, regardless of the bidding of our superiors. As it has been said that, "here, in America, LAW is KING!" (Thomas Paine, Common Sense), we are to be ruled by law in America - but we are also to be ruled by our conscience, that still, small voice that visited Elijah so long ago (1Kings 19:12). For it is through that still, small voice that God speaks to us - through our conscience that we are ruled from the very authority that grants men the power to make laws to rule him in this life - and as the Creator is always greater than the creature, God must always rule first. So it is that men are the true source of justice, the true authors of civilization, under Heaven. [b]In the end, laws do not end slavery - people do.[/b] This should be clear enough by the evidence provided of abolition of slavery in America, and the resistance to such abolition regardless of broad public opinion and laws against it. Even with the UN stating that such a practice is now unlawful all over the world, slavery persists. Even when it became clear, in the mid-1800s, that slave labor was more expensive - in acquisition, in upkeep, in overhead costs - than mechanized production, the slave owners and adherents to human labor resisted the advance of the machine with every means at their disposal. It was never the laws that ended slavery, but the men who conceived of those laws - as well as the men who argued in favor of them; the men who took the first step, out of all of their fellows, to embrace the changes; and those who too the initiative to build on that paradigm shift. [b]Slavery was already being abolished, state by state.[/b] 1777 Constitution of the Vermont Republic bans slavery. 1780 Pennsylvania passes An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, freeing future children of slaves. Those born prior to the Act remain enslaved-for-life. The Act becomes a model for other Northern states. 1783 Massachusetts rules slavery illegal based on 1780 constitution;; all slaves immediately freed. 1783 New Hampshire begins a gradual abolition of slavery, passing a law codifying the equality of all men. Later measures would be passed freeing future children of slaves (1848), and all slaves in 1857. 1784 Connecticut begins a gradual abolition of slavery, freeing future children of slaves (1784 and 1797) and all slaves in 1848. 1784 Rhode Island begins a gradual abolition of slavery, freeing future children of slaves (1784), and all slaves after 1840. 1799 New York State passes gradual emancipation act, freeing future children of slaves (1799), and all slaves in 1827. 1804 New Jersey begins a gradual abolition of slavery, freeing future children of slaves. Those born prior to the Act remain enslaved-for-life. (Permanent abolition in 1846) 1808 United States—import and export of slaves prohibited after 1 Jan. (This, pursuant to USConstitution, Article 1, Section 9(1)) 1814 Dutch outlaw slave trade (Interesting to note that slavery continued in the US even after abolition by the nation whose trade brought negro slavery to American shores.) 1817 New York State sets a date of July 4, 1827 to free all its slaves. (see above) 1827 New York State abolishes slavery. Children born between 1799 and 1827 are indentured until age 25 (females) or age 28 (males). (see above) 1847 Slavery ends in Pennsylvania. Those born before 1780 (fewer than 100 in 1840 Census) are freed. 1850 United States: Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 requires return of escaped slaves. 1852 The Hawaiian Kingdom abolishes kauwa system of serfdom. (Though not a state for another 107 years, this advanced move made by "island-bound savages" makes quite a statement.) 1862 Treaty between United States and Britain for the suppression of the slave trade (African Slave Trade Treaty Act). 1863 United States: Emancipation Proclamation declares those slaves in Confederate-controlled areas to be freed. Most slaves in "border states" are freed by state action; separate law frees the slaves in Washington, D.C. 1865 United States abolishes slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; about 40,000 remaining slaves are affected. And, finally - 1948 UN Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights bans slavery globally. Regardless of everything done throughout history to remove the stain of slavery from the robes of our souls, mankind continues, as a species, to engage in this most despicable enterprise - only proving further that morality cannot be legislated; it must be embraced by each of us on a personal basis. [b]Mechanization was under way that would make negro slavery economically impractical.[/b] From 1850 - with the efforts of Samuel S. Rembert and Jedediah Prescott - until final success with John Daniel Rust in 1936, efforts at developing a mechanical cotton picker were slowed by social resistance to the changes such a thing would entail. The other men who pushed in this direction were ridiculed and belittled for their failures, which did nothing to improve matters for American farmers; all that came of the resistance was continued high cost of production and resultant high price of end products. While the invention of the cotton gin increased the production of cleaned cotton - and thus nearly quadrupled the demand for slaves in 1850 to plant and pick cotton to be processed - it should have been a clear indication to the southern cotton farmers that mechanization of all facets of production would increase profits enormously. The decades of resistance to such advancements was understandable - almost expected - but the failure of those people involved to recognize the inevitability of success in efforts to produce a mechanical replacement for human labor is shocking. Such a recognition would have broadened genuine interest and investment in the development of such a system, perhaps bringing success before Mr Rust by half a century; it certainly would have increased awareness of the plight of the American black population, and broadened the base of minds seeking a successful design to begin mechanizing the cotton industry. * * * All of this says one thing clearly: the 13th Amendment has done nothing, and could do nothing, without the will of men to stand behind it and support it. It has no power to stand without the willing support of the citizens of these United States. As a result of this conclusion, it becomes clear that the #13 fails the Necessary and Proper test: unnecessary, because the will of men alone may bring about what it claims to; and improper, because morality should never be legislated, or men become the subjects of the government that codifies the law. Fri, 07 Jan 2011 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=6313DC3A-123F-7491-A4596F0876604A56 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=05F95715-123F-7491-A49F076E31DA8390 Strange as it may seem, the president and vice-president were not always running mates; in the beginning, candidates did not run so much for president or vice-president, as for the executive office. The votes would make their way to the senate floor to be counted, and the candidate with the most votes would become president; the candidate with the next most became vice-president. The first concern regarding this arrangement always seems to be, "what if they are of different parties?". If schools today were more diligent in teaching US history prior to the War Between the States, the elections of 1796 and 1800 would be more common knowledge. In this election the citizens of the United States were treated to a political spectacle. In 1796, General Washington, having served two terms as president and desiring little more than to return to the simple life of a farmer, refused the offer of a third term in the office; the first actual election of a president - where the citizens of this new and untried republic would be required to do something they had never had the opportunity to do before: choose, from among a field of candidates, the next leader of their recently-installed federal government - was, however, already tainted by party politics. Around 1792, the Federalist party grew around Alexander Hamilton's plans for the American government and economy; the federalist agenda, which Adams supported despite his dislike for Hamilton, included a requisite national debt, the means to pay that debt, and a national bank. In response to this - and opposition to the idea of perpetual debt and a central bank - Thomas Jefferson and James Madison instituted the Democratic Republicans; this was a far more conservative and less imperialist party - more interested in guiding with Law than governing by men. It will be noted, however, that - no matter how noble the one or diabolical the other - these were both parties that represented a divided America. The choice came down to John Adams - Gen. Washington's vice-president - and Thomas Jefferson, a sometimes friend/sometimes ally of Adams. The spleen and hostility of this election make modern mudslinging look tame by comparison - one man attacking the ethics and morals of the other, the newcomer depicting the incumbent as an unprincipled tyrant. Such attacks are unheard of in today's political contests - which may be a problem in itself; if morals, ethics, and personal governing approach (substance) are less important to the contest than platforms and promises(style), there is something desperately wrong with the politics. It is very clear that political parties had become increasingly influential by this time. This is hard to understand in light of the vehement and lengthy exhortation given to the government and citizens of the United States by one of the most distinguished and celebrated men of the day. That man - General George Washington - was unanimously chosen to preside over the convention wherein the Constitution was conceived and formed, and decidedly against political parties; in his 1796 Farewell Address, Washington said, "Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally." He went on to explain, in minute detail, why political parties were a bad idea: they are divisive, promoting the growth of petty local jealousies into considerably vengeful envy; they lead to distraction from the truly important matters - favoring the settlement of past slights and the resumption of stalled agendas over growth of the strength and prosperity of the United States and the protection and promotion of the fortunes and liberties of the citizens of those states, eventually leading to such a degree of party interest that control of the whole government is seized by one or the other in order to guarantee that party's opportunity to complete its agenda - at the ultimate cost of the fortunes and liberties of the citizens. General Washington left no doubt where his loyalties lay - with the free and sovereign states and citizens - when he said, "let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." A complete reading of the Farewell Address is recommended; there are many valid points touched on that are simply beyond the scope of this letter. This link will take you to a copy of Washington's 1796 Farewell Address [link]http://www.ushistory.org/documents/farewelladdress.htm[/link]. The original plan of the Constitution (in Article 2, section 1(3)) - left to the weather of time and tolerance - would likely have done away with the abuses of party politics, but we shall never know; the methods and mechanisms provided in the Constitution for the restraining and modification of government have been in place and operative since the ratification of that document, and men knew how to change bad governments even then as now. The legislature may have been too flush with the novelty of their new powers to leave well enough alone. For whatever reason, this move to change the Constitution was made based on two questionable ideas: 1 - That the means provided in Article 2, section1, would not be sufficient to cope with the problem that cropped up with the 1800 election. This is a weak reasoning, since the electors are guided by the will of the electing citizens of the several states; they do not, themselves, determine the vote of their electoral district. If the will of the people results in a tie between two candidates, the House shall take as many ballots as are required to settle the dispute; time is not as important a consideration as is the preservation of the will of the citizens of the United States. Pursuant to the Necessary and Proper Clause, this amendment was not necessary. 2 - That there could be - theoretically, anyway - a difficulties between the two (at best), or a coup staged by the VP if the two were sufficiently incompatible (at worst). While I can certainly see how this could have been a legitimate concern in the early nineteenth century, pulling off such a stunt in today's politics would be inadvisable: science, medicine, and the internet - unforeseeable at the time - make this kind of skulduggery enormously hard to execute. Even the silent and horribly-expensive subterfuge surrounding Obama's eligibility has been laid open to general scrutiny in ways that would have been impossible when the twelfth amendment was passed. To enact such a legislation based solely on theory, and that would be subversive of both the will of the citizens of the United States and of the Supreme Law of the Land, was wholly improper. The Twelfth Amendment is very likely the reason for the continuity of party politics and the abuses it entails. Mon, 20 Dec 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=05F95715-123F-7491-A49F076E31DA8390 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=FF545E8D-123F-7491-A4683E75E0465566 Immigration Issue "...the soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."  Ezekiel 18:20 It is sad that these young people must suffer for the misdeeds of their parents.  Was it the children who urged the parents to break the law?  Was it the children who, in a dream, visited their parents-to-be and told them that they must put their lives at risk and their whole future in jeopardy?  Not to the reasonable mind; the acts of the empowered parents—the "sins of the fathers"—are their own burden, and the pain of those stripes should be theirs alone to suffer. Why, then, are these young people being thus subjected to the same punishment?  How have they earned such injustice? The truth is they have not earned it — it has, rather, been thrust upon them by those who would have their own agendas fulfilled by hazarding the future happiness and past achievements of these young people.  In the same example of Saul, Ahab, and Rehoboam, some leaders in America have taken their own prideful interests, and the wicked counsel of those about them, to put forth a policy that rewards the wickedness of the parents even as it rewards the hard work and excellence of the children. Do not be deceived, however, by their cries for mercy to the children.  In truth, they care nothing for the children; they know these children are less-grasping for freedom—which they have known their whole lives—than are the parents who have not.  They know that these children could easily grow up to be as opposed to their wicked policies as so many Americans are now; they know that the only ones they can count on for such tear-blinded gratitude as shall further their ultimate goal are the parents. For who but the parents are most likely to remember the hardships of life in their homeland? the frightening uncertainty of sneaking into America—risking capture, return, and death? the smiling faces of those who twisted the laws to make the illegal, legal?  How else could the parents most easily express their gratitude than by voting for these smiling faces, and for those they endorse? The wisdom of relieving the children of the burden of the fathers' sins is God's wisdom.  God has also, in His wisdom, left us to our own devices: having taught us what we must do to please Him, He waits to see what we WILL do — act to please Him, or ourselves? When we act to please Him, the sins of the fathers are not visited upon the children, nor vice-versa; when we act to please ourselves, they are.  So it is that our government's unwillingness to abide by the written law—the body of Justice, the daughter of Wisdom who is God's bride—and thus secure and protect our borders, has led us to this.  This further abuse of the law will only bring more opposition, in the form of protest, violence, and—ultimately—war. The only truly just solution is the one that does not violate the law, but that also respects the dignity and honor of the individual.  The parents must be returned to their homeland — where they are welcome to pursue American citizenship through proper legal provisions; alien status of any degree cannot be permitted due to the circumstances of abuse leading to this point.  If the young people are minors still, they must return with their parents unless there are verifiable blood relatives of legal American status (perhaps, non-related sponsor families of legal American status?) to take them in until: they are no longer minors; or, their parents have completed naturalization and may return to live in America legally.   In any event, the children should never be used as political pawns, and the law must always prevail where it may — this business of makng a new law because the old one does not serve the interests of those in power, must end forever. Sun, 19 Dec 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=FF545E8D-123F-7491-A4683E75E0465566 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=69D05BF7-123F-7491-A482C35403938B67 A CITIZEN MANDATE Now that Republicans have made major gains in Congress, what do you want to see happen in the next two years?  Before moving forward on this project, I would like to provide you with resources for keeping yourself informed directly, without the pre-mastication of the media serving up what they think is safe or desirable for you to know.  Samuel Adams said, "No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders"; Americans are not given to losing at anything, and so it is the most American of resolutions to be self-informed with truth and verifiable fact in order to WIN. openCongress.org -- An absolutely invaluable resource for information regarding members of federal congress, bills, and other highly-useful information.  Find your congress(wo)men, go to their websites, bookmark them - and hammer them with emails heavy-laden with valid and verifiable data! govtrack.us/local/maps.xpd -- A bit sluggish, but it provides a visual guide to your State Senator and Assembly(wo)man, as well as informing you as to the district designation for your place of residence.  It is best to use the provided links to enter the webiste for the official and bookmark it for later access. After getting these people tracked to their lairs, Copy this document to another file, then finish the form as instructed below and send ONLY THE FORM to them.  The more of these they get, the better an idea they shall have of what their constituency wants - and evidence to support their assertions in chambers. The copy was made so that, should you so desire, you can forward this whole post to your other friends - by email, or by social sites like FB, MS, or even ClassMates.  You are encouraged to do so - help them to become informed and active, to take on a greater role as Americans.  Help them to be responsible for what happens to themselves, to their neighbors, to their children, to their nation. Thank you for taking the time to consider this action. And now, on to the survey... ************************* The form starts HERE  \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ ?Does the new Republican leadership in Congress have a mandate to change Washington, D.C. (erase all but your chosen response)   Yes, I believe there is a clear mandate to restore liberty and limited government.   No   Unsure   Yes, but only if citizens continue to hold all elected officials accountable The issues I believe are important for the new Congress to address: (erase all that do not apply)   Limiting the size and scope of government   Reducing the deficit and government spending   Maintaining the tax cuts for all Americans   Repealing ObamaCare   Stopping the war on small business   Restoring limited government under the Constitution   Securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration   Strengthening our defense against radical Islam's war against the West   Stopping the Socialist push to remake our nation   Safeguarding individual liberties of citizens   Embrace free-market solutions over Government involvement   No taxpayer-funded abortions in any federal legislation or programs The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE I believe the new Congress should address: (erase [b]all but the one[/b] you feel is most important)   Limiting the size and scope of government   Reducing the deficit and government spending   Maintaining the tax cuts for all Americans Repealing ObamaCare   Stopping the war on small business   Restoring limited government under the Constitution   Securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration   Strengthening our defense against radical Islam's war against the West   Stopping the Socialist push to remake our nation   Safeguarding individual liberties of citizens   Embrace free-market solutions over Government involvement   No taxpayer-funded abortions in any federal legislation or programs My CITIZEN MANDATE on government-run healthcare: (erase all but your choice)   I am calling for ObamaCare to be REPEALED immediately.   I am calling for ObamaCare to be REPEALED and REPLACED with market-friendly reforms that do not add any unconstitutional mandates or burdens on the American people or business.   I support ObamaCare   I have no strong opinion on ObamaCare My CITIZEN MANDATE on illegal immigration: (erase all but your choice)   Border security must be increased.   Border security must be increased and those in our country illegally should be punished to the full extent of the law and deported.   I support a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.   I have no strong opinion on illegal immigration. My CITIZEN MANDATE on the federal debt: (erase all but your choice)   The federal debt is destroying our nation's future and must be reduced immediately.   The federal debt is a serious problem but the answer is not higher taxes. Instead, we must cap spending and grow the economy.   The federal debt is a necessary evil but must be kept within historical limits as compared to the Gross Domestic Product of our nation. My CITIZEN MANDATE on government spending: (erase all but your choice)   Government spending is out of control and must be reduced immediately.   Government spending is out of control and the federal government should be required to reduce its annual budget every year until the budget is balanced.   Government spending is out of control and should be limited by law or Constitutional Amendment to no more than 20% of the prior year's Gross Domestic Product.   Government spending is not a major concern.   My CITIZEN MANDATE on TARP and other government bailouts: (erase all but your choice)   Federal bailouts of the private sector such as the TARP program must be stopped immediately and any unspent funds returned to the taxpayers.   TARP and other bailouts served their purpose but must not be continued any longer.   I support federal bailouts such as TARP My CITIZEN MANDATE on taxes: (erase all but your choice)   I oppose any and all new taxes.   I oppose any and all new taxes and want the Bush Tax Cuts made permanent.   I support tax increases as a way to reduce the deficit. My CITIZEN MANDATE on government takeover of industry: (erase all but your choice) The federal government should cease and desist its socialistic takeover of industry and return companies like General Motors, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to the private sector.   Government involvement in certain industries over the past few years was necessary but these businesses and industries should be returned to the private sector. My CITIZEN MANDATE on welfare and entitlement programs: (erase all but your choice)   Social welfare and entitlement programs are undermining the long-term solvency of our nation and must first be capped and then reduced.   Social welfare and entitlement programs are unconstitutional and should be stopped altogether.   Social welfare and entitlement programs are a necessary part of the American experience. Freedom isn't free... And you cannot get it on credit! Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=69D05BF7-123F-7491-A482C35403938B67 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=41F09100-123F-7491-A45C390FE60F3A97 There is an old test that I was subjected to as a boy, meant to show me my general perception of the world: a single dot was marked in the middle of a plain, white sheet of paper, and I was asked to look at the paper and tell what I saw. You can imagine what my answer was; try it yourself and see. That plain, white sheet of paper was a pure, clean slate, and it was so easy to mar - with only a single dot of ink. Imagine how easy it was to begin a campaign of corruption of the Supreme Law of the Land - a pure, clear, unmistakeable presentation of the structure of this nation. All it would take was one dot... Amendment 11 - The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths - All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. Article III - The Judicial Branch; Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.) Consider first the clear wording of Article VI, paragraph 1. Unequivocal. Totally inclusive. More than simply declaring responsibility for past actions, however, it also establishes a precedent for accountability in future cases. Consider next the increasingly prevalent practice in legislative circles of seeking loopholes in extant law in order to gain access to powers never intended for their use. Recruitment loopholes, payroll loopholes, procedural loopholes. Anyone remember "Deem And Pass"? Loophole. The seven or so definitions of loophole readily available on the internet - running the gamut of arenas from legal to industrial to medical to international - all have these things in common: they exploit weaknesses and/or ambiguities in the rules and laws; they corrupt the purpose of those rules and laws; and they serve the interests of a very restricted party at the expense of the greater population. In short, it is minority rule established through invariably unethical means. How does this apply, then, to the 11th Amendment? Consider the text of the law: "... All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into... shall be as valid..." (emphasis mine). How can the simple and unequivocal text of Article VI, paragraph 1 be misconstrued, unless it be by someone whose interests would best be served by a corruption of the law? Certainly, the amendment in question would have been put together and in place for the purposes of preventing such malfeasance - but what part of "Necessary and Proper" is satisfied in this amendment? In light of the simple, clear language employed by the Founding Fathers - in order to make the law as available to the farmer, teamster, and common laborer as it was to doctors, lawyers, and statesmen - what need or propriety was was served in amending the law except to render it into something less honest? May, for instance, the stipulation of "all debts" be said to no longer be of any effect after those debts that were owed (and engagements entered into by the United States) we fulfilled? May the United States now renege on its debts and agreements at whim, now that the obvious intent of Article VI, paragraph 1, has been executed? Hardly! Imagine the general contempt and scorn to be heaped upon any nation that believed itself absolved of any obligations once it had completed satisfaction of those contracted as in A6/p1. The purpose of the Constitutional article in question was to establish, for all to see and for all time, that America would remain faithful to her obligations. Yet here we have the 11th amendment backing away from that very obligation. The Loophole issue becomes even more applicable when considering the damage done to the meaning and strength of Article III, section 2(1). No matter what arguments have been made by the Marshall or Bradley courts, or in the cases that were used to shape and justify this amendment - Chisholm v Georgia, Hans v Louisiana, and others - the law was made carefully, clearly, and deliberately to protect the interests of the less-powerful from the abuses of the more-powerful. One of the most insensible arguments - that a state may not be sued without its consent due to its sovereign immunity - leaves one gaping in slack-jawed shock. With this as the determinant consideration, every sovereign citizen is immune to being sued without their consent on the same grounds. Since, however, it has been determined that the individual, sovereign citizen passively and tacitly consents to being sued by engaging in such behavior as would bring legal proceedings against them; therefore, it must be accepted logically that states engaging in similar behavior would also be granting passive, tacit consent to litigation. There can be no other reasonable conclusion. One single dot. One simple, seemingly-innocent change mars the whole. From this one spot of rust and decay would come others - built the same way, branching from its precursor to provide future possibilities for graft, fraud, and corruption. While this is not irremediable, the recovery is going to take time and sacrifice to realize. Fri, 12 Nov 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=41F09100-123F-7491-A45C390FE60F3A97 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=41EE547C-123F-7491-A46FE099214F854B The older America gets, and the more aware her citizens become of the duties of citizenship - far beyond the simple concepts of paying taxes, obedience to the laws, and service to country - the more evident become the measures taken by past generations of Americans to make of this great nation something she was never meant to be. Captains of industry have sought to make of her a source of limitless wealth and power for themselves; politicians have endeavored to make of her an empire. Shadowy sociopolitical entities have hovered at the periphery of her awareness, drugging the air with sweet-smelling poisons and then placing a fetter here or removing a garment there - intent on binding our beloved nation, stripping her of her dignity, and raping her as long as she can survive the brutal assault, regardless of whether she remains drugged or becomes aware of her plight. Not one of these forces has the public weal in mind - they care only for their own satisfaction. The rights, liberties, and self-determination of the sovereign citizen mean nothing to such. Because of this, these malefactors have sought - almost from the beginning - to adulterate the Constitution and corrupt the safeguards of the public liberty. They have done so by adding amendments to the Constitution that have done some good in the very short term, but have become divisive and harmful over the long term. This series is devoted to the exposure of the flaws, both in reasoning and in construction, inherent in these post-Bill of Rights amendments. It is arguable that the whole corpus of amendments following the ten set forth in the Bill of Rights should be immediately stripped away as having no good purpose in today's society - and being good now only to those who would corrupt their meaning in order to serve their own purposes. The first ten amendments' greatest virtue is that they apply equally to every American - not protecting one set of Americans from another (in ways that should be left to the states), but protecting all Americans in the same way. This was, with respect to its internal purview, always and only the purpose of the general order of government. Fri, 12 Nov 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=41EE547C-123F-7491-A46FE099214F854B http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=EA8911E1-123F-7491-A4907B49E7D09DAF I could not say that the Founding Fathers would have been proud of such a moment. Pleased? Relieved? Certainly! But proud of people acting like civilized members of a community, when that is what is expected of them? It is kind of like that little poster you see in office spaces: "When I do well, nobody ever remembers; when I do poorly, nobody ever forgets." It is, I think, a problem in the American mind that craves approbation for what the Americans do. What is wrong with doing what is right and expected, just for the sake of doing what is right and expected? Should, for instance, a person be ENTITLED to a pat on the back for obeying the law? Should a person be ENTITLED to a reward for stopping a criminal? Should a person be ENTITLED to public acclaim for respecting his neighbor? If a pattern was detected in that last passage, it was intended. The only things a man is entitled to are the Life God gave him, the Liberty God permits him, and the property that is his through his own honest labor - provided he does not abdicate any or all of these through his actions. That people feel entitled to reward for being good citizens is troubling, and a strong possibility for the reason that so many people have been exhibiting a more demanding form of entitlement attitude - the support for a socialist state. As people continue to see, or think of, themselves as automatically deserving of something based on the criterion of breathing, they shall continue to nurture the seed, the weed, the poisonous fruit of socialism. When I see people coming together of their own free will to work toward the benefit of others, I see the power and beauty of the Body of Christ. When I see people rising from the wreckage of their lives and putting their time and energies toward rebuilding that which has been ruined, I see the power and beauty of America. When I see people coming together to work in order to assuage their assumed guilt - or silence the wailing of those who do not rise to build up their own world - I see nothing more than slaves to the demands of men and man's society. Sun, 07 Nov 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=EA8911E1-123F-7491-A4907B49E7D09DAF http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=03A2DAD2-123F-7491-A4065A35EE9011B3 The political action of the two parties in America has been emulating a bumper jack. Lots of people do not remember what a bumper jack is, so I ask the rest of you to be patient and indulge me. A bumper jack was the mechanism used to elevate a car so that the tire could be changed. The difference between it and the modern screw jack was that the bumper jack had two states of action: moving, or not moving. Basically, you were moving in the desired direction, or you were holding still. How does this equate to the political parties of America? Look at the history of America for the last sixty to eighty years. There have been periods of progressive action that lasted until enough Americans became unhappy with them and voted for change - corresponding with a strong move to vote for the "conservative" party, meant to bring America back to a sense of herself and responsibility to Americans. What happens after this, though? When the Conservatives - usually, the Republicans - are put into the driver's seat, what really happens? What would one expect from a conservative party? At the very least, one would expect a reasonable consideration of "necessary and proper" as it applies to any and all acts of the government. What has happened, instead, has been that the conservatives have done little more than hold us from sliding into the abyss - allowing the American people to start feeling safe again and slipping back into lethargic apathy. The next part is a movement that is clearly and historically understood. Basically, people become dissatisfied with the peaceful and unchallenging lifestyle that they have grown to take for granted - prosperity and comfort becoming objects of abuse through contempt borne of familiarity with nothing other than prosperity and comfort. The younger generation falls victim far too easily to exciting words and images that invite them to wilder thrills and greater disdain for authority. The next step is unavoidable: the new generation of voters overwhelms the last generation and begins to put progressives in places of power. They have no idea what progressives have done to the country in the past - and they refuse to listen to those who do understand the progressive agenda. After the progressives are ushered back in, the only thing the conservatives can do is make themselves look like the solution to progressive excess: the conservatives cannot afford to be wiped out, or the progressives take America and turn her into something she is not; by the same token, they cannot justify protecting people from their possibly progressive leanings for fear of looking oppressive. The Conservatives end up doing nothing to live up to their name - they make no moves, while in public favor and thus empowered to act, to pull America away from the edge of destruction. As a result, the progressive movement - when it returns to power - finds America in much the same place it left her, and is able to make more "progress". Thus, the cycle is bound to repeat. The only influence that can hold this pendulum from rocking to extremes is the constant and eternal vigilance of the American citizen. Sun, 31 Oct 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=03A2DAD2-123F-7491-A4065A35EE9011B3 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=DFF6AD5B-123F-7491-A45E71BE574393D4 All said and done, the American people have only themselves to blame for the state they are in. Early on, a fine bit of advice was given to Americans by Andrew Jackson: "... remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing..." It stands to reason, then, that this slow and creeping loss of liberties has been the business of generations of Americans letting their vigilance slip - worse yet, growing complacent and careless of their liberties. Do not mistake me; I do not absolve the miscreants who have acted against the interests of those who elected them to offices of trust. Their betrayal of the public trust is as forgivable as it is forgettable. It is hard to imagine, however, that such skulduggery could have continued for as long as it has if the people of this great nation had not succumbed to the siren song of comfort and overconfidence. It is our fault - as a people - for being less jealous (as Patrick Henry would admonish us) of that precious jewel, the public liberty. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Any instance of national stress has been the screen behind which a political Svengali has manipulated men and matters: wars, economic upheavals, civil unrest. It has been during these times of uncertainty and fear that the words "for the greater good" have been uttered by such figures as would play on the ignorance and distraction of the people in order to put in place laws that immediately appear beneficial - and only later show the duplicity behind them. The flip side of the last quote, the balancing rein to its liberty, is: "Character is defined by what one is willing to do when one believes one is not being watched." Rahm Emanuel should have been paying attention to this one piece of wisdom when he spoke the second half of the quote attributed to him. If, for instance, a person thought there was something they could not do, there was obviously a reason - that reason consisting of an inability to proceed on their desired course of action while depending upon what resources they could legally and ethically secure to the project. While the crisis provides a means of justifying unusual and extreme actions by declaring them to be "for the greater good" - a condition it is considered unwise to argue against during times of unrest - the crisis also leaves the average citizen ill-prepared to think clearly about the long-term results of approving such extreme actions as may be called for. The cause for this divide between the thought of the average citizen and the thought of the statesman is the imposed social differences between them. Note, for instance, how members of Congress used to be called to convention or session - after which they were to return to the work-a-day matters of running businesses, farms, and homes; there was none of this full-time congressman foolishness. When, however, members of congress became, in essence, full-timers - having no other jobs to return to, and bringing their families to Washington to live and learn - they were no longer living in the area they were elected to represent, among the voters and businesses and conditions they were elected to represent. It is hardly a surprise, then, that these elected officials gradually lost touch with their constituencies and began to adopt an elitist attitude. The solution to the problems outlined here is to return the members of the Legislature to part-time status. There is no law or rule barring them from holding or keeping a job (outside of government office, per the Emolument Clause), and there is clear precedence for the recovery of such a job after a period of public/civil/military service. Require the elected officers of our government – or those appointed or employed by them to positions which demand their undivided attention – to return to the livelihood which occupied them before their election or appointment; this is to mean both at the end of their legally-limited term in office, and at the end of the session to which they have been summoned by Executive or lawful necessity. Of course, should the officer at issue be discharged from their office and duties for reasons other than honorable – through censure, recall, or impeachment – they may (as seems fitting to the offices of those responsible to the business to which they were attached outside of their legislative duties) lose that occupation, as well. Another helpful measure would be a lifetime limit on the total number of years in public office. A combined total of twelve years – combined as they wish – in public office should permit a person to do as much good as they can, while preventing them from becoming so settled into the DC lifestyle that they lose touch and perspective. This would prevent anyone with aspirations to two terms as president from ever serving as senator, and would permit any man to serve in each elected capacity only once. By allowing a case-by-case waiver on this provision through a supermajority in both the house and the senate (separately), a particularly efficient and popular officer could be returned to office beyond the initial provision, but only if both the states and the people could agree overwhelmingly that such was a good idea – and, as a case-by-case, this waiver would have to be earned each time. Both of these measures, however, cannot and do not relieve any of us of the responsibility we have to safeguard our liberties. Any law can be corrupted; any good idea can be abused. It is not only a matter of exceeding difficulty to fool the whole of the people all of the time – it is next to impossible to fool an awakened, educated, and wary public at any time. It is your liberty. It belongs to you. In the end, nobody can protect it better than you. No soldier, no police officer, no superhero can protect your rights better than you can; no villain, no criminal, no terrorist can take them from you with impunity. Nobody can take liberty from you, but you can give it away. How you value your freedom and your liberty shall be evident in how easily and cheaply you sell them for any measure of security. Sun, 24 Oct 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=DFF6AD5B-123F-7491-A45E71BE574393D4 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=A6505EC9-123F-7491-A48B4BEF6EF40977 AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON the most Christian of foundations: Self-Determinism. Before mankind was created, God had determined to create man in His own image. This had to preclude gender, since God created only man; woman was created later, but - since she was created to be a helper suited to (or, to provide the archaic usage, "meet for") Adam's strengths and weaknesses - she would also be created in God's own image. What could this image be? Jesus touched on this eloquently in the Gospel of John - Chapter 4, verse 24 - when He said, "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth". Since God is spirit, then we must look to a spiritual likeness between ourselves and Him. The first, and most definitive, way in which we are like Him is our ability to choose our own direction, to determine our own destiny; the example of Esther (Esther 4:4(12!)-14) provides a clear explanation of this self-determinism and its resulting rewards. The impact of this on the doctrine of pre-destiny is devastating; combined with the message of the prophet Ezekiel (3:18-21;Chapter 18;33:1-20), it is abundantly clear that each of us commands his own destiny, and that God's will is not thwarted regardless. How is this proof of a Christian basis for American principle? Every one of the Founding Fathers spoke of the importance of each man's freedom to determine his own way, and every man's responsibility to respect and defend his fellow's freedom: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." George Washington "Civil liberty can be established on no foundation of human reason which will not at the same time demonstrate the right of religious freedom." John Quincy Adams "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." Benjamin Franklin Each of the Founding Fathers - regardless of his personal affiliations - was devoutly Christian. Each attended worship, no matter where they were; each comported himself with God as his guiding principle; each knew that there would come a day where his every act would be called into question by a Judge Who sees the heart of every man as clearly as a man feels his own pain. In the light of that understanding of God and man's relation to Him, the laws and institutions of America could never have been other than Christian. It is understandable, however, how the ambitious and self-serving history of the dominant church of Christian history - the Roman Catholic Church - could have placed a resistance to such a conclusion in the hearts of so many. The establishment of the church in a framework of military political empire could never grow into something beneficent; it has only been since the great tree was shaken and the seeds scattered that anything good has been seen. The earliest church - preceding the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire by Constantine - was far more humble and respectful, and there was no restriction of access to the Scriptures. After this point, though, the Church began to seek centralization of authority in order to consolidate its power over the masses. The first and most effective means to this end was to limit access to the Scriptures so that only those with the sanction of the Church could know the truth of their content; any who dared think for themselves were branded heretics and threatened with torment and/or death; any churchman who did not keep to the official line stood in danger of these things, also, but was further tempted with comfort, wealth, and power - and cowed with the threat of losing these. As a result, the greater population of the Christian world was prevented from being precisely what God had created him to be - self-determinate. It was this stain upon the religious powers of their day that so offended the Founding Fathers that they refused to permit any interference between the general order of government and the religious orders within the nation's confines. It was with a most Christian conviction that the Founding Fathers designed matters so that each man would be left in possession of his most precious gift from God - total and complete self-determinism. Wed, 13 Oct 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=A6505EC9-123F-7491-A48B4BEF6EF40977 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=9B10F898-123F-7491-A41C546AE40FDC4E The single biggest problem in America has nothing to do with political affiliation, tax bracket, or legal presence. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, religious preference, or favorite brand of cigarettes. It is not a guy thing, a gal thing, a young or old thing. It has little or nothing to do with any of the popular divisive issues covered and disseminated by the MSM. It is policy. Not foreign policy, either - it is domestic policy. It has to do with the most upside-down and passively-accepted policy in history - hyphenating a nation. Why is this such a problem? Certainly not because it allows people to celebrate their heritage; as a nation comprised largely of immigrants, it is going to be one of those things Americans are going to want to do. For myself, my family comes from Norway and Ireland; I am very proud of those legacies, and cannot understand why anyone would want to take away my right (or anyone else's) here in America to learn, understand, appreciate, and embrace my family's origins. The problem is the consistent practice of hyphenating putting "America" second. Italian-American. French-American. African-American. The practice of putting America second is a fungal rot in the fabric of America - causing factioning based on a characteristic that cannot be changed, rarely would be if it could - which groups primarily according to anything BUT American status. This can only lead to the formation of smaller, bite-sized population groups that are easier to devour when the government/machine/beast comes looking for another feeding. What is the solution? Americans should never be required to sacrifice their historic national heritage for the sake of nationalist sentiments. At the same time, America should never come in anything other than first in the hearts and minds of Americans; if an American feels more affection for the land of their heritage, they are free to expatriate and take up citizenship in that other land. We should wish them only well, and then get on with the business of being Americans first. While longer and not as melifluous, the expression, "American, of ________ descent" not only gets the point across but does so without relegating America to second place. Anyone who continues to hyphenate and put America anywhere but in her rightful place can, and should, be recognized as part of the problem and not of the solution. Eventually, Americans can begin to think of themselves as "one nation" again, rather than a bastardized Franken-nation - a United States of Chimerica Sun, 22 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=9B10F898-123F-7491-A41C546AE40FDC4E http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=E821B3A4-123F-7491-A4C4DEAC1780518D "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works." Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), upon passage of the 2010 Financial Reform Bill "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urging passage of ObamaCare What is it about our elected Democratic party members that they seem to believe we, The People, are so hopelessly stupid that we should be told to buy something as expensive and as government-empowering as these two behemoth bills? Furthermore, how can the collective Left Wing expect to justify the powerful and fundamental changes - desired and acceptable only by them, but effective on everyone - to those of us who do not want them but are equally subject to them? When recent history has shown, in the Gay "Rights" confrontations, that progressives and left-wingers were unwilling to accept the decision of the Conservative voters regarding marriage, one is left unimpressed by their cries of, "tyranny of the majority!" Apart from being a matter of change that only part of the whole can accept - like a partnership in which one member takes a direction inimical to the other - there is the question of how to justify accepting profound change without knowing what the long-term effects shall be. If, in a couple with three children, the husband chooses to save money by selling their minivan and buying a more fuel-efficient motorcycle - but does not tell the wife that is what he intends to do, only that he is going to save the family lots of money on gasoline - the immediate impact is sure to be noticed, but the long-term trouble (commuting with kids and groceries, or moving to a new home) are waiting to be felt. So, in this instance, the arrogance of being told by those we elected to represent all of us - not just a political segment of the whole - that we are about to get a big surprise and that we are going to love it or else is astonishing. That any person can grow up in America and never learn that spending money on air is plain damned foolishness is equally astonishing. Indeed, putting money against anything unknown is called gambling - and, in this case, the gambling is being done with the country's money: both that of the people who support these measures, and that of those who do not! Considering the American attitude toward personal wages, it is simply mystifying that any one group could even entertain the passing thought that the economic equivalent of sweat, blood, and time - that most precious commodity - could so blithely be taken from anyone and equally so given to another. For any reason. If, for instance, one was to rob a man and take his money and then give it to another person so that they could eat, the robber would still be considered a criminal by any reasonable man; he would be required to make restitution and suffer punishment for his crime. Note that, had the robbed man instead given his money to the hungry unfortunate, this would have rectified the problem and kept the robber from breaking the law. The issue in this is the will that transfers the property/wealth. Any law throughout human history - any national code of conduct, any system of civilized rule - has considered the transfer of wealth or property against the will of the owner to be either a crime or an act of war. That any member of our general legislature - let alone any group of members - could so much as contemplate any such act of crime or war against any American or segment of American population, is outrageous; to watch them carry out such plans with impudent impunity should be unbearable to any free and sovereign American. And yet we have seen such arrogance, impudence, and popular foolishness twice in less than a year's time. Sun, 18 Jul 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=E821B3A4-123F-7491-A4C4DEAC1780518D http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=D95A6AD8-123F-7491-A4D4B9EE3A05DD4B Rights The question of jurisdiction and the nature of rights invariably returns, regardless of what paths it has followed, to a question of God and where Americans rank Him in their lives. Rights are considered in the context of the world as freedom is considered in the context of the spiritual; respectively, the concepts of crime and sin, responsibility and duty apply. "The absence of a sense of sin, so common in our day, is due in great part to the fact that men do not realize its nature and consequences. Just as the right attitude of Man (considered as a creature) toward his Creator is shown by his right use of the means put at his disposal in order to attain his last end, which is the possession of God; so the wrong use of these same means by man for his own selfish gratification constitutes sin." H V Gill, Love: The Philosophy of Life As Gill indicates, sin is abuse of the means given mankind to serve his Creator - his freedom to choose, in order to avoid sin, must reflect a will to serve God rather than self. In the same line, criminality reflects a desire to serve the self rather than neighbor or nation; liberty is the reward to those who serve others instead of self. Finally, the granting of privilege - by men or the entities wrought by men, to men - comprises the least level of profit and penalty; these indulgences are granted by men or their creature entities, and may thereby be revoked without censure. Rights cannot be taken by men, only given.  They cannot be taken by men because they are not given by men. There are many who disagree with this assertion, but it cannot be denied that when a man is threatened with death for failure to comply with odious demands, he is never without his right to choose; indeed, one may state certainly that his right to choose is never more clearly in play than in such crises. The pervasive "victim" mentality, which seeks to absolve the individual of selfishness in the aftermath of such lapses, is nearly narcotic in its capacity to dull the mind and ensnare the soul; it does nothing, however, to pardon the guilty party or to grant authority over the liberty of others. This leaves God alone as authorized to take from men their rights to life, liberty, and joy; as to why God does not take away the rights of those who sin against Him, one may only conjecture. Rights, it may be said, are privileges granted by God.  As any privilege, rights may be taken away only by the grantor should He wish it; like any privilege, a price is set on its possession and a reward applied to its exercise - the bill to be settled out at the pleasure of the Grantor. On a less-spiritual level, rights are - must be - ultimately the domain of the individual.  As the nation is the making of men - through sacrifice of life, fortune, and sacred honor - and the state is the making of the nation, and - most important of all - as the creature is always less than the creator, it follows that neither nation nor state can have authority over the privileges granted by Him who is the Creator of Mankind.  Indeed, even man may not exercise authority over the rights of other men, their peerage rebelling against such audacity. It is that rebellion which drives men to establish codes of law, defining the nature of unacceptable behavior and outlining what measures are to (in common issues) encourage penitence, or (in extremity) excise that which rejects penitence or threatens social decay.  It is this that we call, Civilization - the dream, the desire, the doctrine to live together with other men without fear of them. There is nothing in this doctrine that places any one man's interests above another - this would subject the latter to fear of the former and defeat the purpose. It is this structure of society - states, nations - that places so great a responsibility upon it to protect the rights of the individual: society would not exist without men, would have no purpose without the rights of men that necessitated its creation. In order to preserve its very existence, society must protect and defend the rights and freedoms of men that gave it that existence. History bears this out in the pageant of nations, realms, and empires that became contemptuous of the liberties and natural, God-given rights of men - and the repeated tale of inevitable, invariable downfall.  The moment any political entity grew impatient or dissatisfied with voluntary submission - unwilling to be happy with freely-offered fealty - the society became inimical to civilization and human dignity.  The men and women that made up the society left, or they died in new open rebellion - and the process began anew. It may be that men shall always eventually forget these lessons and require the natural rebellion that always ensues.  What better proof that God does love His creatures, and desires that all should live?        Thu, 15 Jul 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=D95A6AD8-123F-7491-A4D4B9EE3A05DD4B http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=7194B563-123F-7491-A42AB183A2136D07 This list should be shown to every member of every legislative body in America. The Right needs to see it so they can see how important slamming on the brakes is - right now! The left needs to see this so they can see that we are onto them; they start to panic, they become careless. Fri, 25 Jun 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=7194B563-123F-7491-A42AB183A2136D07 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=0A089A89-123F-7491-A4EFF490FA706D32 "Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities, who are usually able to protect themselves, but rather to preserve and protect the rights of individuals and minorities against arbitrary action of those in authority." Houston County v. Martin, 232 A 1 511; 169 So. 13. While this is inarguably true - in the strictest sense - I reject that a Constitution exists only to protect individuals and minorities. This is wrong because even a majority of the people can be ignored by a remote, elitist government, thus requiring a protection of a majority from a minority. It is the above contention (Houston County v Martin) that was very nearly quoted by either Supreme Court hopeful Elena Kagan or Ms Sotomayor - two people who, having as much understanding of the law as they must, should damned-well know better. Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=0A089A89-123F-7491-A4EFF490FA706D32 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=2064E33B-123F-7491-A43DE2C21FF92E5E Is anyone paying attention to the new buzzword that is being bandied about? RECONQUISTA... It means taking back. It means relieving another of that which they hold. By force. Of indeterminate kind. It comes from the same root that gives us - Conquest. Conquer. Conqueror. Call it whatever you want, the end is the same: This is WAR. Of course, the Mexicans will say, "we have not been shooting at you and sending troops and bringing open aggression against you!" And, to a degree, they are right. They have not been shooting at us; it has been their criminal element that has been trading hostilities with us - a criminal element that the Mexican government has done absolutely NOTHING to rein in, whatever they have promised to the contrary. They have not been sending military personnel - armed with powerful weapons, deadly explosives, and organized tactics - but they have been sending whole regiments of people into our country intent on taking jobs that legal citizens COULD work; depriving every level of government of taxes THAT THE REST OF US MUST PAY; sucking up benefits that they have not paid into - AS THE REST OF US MUST; and hemorrhaging vast sums of cash into a foreign economy, clearly expressing their loyalties in actions far more honestly expressive than words ever could. They have not broken into open aggression against us because they know that, were there ever an open state of war between us, there would be no way they could win; their dream of taking back what was lost would die forever in the ensuing pyre. By pursuing, however, a slow and insidious campaign of bleeding and infiltrating our system - over decades, over generations - they have assumed the public face of overworked, downtrodden masses who have risked life and limb to try and manage a meager existence while forced by circumstances to live so far from friends and loved-ones. Americans, of course, are so appearances-conscious that we are incapable of allowing ourselves to look like the bad guy in front of the world - so we refuse to act against Mexico's increasingly obvious stratagems. They have permitted illegal immigration and drug trafficking to take place from their country into ours - endangering our citizens and acting without good faith. They have sought to bring our systems down by overloading them with consumers of services who do not pay into those services, and by filling jobs that legal citizens could fill - depriving the government of revenues and the economy of much-needed money flow. In much the same way as militant Islam makes war from no particular nation in ways that prevent America from retaliating and risking all-out war, Mexico has chosen to fight its war in unconventional ways. Do not deceive yourself, though: THIS IS A WAR. Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=2064E33B-123F-7491-A43DE2C21FF92E5E http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=05081FAC-123F-7491-A4120C2D4F35E4F7 3. _Resolved_, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;" and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:" thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force. Resolution 3 Focuses on the Tenth Amendment.  While its application is against issues of other import than those we are currently facing, the character of the issues - past and present - is very much alike.  For in both are seen instances of the general government seeking to increase its power by assuming upon itself powers: not delegated to it by the Constitution, and not forbidden by the Constitution to the several states.  How hard can this be to understand?  Aside from the convolutions in the actual text of the amendment, the intent is clear: if the Constitution does not explicitly spell out a power as granted to the general government (as in Article 1, section 8), it is not delegated to the general government - and is therefore, lacking any subsequent denial to states and/or citizenry, de facto granted/delegated/understood-as-belonging to the states and/or the people. This can even be made clear to a kindergartner. A further issue touched on is that of non-interpretive, direct reading of the Constitution.  Anyone who has subjected themselves to modern art displays has likely noticed that the random lines and splotches of color require considerable mental gymnastics in order to put the image together with the title of the piece.  Interpretive art - as it is called - is little more than a technicolor Rorschach test; it has no more truth to it than the mind imbues it with.  Rather insidiously, though, it has no true purpose other than to force one to think like another - requiring a person to reorder their thought patterns so that they can see what the "artist" sees.  This is little more than training the mind to accept what others - perceived as superior in intellect, perception, or wisdom - wish to put into it.  Is it any wonder, then, that the most pious progressives are those who think of themselves as educated in the arts and "humanities"? The simple and straight-forward reading of the Constitution is sufficient.  Provided one has a working knowledge of the English language and can read, they can understand the Constitution and what it means.  This was, no doubt, the intention of the framers of the Constitution, knowing that they would have not only lawyers and doctors and philosophers to rule with it, but farmers and millers and soldiers and such - the salt AND the earth - who deserved to benefit as much from the law and its understanding, the one as the next. Fri, 04 Jun 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=05081FAC-123F-7491-A4120C2D4F35E4F7 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=EE5E87C0-123F-7491-A4DCE76D8862F89E 2. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory. This second part of the Kentucky resolutions reinforces the point that should have been already very clear from the wording of Article 1, section 8, and the 10th Amendment.  The powers granted to the Congress by the US (not the UN) Constitution are clearly enumerated - the only hint of vagueness being Article 1, section 8(18).  Even this vagueness can be eliminated by understanding that the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be read by every citizen of America - not just lawyers or scholars of dead languages.  When the author of the provisions of provision 18 of A1s8 said, necessary, they meant necessary - truly needful (as opposed to desired) and not provided for by any other means known to man.  When that framer said, proper, they meant proper - in keeping with what is upright, ethical, and virtuous. A brief study of American history reveals many instances where the different branches of the government - at one time or another - considered Necessary and Proper to mean necessary to achieving the party's/administration's desired ends, defined Proper as whatever had sufficient appearance of legality while still achieving the ends desired by the entity framing it.  The finest example of this practice is the development of "Legalese" - that dialect-almost-language that is used to so convolute and confuse legislative texts that they are rendered nearly impossible to the uninitiated to navigate.  One can see the ultimate achievement of such pernicious prose in the titanic healthcare bill compiled by the Obama administration - a bill that even the lawyers, trained in such arcane perusal, had no interest in reading. In brief, then: the general government has clearly enumerated powers, while the states and the people have vague and innumerable powers.  The general government has been doing its utmost to reverse this trend and must be stopped.  All of the laws that have been enacted to the detriment of America and the future of Americans must be stricken down, and the powers of the states and the people must be returned to them.     Mon, 31 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=EE5E87C0-123F-7491-A4DCE76D8862F89E http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=EC62DB57-123F-7491-A4F8429BD889CFB0 1. _Resolved_, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. This first resolution makes a point of something that the federal government has worked hard to wish away for decades - state sovereignty.  The single greatest blow to state sovereignty was the establishment of understanding (through Wickard v. Filburn) that the Commerce Clause (US Constitution, Art 1, Sec 8(c)) could allow the general government ongoing jurisdiction within any and all of the several states, for any reason that the general government felt was in the best interests of the nation.  This, and the continued insistence of the officers of the general government that this is the truth of the matter, is proof sufficient of their arrogance and contempt for the citizenry of this great nation.  For not only are we able to read the text of these documents which dealt with such great matters when the men who formed this nation were still alive, but we are clearly able to reason these matters out for ourselves. From reading such other records of early American thought as the Federalist Papers, records of the debates on the United States Constitution, and various public letters of the Founding Fathers, one is able to determine that the several states had one particular problem with the new constitution that they did not feel was a problem with the outgoing Articles of Confederation - loss of their state sovereignty.  Under the Articles, the several states had simply agreed to live together and play nice and help each other if a fight broke out; times of conflict would be mediated by the Congress.  The construction of the new constitution, however, left little doubt that there would be some cession of sovereignty to the general government. A great part of the Federalist Papers is dedicated to placating the population of New York on this matter.  It is made amply clear to the people of New York that they are not the only state to feel this anxiety - that this question of lost sovereignty is raising an uproar throughout the Union.  It is also explained that such concerns are, while valid, unfounded; the writers of the Federalist Papers spend almost all of their efforts explaining how and why the new constitution is not only a better choice, but that the necessary cession of sovereignty is to be both minimal and absolute - there would be a definite cap upon that incursion on state power, and the law would prevent that from ever being changed. As the decades have passed, more and more incursions have been made - by the congress and the courts - into the sovereignty of both state and citizen.  They do so by corrupting and mistaking the purpose of both the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause.  In a nutshell, the general government has sought to bring more and more power under its wing by claiming that its actions are for the greater good.  Who, they reason, would ever argue against the greater good? This involuted and corrupt rationale has worked, again and again, for over sixty years to play an end-run around the law and bite off chunks of state and citizen sovereignty.  It is only now that we are beginning to feel the effects we had tried to ignore for so long - believing that our government would never do anything to hurt us - and, like the vampire's victim, we are weakened and disoriented. We must shake off the lethargy, and quickly.  The government beast that seeks to devour us is only getting stronger as it consumes our strength.  We must stop this ravening monstrosity while we can - and we can, do not doubt or fear - or we are truly lost. For more on the Commerce Clause - http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/03/abuse.html For more on the General Welfare Clause -  http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/03/permissable.html Sun, 30 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=EC62DB57-123F-7491-A4F8429BD889CFB0 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=E2194B1A-123F-7491-A4BE72B2142A6D56 I have found unexpected guidance in Hamlet's "To Be or Not To Be" soliloquy. Every time I am reminded of the circumstances of our foundering society and economy, the question of existence comes to mind again - man or mouse, problem or solution, ideology or conviction. When I seek to engage those around me in meaningful discussion on the issues facing every American, I recall the admonition against casting aside the known hardship in favor of the unknown luxury. When I have listened to so many politicians and talking heads pressing for committees and think tanks, I am confronted with the inescapable conclusion that those who hesitate are lost - and if those who hesitate are our leaders, and they are lost, then are we also lost because of them. Fri, 28 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=E2194B1A-123F-7491-A4BE72B2142A6D56 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=E0251938-123F-7491-A42D1BB93B4CE19F "Obama joined with Mexican President Felipe Calderon at a White House press conference last week to denounce the Arizona law and said at that time, “In the 21st Century, we are defined not by our borders but by our bonds.” I take issue with this statement. The matter that defines any entity is sovereignty. With nations, that is their laws and the boundaries beyond which they cease to bind; with people, it is their rights among others and the point at which they become responsibilities to others. The clear limitation to both of these things IS THEIR BORDERS - skin or a line on a map. Such talk of definitions being bonds instead of borders is the kind of globalism that threatens to bring down the great systems of government in this world. Obama, and those who support him and further his ends, must be stopped. The longer we wait, the more drastic the measure must be to stop them; that is a plain fact, and anyone who would see a resolution to this whole sordid matter that does not involve violence and bloodshed should support any and all efforts to quickly bring the president and his corrupt coterie down. Fri, 28 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=E0251938-123F-7491-A42D1BB93B4CE19F http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=C62C6C89-123F-7491-A4A585CECA925A70 I do not know if you received the image in this post that had a shot of a parade passing by; the military presentation was passing through - with the color guard leading - and, of all of the people watching the parade in this shot, the only one standing as Old Glory passed was an old man in a wheelchair. One more part of what is wrong with America: lack of traditional respect inculcated into the hearts and minds of the newer generation. The fact that we have any young people in our military ranks today is nothing short of miraculous. Freedom isn't free... And you cannot get it on credit! Been around before and still true!! MEMORIAL DAY Keep it moving, please, even if you've seen it before. It is the VETERAN - not the preacher - who has given us freedom of religion. It is the VETERAN - not the reporter - who has given us freedom of the press. It is the VETERAN - not the poet - who has given us freedom of speech. It is the VETERAN - not the campus organizer - who has given us freedom to assemble. It is the VETERAN - not the lawyer - who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the VETERAN - not the politician - who has given us the right to vote. It is the VETERAN who salutes the Flag; it is the VETERAN who serves under the Flag. ETERNAL REST GRANT THEM, O LORD, AND LET PERPETUAL LIGHT SHINE UPON THEM. I'd be EXTREMELY proud if this email reached as many as possible. We can be very proud of our young men and women in the service, no matter where they serve. God Bless them all!!! Sun, 23 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=C62C6C89-123F-7491-A4A585CECA925A70 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=C2D18E86-123F-7491-A46E6770370E78F0 This was spoken by the hurt and angry heart of a Danish prince - betrayed by uncle, forsaken by friends, grieved by mother, and abandoned by love - who had to decide what course of action was best: a long life of peaceful cowardice, or the uncertain future of free self-determinism. As Americans, we have been betrayed by our elected leaders, forsaken by our traditional allies, grieved by every nation that is part of our national heritage, and abandoned by our sense of common identity. Have we any less reason to be hurt and angry, or to speak thus, to feel thus - or to pursue justice as he did? To be, or not to be: that is the question:   Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,  Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? To die: to sleep, no more; and by a sleep to say we end the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks  That flesh is heir to; 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; to sleep - perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; for in that sleep of death, what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause: there's the respect that makes calamity of so long life;  For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, the oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,  the pangs of despised love, the law's delay, the insolence of office, and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes,  when he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary life, but that the dread of something after death - the undiscover'd country from whose bourn no traveller returns - puzzles the will and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of?   Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; and thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pith and moment with this regard their currents turn awry,   And lose the name of action. Sat, 22 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=C2D18E86-123F-7491-A46E6770370E78F0 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=BDB8D117-123F-7491-A4A43095F89B786F ... I wrote this letter to my Congressman, Wally Herger. Copy it, if you wish, and send it to your own Congressman (or congresswoman, as the case may be); you may have a name to change, but that is easy. Read on... Sir, I submit that the evidence is now before the whole world: the president of the United States has broken his oath of office and brought the enemies of this nation of free and independent people a new hope for our destruction. That he has: Rushed madly to bury the proud and capable American people under a burden of debt that threatens to crush the life out of America; Given a known threat - China - the authority to exercise Eminent Domain within our sovereign borders; Taken hold of legislative power - through abuse of his treaty-making authority - and pushed to render our national sovereignty null by giving the laws of other nations effect on American soil, over American citizens; Prostituted this great and proud nation before the whole world and brought her to ignominy and scorn by his bowing, scraping, and abasing himself before the leaders of other lands in ways that NO AMERICAN LEADER has ever done; Failed to honor his promises about transparency and openness, most notably by the closed-door proceedings surrounding his pet policy projects, but by no means limited to such examples of bald dishonesty; At every turn, shaming America and smearing her, casting her into the dust - all the while claiming that he is proud and grateful to be the leader of such a nation as America. Congressman, it has become clear to every patriotic American heart that this - creature - currently occupying the highest office in America is unworthy of it, having shown that he is not willing to honor his oath of office, see that the laws of this land are properly and faithfully executed, or even insist that his guests in our country are polite, civil, and honest. I am asking you - as a fellow American patriot - to call, loudly and often, for the impeachment, conviction, removal, and punishment of this traitorous beast. Call for it publicly - let the whole nation hear you - and see what a galvanizing effect you have. Above all, never apologize for it; you should never apologize for serving your country faithfully. Be the clarion call that summons up the American patriots from every state in the nation, Congressman, and watch how we answer the call. May God guide you in this and in all things, Congressman. I pray, my fellow patriotic Americans, that he does roar our challenge to the Kenyan pretender. I hope most fervently that he calls for this monster's head in tones ringing with outrage and implacability - not the nasal tones of lawyer-speak, but the howl of a wolf, the roar of a lion, the bellow of a bear. I want the lying, unworthy swine captured on the run and dragged back to face American justice. When he calls, my fellow patriotic Americans, do not hesitate - heed the summons and answer the call to the defense of our home, our country! God bless you all, my brothers and sisters! God bless America! Fri, 21 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=BDB8D117-123F-7491-A4A43095F89B786F http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=B87950CD-123F-7491-A4C2B224E2174750 Cash For Gold... seems like a dream come true, doesn't it? All of your broken, unwanted (!?!?) gold, sent off in the mail to be evaluated and turned into cash for you. What isn't to like? What, you may be asking, am I complaining about? Before I get started, I would like to apologize to all of the people whose intelligence I am undoubtedly going to insult by stating the patently obvious throughout this article. Sorry, folks... Okay, class is in session. Let's start with comparative value - a basic part of elementary economics. How many places in the world place a monetary value on gold? Pretty much all of them. How many places in the world place a monetary value on the US dollar? Short of an actual number, a fair assessment would likely be - not as many. The point is that gold has a nigh-universally-recognized value that only rarely goes down, and never catastrophically. The point is that non-gold money - the invention of any government that seeks to enslave its people through endless cycles of credit and debt - has no intrinsic value like old Atomic Number 79. And we're walkin'... Now, what happens when you send that broken and unwanted gold to this Cash For Gold place? The quality and quantity are determined - by people who cannot possibly have your personal interests at heart - and the cash value for that combination of data is shipped off to you. Your only input into this process is the only true monetary value you possess; you cannot dispute the workmanship or antiquity, because these qualities are irrelevant to Cash For Gold - they intend to melt it all down. Now, what to do with all that cash? Oh, and don't forget that while gold keeps its value rather well all by itself, cash value is determined by the Federal Reserve - and, right now, the dollar stands at about .70 €. Your cash-in-hand now has only the value your government wants it to have; considering this new move to establish the Amero, anyone with the self-control to resist spending all of that "mad money" magically spun out of gold is likely to be soaked in the exchange that happens if the Amero becomes a reality. Either way, however, one thing becomes clear - The government comes into possession of your real monetary value and hands you a bundle of paper that has almost no worth at all. The saddest part is that millions of Americans are falling for this bad deal and handing over the only real value left to them. Instant gratification shafts America again... Thu, 20 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=B87950CD-123F-7491-A4C2B224E2174750 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=AD85201B-123F-7491-A43B4240371B2D4E (This is my response to a person who - well, it is pretty clear what they said; their post - to which this is the response - follows.) I am entitled to the provisions of the 6th Amendment; if that is not a fair trial, then I do not know what is.  Further, I feel obligated to point out that, by your reasoning (the absence of the phrase you mentioned), you are no more entitled to such a benefit than I am; this is the danger of interpreting The Constitution - or altering it through methods other than those provided in Article V  - rather than either applying it as it is, or modifying it under the provisions of the law. It is EXplicit in the 1st Amendment that the government is to make NO law respecting the establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof.  While I agree that our government is most certainly not in the business of establishing/promoting religions, it is also supposed to stay it's hand from any actions that interfere with its free exercise. (The trouble had with implications is that they are subjective and inconstant; like sowing the wind, tossing implications about as if they are [i]Principia Imprimis[/i] only results in greater and growing confusion.  EXplications, on the other hand, are objective and arise from that which is outside and thus clearly visible to all involved.)   I can get this from quoting The Constitution - not from interpreting it - which means I am able to defend your rights AND mine without changing a thing; YOU, on the other hand, seek to change the eminently workable text in order to get what YOU think is fair - without concerning yourself with the damage you may cause to the rights and privileges of others. The only separation involved here is aimed at promoting non-interference; you would know and understand this better if you understood the history of European colonization of North America's eastern seaboard - more precisely, the reasons Protestants, Anabaptists, Huguenots, and other groups fleeing church persecution had for coming to the New World. In recognition of your 1st Amendment right to free speech, I await and invite your response.  [i]Caveat Lector[/i], however - the freedom to speak is the freedom to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. From Eustacia39 @LordFruitloop I guess that since the words "Right to a Fair Trail" are not in the Constitution either that you should not be entitled to one. It is implicit in the wording of the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" that there is separation of Church and State. Our Government is not in the business of promoting religion nor was this country. Tue, 18 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=AD85201B-123F-7491-A43B4240371B2D4E http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=9366AABB-123F-7491-A4418F34A2423E10 · Let's Look on The Bright Side Obama destroyed the Clinton Political Machine - Driving a stake through the Heart of Hillary's Presidential aspirations, something no Republican was ever able to do. Remember when a Hillary Presidency scared the daylights out of you? He killed off the Kennedy Dynasty- no more Kennedys trolling Washington looking for booze and women wanting rides home. American women and freedom are safer tonight! He is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes - Dennis Moore had never lost a race - QUIT! Evan Bayh had never lost a race - QUIT! Byron Dorgan - had never lost a race - QUIT! Harry Reid - bid for re-election doesn't look good... These are just a handful of the Democrats whose political careers Obama has destroyed! By the end of 2010 dozens more will be! In December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles they had picked up 14 senate seats and 52 house seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. In one year, Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the house, if not the senate, back to the Republicans. He has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Every generation seems to need to relearn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge; he is bringing home the lesson very well! Liberals tax, borrow and spend - check Liberals won't bring themselves to protect America - check Liberals want to take over the economy - check Liberals think they know what is best for everyone - check Liberals aren't happy till they are running YOUR life - check He has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan. In one year he rejuvenated the Conservative Movement and brought out to the streets millions of Freedom Loving Americans. Name me one other time in your life that you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America! In all honesty, one year ago I was more afraid than I had ever been in my life. Not of the economy, but of the direction our country was going. I thought Americans had forgotten what this country was all about. My neighbors, friends, strangers proved to me that my lack of confidence of the greatness and wisdom of the American people was flat-out wrong. When the American People wake up, no smooth-talking teleprompter reader can fool them! Obama woke up these Great Americans. Thank you Obama! So, Lets Recap "2009".........what a year! WOW!!! · 1. The American people inaugurate a half-Arab president with a total of 142 days experience as a US Senator from the most politically corrupt state (city) in America - whose governors have been ousted from office. The President's first official act is to order the close of Gitmo and make sure terrorists' civil rights are not violated.(Honest mistake?) 2. The U.S. Congress rushes to confirm a black Attorney General, Eric Holder, whose law firm we later find out represents seventeen Gitmo Terrorists.(An honest mistake?) 3. The CIA Boss appointee, Leon Panetta, has absolutely no experience. 4. We got the second-most corrupt American woman (Pelosi is #1) as Secretary of State - bought and paid for.(You can put lipstick on a pig, but it still stinks!) 5. We got a Tax Cheat for Treasury Secretary who did not properly file his own taxes for 12 years.(He misspoke!) 6. A Commerce Secretary nominee who withdrew due to corruption charges. (Another honest mistake?) 7. A Tax cheat nominee for Chief Performance Officer who withdrew under charges. (Hmmm...Another screw-up?) 8. A Labor Secretary nominee who withdrew under charges of unethical conduct. (Ok, maybe this person was just plain stupid.) 9. A Secretary HHS nominee (Daschle) who withdrew under charges of cheating on his taxes. (I'm running out of excuses for these idiots!!) 10. Multiple appointments of former lobbyists after an absolute campaign statement that no lobbyists would be appointed.(Dear God, I am getting a headache!) All this occurred just during the first three weeks. . . But who's counting? America is being run by the modern-day Three Stooges: Barry, Nancy and Harry - and they are still trying to define stimulus..."it's spending!!!" The congress passes the $800,000,000,000(that's $800 billion)pork-loaded spending bill where the government gives you a smidgen of your tax dollars ($13 per week), making you feel so good about yourself [stimulated], that you want to run out to WalMart and buy a new Chinese-made HDTV! Here's the good news though - Obama took Air Force One to Denver to sign the stimulus package - wasting as much as 10,000 gallons of fuel OR 24 JOBS FOR ONE YEAR. Obama went to the International Olympic Committee to have them choose Chicago for a host city - he failed Obama went to Copenhagen to lecture them on global warming - he failed Obama went to New Jersey to promote the Democratic candidate for governor - he failed Obama went to Virginia to promote the Democratic candidate for governor - he failed Obama went to Massachusetts to promote the Democratic candidate for senator - he failed Obama has now been president for a full year and yet he & wife (first lady) Michelle, the Christian family they claim to be, have not selected a church to belong to since the inauguration. Obama is the 1st president in history who did not attend any Christmas religious observance. (He must miss Reverend Wright!) And finally, he is the 1st president to remain on vacation after a terrorist attack (Ft. Hood). In these times, 'I'll keep my God, my freedom, my gun and my money. Anyone that supports this insanity can keep "THE CHANGE". Thu, 13 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=9366AABB-123F-7491-A4418F34A2423E10 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=9F65F175-123F-7491-A45C4C40273BDE52 Jesus made a statement that was particularly pertinent to this: "The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath". (Mark 2:27) This pertinence could be stated thus: "The Earth was made for Man, not Man for the Earth". Yes, we were bidden - multiple times throughout the book of Genesis - to be fruitful and replenish the Earth; we are told that Adam and Eve tended the Garden of Eden. That was not, however, the reason for their being created; as is made clear from God's interactions with mankind and His dealings with those who served Him or rebelled against Him, it is clear that mankind was created to serve God, and that the Earth was a place - much in the nature of a playground - where mankind could live, play, and grow. It would be here that mankind could learn and prepare to serve God with joy, or to rebel against Him - all with the free will to choose either path while clearly instructed in the rewards for either choice. We are wise to be good stewards of our only home. However, mankind has never been known for universal wisdom, nor continual and consistent good judgment. So it is that we find ourselves in this place, time, and set of circumstances. It is possible - here in America, at least - to establish laws that require guidelines of conduct that encourage, or even demand, such adherence to environmental responsibility; such laws must, however, respect the Everyman and his individual circumstances or they become oppressive and tyrannical. Wed, 12 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=9F65F175-123F-7491-A45C4C40273BDE52 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=8A5727F1-123F-7491-A4C5AAF92776B060 http://www.chooseliberty.org/ATF_contact.aspx?pid=af01 Follow this link. Read the letter and look into the votes of your senators. Vitter is not the solution; all it could ever be was a political attempt at getting something through that would look good to the people. That was the only reason for any amendment to 1207 - because it would only serve the people, not the elected officials. While it may seem selfish and overly simplistic to expect that these elected officials serve the people and not themselves, consider this - we pay their salaries and pay for their benefits. In a nutshell, they are our employees. If it were not for us, they would have no job, no pay, no health coverage - nothing. The only true solution is to pass 1207 as it is. It is not the job of the lawmakers to determine what is good for us, nor to decide what we want; it is their job to see to it that the will of the people is properly codified and compiled into the extant body of law in such a way that it does not contradict the extant law but still reflects the will of the people precisely - or to inform the people as to why such legislation cannot, under the prevailing circumstance, be realized. I should not have to explain this to them, but I shall if I must. Tue, 11 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=8A5727F1-123F-7491-A4C5AAF92776B060 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=7399ECAB-123F-7491-A40903BB63941DA7 While this may seem oversimplified, it is accurate and applicable in any situation. Try it. (Apologies for the spacers; the format would not recognize " " spaces. GH) Security and Liberty are opposite ends of a line; the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. Example: ...Security..................................... Liberty ......|_______________0_______________| .................^ .............Current In this circumstance, there is somewhat more security than liberty. Here, the conditions might be: random inquiry into identity; limited appeal on capital convictions; frequent police presence; possible curfew. ...Security..................................... Liberty ......|_______________0_______________| ....................................^ ................................Current Under these circumstances, we might find the following conditions: no immigration/naturalization requirements; unlimited appeals on any conviction; limited police presence; no controls whatever on public presence. Imagine the extremes then: ...Security..................................... Liberty ......|_______________0_______________| ......^ ...Current Under these circumstances: current ID required to enter/exit any building or be out of one's home at any time; no appeals for conviction - possibly, all crimes capital; pervasive police presence; failure to provide proper identification on demand a capital offense. or ...Security..................................... Liberty ......|_______________0_______________| .....................................................^ ..................................................Current Here, we have: no borders whatever; no laws whatever; no police whatever; no order whatever. Admittedly, the maintenance of a perfect balance ("0-point") is next to impossible. This does not mean it is not a worthy goal - just a difficult one. Nothing good ever comes easy - like the extremes, which may be accommodated simply by giving up everything or taking everything - but the lively engagements of life's everyday, moment-by-moment contests and compromises are part of what makes life exciting and worth living. Fri, 07 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=7399ECAB-123F-7491-A40903BB63941DA7 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=68E838E5-123F-7491-A4924B53BD563FEC Progressives are able to dream big and chase those dreams. That, in and of itself, is not a sin; without that kind of spirit of innovation, we could never have had the Seven Wonders of the World. We never would have put a man on the moon. "Would", I say, because it was more than a point of capacity or ethics - it was a point of volition. All of the talk (capacity) and meditation (ethics) in the world never lifted a hand to place on stone atop another. Where progressives err is in their willingness to gamble the time and resources of others in the pursuance of their own dreams. While conservatives have the evidence of the past to draw upon in making their decisions, progressives are bound by their human lack of perfect perception - especially where the future is concerned; they know what is coming no better than the conservatives do. Instead of lightly dismissing either side of the equation, would it not serve mankind better to delegate to each the offices to which they are best suited? For the Progressives, reserve the think tanks where new and improved methods are conjured. This is, after all, their forte - they dream big, think outside the box. This would be their chance to really make great use of what God made them - people who are not hide-bound by tradition or afraid to try new things. There shall always be a time, a place, and - above all - a need for fresh, new ideas. It shall be the job of the Conservatives to consider these new ideas in the light of History. Has this ever been tried? If so, was it a good thing and only forgotten due to cataclysm, or was it a bad thing that was immediately rejected or - worse - one that led to its own destruction by bringing disaster upon those who brought it into being? If there is no record of it in the annals of History, is there anything similar to it that could lend or remove support through it's consideration? Consider thus: it is not recommended for people to drink distilled water all of the time. It is not dangerous from time to time - and may be of benefit in certain circumstances - but as a regular thing, it is not a good idea. Snow is distilled water: it contains little more than pure H2O, without a mineral balance. However, once this snow has melted and passed through natural rock filters, or run along the natural rock of a riverbed, it has dissolved traces of those minerals into itself and become healthier and more beneficial to human consumption. In this same way, the pure thought of the Progressive - the dreams and theories that have little or no testing, good as they may seem on the surface - are potentially harmful as they are and should be carefully run through tests that include the evidence and experience of centuries, to determine - in advance of their implementation - what is most likely to result. I agree that little progress is made this way, and it takes a great deal of time to get even that done. As has been proven time and again, however, the ounce of prevention is always preferable to the pound of cure. More happily, though, is that almost all progress born of this approach is positive - benefiting the most people and depriving the least, leaving many more under its blessing capable of rendering charity and assistance to those who are not. All without placing undue burden on one group or another because the progressives are looking to the future without considering the record of the past. The failures of either are not due to their approach or their philosophy, but rather to their leaders' ethics (or, more accurately, lack of them). Conservatism has the virtue of being predictable, offset by the failing of resistance to improvisation. Progressivism is graced with a capacity for dreaming big and making dreams into reality; this is balanced by its inability to know what is going to happen as a result of those grand designs. Both are good in their own ways, and both have a place in the world. Those places are necessarily determined by human nature. Wed, 05 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=68E838E5-123F-7491-A4924B53BD563FEC http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=6140DE73-123F-7491-A432C1159ADE1592 Your coverage of the timeline is remarkable. I am never surprised by the wholly inappropriate responses of our elected leaders - only by the ongoing and burgeoning nature of this habit of theirs, which would (to an intelligent individual, I should think) preclude an interest in continuing in office. Wed, 05 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=6140DE73-123F-7491-A432C1159ADE1592 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=639A0EB6-123F-7491-A44DDECEB15B537C The current political situation here in America reminds me of an episode in the Bible's histories involving one of the sons of Solomon.  His name was Rehoboam, and he chose to heed the advice of his younger companions regarding the style of leadership he should employ, rather than that of the older advisors who had served his father; forsaking the wisdom of years, Rehoboam chose to trust the rash counsels of untried youth.  When the tribes saw that they were little more than tools and resources to their new king - that they would only serve to make him happy at their own expense - they abandoned him to his own fate. (This account is found in 2nd Samuel, starting at the 13th verse of chapter 9) There is biblical precedent for the actions of our Founding Fathers in their casting off the oppressive yoke of a ruler mad with power, and these are the same precedents which serve to guide us today.  We are not necessarily given the option to blow off a leader who is not what we want; we are, however, given the option to preserve our human and God-given dignity from the predations of an unconcerned and arrogant leadership. To do less would be to prove that we are neither possessed of, nor deserving of, that dignity. Of course, my fellow Americans, it is not me you should be trusting; it is Almighty God who should be your commanding officer in chief. Remember always that it is better to place your trust in God than to place your confidence in men. Read your Scriptures; humbly and fervently, pray for God's guidance; then consider what you have read in God's word, with His wisdom as your guide. Think not that Our Heavenly Father will leave His children unguided in darkness if they call on Him. God bless you all, and God bless America! Tue, 04 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=639A0EB6-123F-7491-A44DDECEB15B537C http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=22F369A9-123F-7491-A43A0C6445A47FE8 Sadly, I can think of nothing civil and/or constructive to add. I like the list just as it is. Thank you for this wonderful letter of thanks to our inspired leadership. God bless you, sir, and God bless America! Sat, 01 May 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=22F369A9-123F-7491-A43A0C6445A47FE8 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=1E85CDAC-123F-7491-A49924F66426C5B3 Nev, I am curious as to whether you have an alternative solution that you would be willing to stand behind, or if your post is intended solely to voice your lack of hope and flagging faith in the American people. Considering the growing popular action in America - a failure of apathy the likes of which America has not seen in decades - the number of people who are educating themselves on the issues and/or helping others to become educated on the issues - the willingness of the average American to contribute, to be vocal, to be seen taking a side - such a hang-dog vibe is hard to understand. The repeated triumphs of Gov Palin in the courts were clear indication that the side attacking her was forcing the frivolous spending of taxpayer money; if anything, the groups - and any DC entities backing them - should have been forced to reimburse the state for all costs incurred by these clearly pointless legal actions. The two things I learned from the whole exercise were: 1, Sarah is not what they said she is; and 2, they are what they said she is. The idea of removing a sitting senator via popular vote would not have to be as carefully considered as, say, a death-penalty conviction; I am sure you can see why without a lengthy explanation. Rather, a single appeal would be afforded the senator, and it would be paid for out of his/her own pocket; if they are so interested in keeping their cozy office and/or defending their good name, they will pay. Not like they are a step away from (financial) bankruptcy... I agree completely that the battle to push such a Constitutional Amendment through would demand popular support like nothing else. I also believe that the socio-political climate is perfect for such a thing. Some Americans love Obama; some hate him; but they all hate corrupt congressmen - have for years - and would love to get one more way to enforce their will on Congress. I am also in favor of saddling the losers of any such trials with the bills for the whole thing - court costs, legal fees, investigations, materials, equipment, resources, supplies, the whole shebang - allowing, of course, the judge to determine a cut to the other side if there is any perceived malfeasance on the winning side as well. I honestly believe that this would keep frivolous lawsuits out of the courts. Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=1E85CDAC-123F-7491-A49924F66426C5B3 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=49B2B9F1-123F-7491-A41F2469CA777D4B I was recently questioned by an associate regarding my feelings on the issue of monopoly in the American economy. The question arose during a discussion about the Goldman-Sachs issues: I had likened the healthy economy being largely due to businessmen like Bill Gates - a man who, as a child, must have played Monopoly frequently and with a will to win. If, during the antitrust case brought by Sun Microsystems, Mr Gates' playing to win had been the central issue - as opposed to the "what's fair for all involved" tack - Microsoft would have taken the gold. And rightfully so. The question came up, from this, as to whether I supported monopoly (small "m") in our economy, and the following was my response: I oppose the idea of monopoly in our economy, for the same reason as our founders did - it stifles economic growth through the removal of competition. However, I also stand against excessive regulation, as it leads to the same thing - artificially. Business is a game where dollars (and it had damned well better stay dollars!!) are the counters - the more you have, the better you are playing. However, an economy is a kind of living organism made up of businesses as the organs of that organism. Money could be seen as the blood, and market forces as the hormones that send hints and messages between the organic systems to tell them when and how to regulate themselves for the benefit of the whole organism. Further, if that blood begins to pool too heavily in one organ or another, they all suffer: the organ with too much blood suffers from a toxic overload; too little, from starvation. The only way to increase the amount of blood in the system's organs safely is to grow the system and the organs according to same conditions and criteria as actual living organisms. The system must receive fresh nutrients to energize its growth and provide material for that growth; there must be exercise of the various organs to establish both the needs for current function and the needs for future growth; there must be communication and cooperation between every organ and system in the organism to prevent destructive behavior among them. Far from being socialized business, this would be a national economy that builds itself into a strong and healthy mass of soft tissues - organs, muscles, nerves, and connective tissues - to grace the skeleton of the laws of God, the laws of nature, and the laws of men. Powerful thews and sinews, healthy organs, all working together to support, protect, and defend the individual cells - each and every one of us. All building the wealth needed to grace this beautiful frame with white linen and a chaplet of gold. Thus we build America into the non-Imperial, self-sufficient bastion of light and liberty she is destined to become. Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=49B2B9F1-123F-7491-A41F2469CA777D4B http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=0BF37018-123F-7491-A4D7FACED7C5E2A6 I was embroiled in a (ahem) spirited discussion with a young man the other day, regarding the difference between rights and privileges, when I was struck by the appalling lack of understanding many people have of these two cherished possessions. Worse, when I explained the nature of and difference between the two, the young man refused to accept the definitions – likely on principles, which was an expression he used frequently – without offering so much as an inkling of alternative explanation. What I had told him was: “Privileges are earned and bought, lost and taken away – they are the creatures of society, which is the creature of man. Rights are given of God, and thus cannot be taken away by men; rights do not belong to us, but they are given to us to enjoy by God. We cannot take them away, but we can give them away in impudent contempt of God.” The acid test, therefore, of rights and privileges, is how one loses the thing in question: if it is by failure to act rightly, it is a privilege that is lost; if it is by acting wrongly, it is a right. Run through the exercise a few times and see what you come up with… Of course, to accept this definition one must truly believe in the power and supremacy of God over all things, a course of action that too many progressives hesitate to take; it places an inescapable duty to God ahead of personal interests, frequently quashing those interests – in what the individual thinks is best – in favor of what God has said is best. One must also understand fully the nature of free will – the truth of the statement, “you can do whatever you want to do, as long as you are willing to pay the price for your actions”; failure on this point leaves one unequipped and unprepared to discuss freedom on the basis of experience. People might argue my point, saying that rights are taken away by the state when a person is wrongfully incarcerated. The person so wronged may feel this way, but they would not if they chose to see the situation as it really is – an opportunity to serve God on the front lines. Most of us never see the front lines of the war between Good and Evil; of those few who are placed there, most are unable to see the blessing inherent, the glory impending, if they only view the situation through Heaven’s eyes. There are others who say that a murder victim has had his rights taken from him; this is to deny God the authority to call home one of His own when the time comes; here, it is God taking up the right to life, not a man. The only rights lost are those of the murderer through his own actions, and he must atone for that act through surrendering all privileges and even being willing to surrender his own right to life; anything less is simply not repentance and rejects the gift of grace from God. I cannot help but believe that the Founding Fathers felt this same way – with their stalwart faith in and firm reliance upon God, there could have been no other way to view the world. Consider: if they had been the kind of men to complain about being wrongfully incarcerated, would they have fought the war to break free of a tyrant, or simply have made a day-to-day practice of grumbling about the things that happened to them because they chose a lead role in a cage over a walk-in part in a war? Only those who count upon the institutions of men and what good there is to be had in the world, could wish for a nation built upon the backs of men and held together with their sweat and blood. Only the kind of people who believe, in their hearts, that God has lifted His hand from man and cares nothing for the affairs of the world, could believe that a world ruled by the hearts of men (Gen 6:5; Mark 7:21-22) is a fit place to live. Rights are the gifts of God; only He may take them away, or even abridge them, with impunity. Privileges are the gifts of men and mankind’s creatures; men may, therefore, interfere with these privileges provided the affronted privilege is the gift of the entity doing the interfering. The sooner folks get these two points straight, the sooner America can start to get its act together and get back to the top of the hill – where we belong, shining the light of Liberty to the nations. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=0BF37018-123F-7491-A4D7FACED7C5E2A6 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=06E19042-123F-7491-A426EECB3886D6F5 “It is essential to the being of the national government, that so erroneous a conception of the meaning of the word necessary should be exploded. “It is certain, that neither the grammatical nor popular sense of the term requires that construction. According to both, necessary often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to. It is a common mode of expression to say, that it is necessary for a government or a person to do this or that thing, when nothing more is intended or understood, than that the interests of the government or person require, or will be promoted by, the doing of this or that thing. “. . . To understand the word as the Secretary of State does, would be to depart from its obvious and popular sense, and to give it a restrictive operation, an idea never before entertained. It would be to give it the same force as if the word absolutely or indispensably had been prefixed to it.” "Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States" Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 23 February 1791 This is the basis upon which purposeful Interpretation of The Constitution of the United States has been based. Something as simple as a word. Hamilton was quite capable at putting words together, but not so capable that he could run all of them by endless generations of people without being found in error. His writings are masterful, but his reasoning fails when he steps away from simple truth and relies instead upon rationalizing and rhetoric. The case with the word, necessary, very clearly illustrates this. In these passages, Hamilton is making his case against Jefferson’s rigid reading of the text of the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause. Hamilton uses a great many subjective adjectives in his supposedly reasonable and dispassionate explanation, meaning to diminish the reader’s regard for the facts; “common mode”, “obvious”, and “popular” relegate this fulcrum expression to the office of “pebble in the shoe”. Essentially, Hamilton is casting aspersions on not only the word used, but those who used the word in the first place. His first two meanings for necessary – needful or requisite – are accurate in their summation of the definition and character of the word in question. The last three, however, are not: incidental implies happenstance without the fixed character of being indispensible; useful and conducive to merely imply convenience – not gravity. Necessary, then, is far more than that which answers convenience or indifference. Rather, like air, necessary is that without which the condition which needs it cannot exist. Regardless of the common mode and popular usage, necessary has an absolute meaning that should not be discarded out of hand when it is not convenient. Hamilton makes amply clear his contempt for the truth, and for those who deserve it at his hand, the most in his third paragraph. By resorting to the “obvious and popular” sense, he departs from the actual sense – regardless of how congruent they may be – and marks himself out as a politician and not a leader of men. By insisting on an enforcement of his position based on “common”, “obvious and popular” perceptions – rather than dispassionate, logical truth – Hamilton reveals unmistakably his intent to sway the opinions of the masses for his own advantage. One is tempted to believe that Washington was under some onus or duress with regards to Hamilton, explaining why it was Hamilton’s unsatisfactory opinions that prevailed; to conclude that Washington was of a similar heart and mind to such a solicitor as Alexander Hamilton is the grossest insult to the memory of our first president and leader. Unfortunately, history’s unfolding record of such exchanges is proving a disappointing lens through which to view our nation’s heroes. Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=06E19042-123F-7491-A426EECB3886D6F5 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=7AD24F8D-123F-7491-A415E56FFE9AA52E I was beat down and tired after a twelve-hour day, but when I came home – expecting to hand off the Taco Bell to my wife and to bed – and saw the SoTU on the set, I just had to sit and listen. God bless her, my wife was able to quietly tolerate the experience for my benefit; she is not a political type, but she understands my bent in that direction. In the course of the SoTU address, I noted these peculiarities: 1 – As he has for such a long time, Obama continued to blame Bush for the mess he found waiting for him when he assumed the mantle. While it is true that Bush left a horrible mess in his wake, there are two problems with Obama’s incessant resort to this issue. The first is that he had to know what he was getting into when he announced his bid for the Oval Office and so he has no room to use that excuse for the state of things in his presidency; if he did not want to deal with the problems, he should have withdrawn from the race. If he proceeded to pursue the office of president and had no clue as to the state of things, he had no business seeking the office of America’s leader. No matter how one looks at the president’s excuses, the old saw is still true – A man who is good at making excuses is good for little else. He is seeking to divert attention from his own failure by pointing at the failure of another leader with whom many Americans are still deeply unhappy. Pointing out Bush’s mistakes and failures cannot mitigate the number and degree of Obama’s own mistakes and failures – no matter how many times he uses this tactic, it changes nothing – any more than speeding blind-folded down the wrong side of the freeway prevents one from hitting an oncoming car. The fact that Obama is still using this method – a year after his election and with so many broken promises and failed policies clinging to him – shows a lack of imagination and, worse, an arrogant disdain for the American people. How are Americans supposed to respect and support a president who has no respect for them? 2 – His statement that “(spending hundreds of billions of dollars when we were already in debt ten-fold more than that) was the right thing to do” makes one wonder where his understanding of economics comes from. The last time I saw the average American do that, they wound up in court for credit fraud and bankruptcy; how does it magically become legal and accepted behavior for a government? I am curious as to whether he has ever managed a household before, because his ideas regarding economics are nothing short of illegal and disastrous for the average American homemaker or head-of-household. Honestly; I would love to see how such economics would work on my level. 3 – He says he wants to return trust to Americans. I would like to believe that. I do not. There are several things I can think of that he could do to work toward that direction. These include returning to The Constitution – as it was written, not as it has been interpreted – and eliminating legal precedent, “Constitutional Law”, and judicial review. Give us back a rule of Law in place of the current rule of Lawyers, and I can see us trusting him a little more. 4 – He made the statement that, in a nation of over 300 million people, democracy can be noisy and messy. I believe that was one of the truest statements he ever made. What he failed to say is that democracy in nation of so many should also be very, very slow. Democracy – rule by the people – is not possible if any one of those people is not kept in-the-know and provided the opportunity to voice his will in the government. This would slow matters down enormously, but the central government would have a much harder time getting anything by the American people – and that is a good thing. Consider this: when human tissues grow out of their normal rate and form, they become – cancer. When government grows out of its normal rate and form, it becomes - toxic, deadly. Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=7AD24F8D-123F-7491-A415E56FFE9AA52E http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=515646C2-123F-7491-A41381C66166487D I have read a few articles that made me wonder, what are we all about? Quite an opener, eh? Think about this, people – when Brown won in Massachusetts, there was a rolling wave of applause, cheering, and partying across America. In every state, city, and town, there was celebration by those in the conservative party and the Tea Party movement. Why should this cause me concern? The same thing that caused me concern when I read the president’s alleged response to Coakley when he called her after her loss in the election: “we cannot win all the time”. “We”? I thought this was America, folks, and that Americans played on the same team. When did Americans become divided against each other? When did it become “us” and “them”? I am not even really concerned about the possibility of external exploitation of this division – as History has shown, Americans are entirely capable of casting aside petty differences to unite against the common foe. Ask the Germans. Ask the Japanese. Ask the combined might of the Communist world. No matter what the issue dividing America – race, creed, even sexual orientation – one nation has galvanized, time and time again, to meet the threats offered it. And it has triumphed, time and time again. How is it, then, that we come through these crucible events – not only married by the forced mobilization, but alloyed by the pressure that compels our company and heat that burns away the chaff of irrelevant and immaterial misconception – only to fall back into such behaviors that divide us against our fellow Americans? What would be wrong with taking the approach that Americans work hard and do what Americans must to see that the right (not the capital “R”, but what is invariably right) triumphs – that evil is defeated – and when the battle is won, just. Go. Home. No rubbing noses in the defeat, no reveling in getting our way, no building a power base to further our ends. Quietly accepting the fact that the job is done, and then going back to our lives as Americans who know they did what they had to – FOR AMERICA. Does a parent cheer or celebrate when they must impose their will upon their child? Is it right for one sibling to exult when they have prevailed in a conflict with their brother or sister? God forbid! How, then, is it right for any American to take pride in the performance of a needed task, when such reveling is at the expense of the dignity of their fellow Americans? We have another common foe, my fellow Americans. Sadly, it is not from another country, or even another planet. It is the “parents” that we have placed in government over us. They keep us divided against each other with talk of “civil rights issues”, “management versus labor”, any part of America pitted against some other part of America. While they keep us divided and distracted – with trash programming on TV, divisive media, and occasional tweaking of the other wedges they have driven into the American bedrock – they continue to consolidate their power base and prepare us for the day when we will be little more than the “coppertops” of the “Matrix” or the blood harvest of “Daybreakers”. I use “will” instead of “shall” because I believe that this is an issue of our voluntary choice to walk silently into the wood chipper that has been prepared for us. As long as we allow the government to yank on our shorthairs – our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor – and pull us back into conformity with their plans, we are surrendering our freedom willingly. Power cannot be taken; it is only given. They can kill you, but that does not take your freedom – just your life. After that, there is little more they can do but explain why they killed you – and so many others – for no other reason than that you refused to surrender your freedom. Would you rather live in a world without your freedom? Then return to your masters and lick their fingers, accept the scraps from their hands; bear your chains as any slave does, and dream of the freedom that was once yours. When the time comes, enter the fray willingly - roaring like lions and wielding the sword with a will to destroy the enemy. Win the battle; failure is not an option, for it entails the surrender of freedom and every indignity that follows. Do not fear death, for there is no freedom like it – beyond even the basest ignominy, death renders all fixed and beyond defacement. When the battle is won, let the living be like the dead – silent and satisfied with the results. Let there be no exultation, for it is only born of pride – that greatest sin from which all others spring. I love you all, my fellow Americans, and I pray the grace and peace of God Almighty be with you all. Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=515646C2-123F-7491-A41381C66166487D http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=FC221B3D-123F-7491-A41CB22F57279246 It is important for every American to come to the understanding that most of what we call rights are actually privileges. Rights are things that cannot be taken from us - not even by force. Rights can only be given up - through criminal acts or damned cowardice. Even if a person kills you, it is you giving up your right to life in favor of your freedom of self-determination. If a person wants to silence you, they must kill you to make that happen; you have retained - to the very end - your freedom of self-determination, and the killer has much to answer for to God. Privileges, on the other hand, are bought and paid for with taxes and willing submission to the laws of society. Privileges such as driving, voting, walking down any street you choose, buying and selling, and even marrying - these can be taken from you by the society within which you function if you fail to comply with society's requirements. The sooner Americans embrace this simple and clear understanding of the nature of rights and privileges, the better off we shall all be. No more of this screaming and railing about "my rights!!" and "why me?"; people shall find themselves making the most valid decisions of their lives: "Is this a right or a privilege, and how important is it to me to keep it?" God Bless America!! Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=FC221B3D-123F-7491-A41CB22F57279246 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=03FDAB66-123F-7491-A4A895B9D6D39B32 Why wasn't this guy the guest of honor at a public hanging? Q: What happened to the killer of Marc Dotson, who was trying to break up a fight at a 7-Eleven? A: Christopher George Somkopulos, tried as an adult although he was only 16 when he killed Dotson, was convicted and sentenced to 25-years-to-life in prison in March 1998, according to Sacramento Superior Court records. Somkopulos is still in prison, records indicate. Dotson, a clerk at a 7-Eleven convenience store at Gerber and French roads, was shot and killed on Aug. 6, 1996, after he tried to evict a group of loiterers from the store's parking lot. Somkopulos was arrested a day later by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, The Bee reported. Witnesses told investigators Dotson asked the group to leave, but instead they got out of their cars and surrounded him. An argument followed and the gunman shot Dotson once in the head. He was taken to UC Davis Medical Center, where he died. Dotson, an Elk Grove High School graduate, had worked for 7-Eleven for about three months. Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=03FDAB66-123F-7491-A4A895B9D6D39B32 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=FF4117B6-123F-7491-A402D4A7DDDB4918 This was MUCH more than a man with a cell phone! See this story of the TRUTH! One week ago, I went to Ohio on business and to see my father. On Tuesday, November the 17th, I returned home. If you read the papers the 18th you may have seen a blurb where a AirTran flight was cancelled from Atlanta to Houston due to a man who refused to get off of his cell phone before takeoff. It was on Fox. This was NOT what happened. I was in 1st class coming home. Eleven Muslim men got on the plane in full attire. Two sat in 1st class and the rest peppered themselves throughout the plane all the way to the back. As the plane taxied to the runway the stewardesses gave the safety spiel we are all so familiar with. At that time, one of the men got on his cell and called one of his companions in the back and proceeded to talk on the phone in Arabic very loudly and very aggressively. This took the 1st stewardess out of the picture, for she repeatedly told the man that cell phones were not permitted at the time. He ignored her as if she was not there. The 2nd man who answered the phone did the same and this took out the 2nd stewardess. In the back of the plane at this time, 2 younger Muslims - one in the back (isle), and one in front of him (window), began to show footage of a porno they had taped the night before and were very loud about it. Now, they are only permitted to do this prior to Jihad; if a Muslim man goes into a strip club, he has to view the woman via mirror with his back to her (don’t ask me... I don’t make the rules, but I’ve studied). The 3rd stewardess informed them that they were not to have electronic devices on at this time, to which one of the men said “shut up, infidel dog!” She went to take the camcorder and he began to scream in her face in Arabic. At that exact moment, all 11 of them got up and started to walk the cabin. This is where I had had enough! I got up and started to the back, and I heard a voice from another Texan twice my size behind me say, “I got your back.” I grabbed the man who had been on the phone by the arm and said “you WILL go sit down or you will be thrown from this plane!” As I “led” him around me to take his seat, the fellow Texan grabbed him by the back of his neck and his waist and headed out with him. I then grabbed the 2nd man and said, “You WILL do the same!” He protested, but adrenaline was flowing now and he was going to go. As I escorted him forward the plane doors open and 3 TSA agents and 4 police officers entered. Me and my new Texan friend were told to cease and desist, that they had this under control. I was happy to oblige actually. There was some commotion in the back, but within moments, all 11 were escorted off the plane. They then unloaded their luggage. We talked about the occurrence, and were in disbelief that it had happened, when suddenly the door opened again and on walked all eleven - Stony-faced, eyes front, and robotic (the only way I can describe it). The stewardess from the back had been in tears and when she saw this, she was having NONE of it! Being that I was up front, I heard and saw the whole ordeal. She told the TSA agent there was NO WAY she was staying on the plane with these men. The agent told her they had searched them and were going to go through their luggage with a fine tooth comb and that they were allowed to proceed to Houston. The captain and co-captain came out and told the agent “we and our crew will not fly this plane!” After a word or two, the entire crew, luggage in tow, left the plane. 5 minutes later, the cabin door opened again and a whole new crew walked on. Again, this is where I had had enough!!! I got up and asked “What the hell is going on!?!?” I was told to take my seat, that they were sorry for the delay, and I would be home shortly. I said “I’m getting off this plane”. The stewardess sternly told me that she could not allow me to get off. (now I’m mad!) I said “I am a grown man who bought this ticket, who’s time is my own, with a family at home - and I am going through that door, or I’m going through that door with you under my arm!! But I am going through that door!!” And I heard a voice behind me say “so am I”. Then everyone behind us started to get up and say the same. Within 2 minutes, I was walking off that plane where I was met with more agents who asked me to write a statement. I had 5 hours to kill at this point so why the hell not. Due to the amount of people who got off that flight, it was cancelled. I was supposed to be in Houston at 6pm; I got here at 12:30am. Look up the date. Flight 297 - Atlanta to Houston. If this wasn’t a dry run, I don’t know what one is. The terrorists wanted to see how TSA would handle it, how the crew would handle it, and how the passengers would handle it. I’m telling this to you because I want you to know. The threat is real. I saw it with my own eyes. -Tedd Petruna I have been all over the net trying to find any evidence that this is not true. I can fine none. Snopes will only give it a partial verification, which tells me that it is much more than likely TRUE as they are very quick with disclaimers for untrue stories. PEOPLE, WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If even a third of this story is true, we all need to be very afraid and we ALL need to bombard our local, state, and federal governments for a full disclosure and report on this. Did you see how easily those supposed wannabe's got into the White House?! Was that another dry run? I know, I know, there are those of you out there who are thinking "Another crazy conspiracy theorist". Maybe so, but what if I am right?! Make no mistake, there are radical Muslims out there whose mission it is to destroy the U.S.A., and we can NEVER let out guard down again. Decide for yourself if it is true, then tell every one you know. It's the only way this story will ever be fully told. (southernpatriot said on December 2, 2009 at 12:36 PM) Tue, 05 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=FF4117B6-123F-7491-A402D4A7DDDB4918 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=FEFA1C66-123F-7491-A48401506F4B6A01 You may recall the account of Israel calling for a king in 1 Samuel 8 (5-18). While it is understandable that they should want better than the sons of Samuel - corrupt and wicked men who walked not in their father's ways (not traditional, or CONSERVATIVE, men) - and felt the need for strong leadership to be established quickly because Samuel was old and not getting any younger, their stubborn pursuit of change for the sake of change brought them the king they cried out for. He was not, however, like the ruler of their fathers' experience. God never had a need to take from His people, so they never had what was theirs forcibly taken by another for that person's own benefit unless they had been guilty of a crime that warranted such deprivation. God had never expressed lustful desire for the daughters of Israel; He had never gathered up the sons of men to protect himself - He needed no protection. Israel had no experience of the darker side of kings; they had only the bright, warm side projected during state occasions when they visited other nations' rulers. Thus, they were unprepared for the selfish, arrogant, only-too-human master they displaced God with. Ronald Reagan was much like Samuel - called by the conservative voice of our national spirit to lead and shepherd our country and people. He came after weak and corrupt rulers, rising to the presidency on the wings of courage and honesty. During the greatest part of his administration, his ethics and patriotism led America to a greatness it had almost forgotten. Sadly, toward the end, some of his foreign policies began to taint everything he had built; Iran-gate is one of his more memorable involvements. The Bush clan were much like the sons of Samuel - not following in the ways of their father, bearing only his name in their lineage, but giving rise to the kindred knows as RINOs. Politics became the path instead of leadership. So now we have our king - a man we, as a people, asked for. He offered us hope and change - but has not moved to produce the hope and change he promised. Instead, he has taken what was ours and made it his own. He has shown little more than contempt for America and Americans. He ignores the cries of his people, believing that - as he is president - he knows best what we want and need. Read the account of Saul's rule before David, and compare it to the current president. Look at the account of the relationship between David and Saul, and watch what happens over the next few years. If the president does not turn from this path soon - and I doubt seriously that he will - we shall see the whole account play itself out again. Actually, I look forward to watching God proven right - again. Tue, 05 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=FEFA1C66-123F-7491-A48401506F4B6A01 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=F0CEB50F-123F-7491-A415342AFA508915 I wrote this letter to as many Californian Republicans in federal congress as I could. You would be surprised at how many act like state legislators and screen out any email but those from their own district! ---------------------------- I am not from your district, congressman, so I apologize for the intrusion. I am writing to all Californian Republican congressmen to ask them to unite in an effort to impeach the president. He has been the worst sort of politician during his time in office: following up on none of his campaign promises; running up debt impossible to conceive of and daunting to contemplate; even offering up America's sovereignty to the UN. Are these the actions of an American? Consider thus: if you were to treat your home and family thus - spending to bankruptcy, neglecting your family, and even offering to whore them to the interests of outsiders - you would certainly be censured by the public. You would very likely face prison time. Does the president deserve any less? Sir, I and many like me are asking you - we are imploring you - to help us put an end to this madness. Save America for us, for yourself, and for your family yet unborn. Do not fear your opponents or what they will say of you; would they not say such anyway? Rather, embrace your supporters, for they will love you even if you fail - which is more than your opponents will do even if you do not fight them. It is said, sir, that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Evil's triumph, in this instance, is not an option - the utter and complete destruction of America. The light, the dream, the hope that is America shall come to an end, sir, if we do nothing. I invite your reply. -------------------------------------------------------------- All I want from the congressmen from this state is that they realize they have a solid backing from We, The People. I want them to understand that they can come to us for support and strength. I want them to understand that, if they do what their constituents ask them to, they are far more certain to remain in office than if they thwart the will of those who vote. I hope my word got into their hearts and heads. I ask anyone who reads this to do what I did - get the list of their congressmen and write to every one of them, letting them know that they are being relied upon. And that they are being watched. Remember, People, that this is your country as much as it is theirs! Keep it! Deus Patria Sic! Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=F0CEB50F-123F-7491-A415342AFA508915 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=F0CB71F7-123F-7491-A4D5993756F9C086 Dec 24, 2009 - Introduced in Senate. This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the Senate for consideration. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack. SRES 387 IS 111th CONGRESS 1st Session S. RES. 387 Urging the people of the United States to observe Global Family Day and One Day of Peace and Sharing on January 1, 2010. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES December 24, 2009 Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. REID, and Mr. AKAKA) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary RESOLUTION Urging the people of the United States to observe Global Family Day and One Day of Peace and Sharing on January 1, 2010. Whereas in 2009, the people of the world suffered many calamitous events, including devastation from tsunamis, terror attacks, wars, famines, genocides, hurricanes, earthquakes, political and religious conflicts, diseases, poverty, and rioting, all necessitating global cooperation, compassion, and unity previously unprecedented among diverse cultures, faiths, and economic classes; Whereas grave global challenges in 2010 may require cooperation and innovative problem solving among citizens and nations on an even greater scale; Whereas on December 15, 2000, Congress adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 138, expressing the sense of Congress that the President of the United States should issue a proclamation each year calling upon the people of the United States and interested organizations to observe an international day of peace and sharing at the beginning of each year; Whereas in 2001, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 56/2, which invited ‘Member States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and all the peoples of the world to celebrate One Day in Peace, 1 January 2002, and every year thereafter’; Whereas many foreign heads of State have recognized the importance of establishing Global Family Day, a special day of international unity, peace, and sharing, on the first day of each year; and Whereas family is the basic structure of humanity, thus, we must all look to the stability and love within our individual families to create stability in the global community: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate urgently requests-- HERE'S WHERE IT GETS GOOD (1) the people of the United States to observe Global Family Day and One Day of Peace and Sharing on January 1, 2010, with appropriate activities stressing the need-- (A) to eradicate violence, hunger, poverty, and suffering; and (B) to establish greater trust and fellowship among peace-loving countries and families everywhere; and (2) American businesses, labor organizations, and faith and civic leaders to join in promoting appropriate activities for Americans and in extending appropriate greetings from the families of the United States to families in the rest of the world. Can anyone explain to me how this is the job of those who are entrusted with the responsible expenditure of our tax money? When did it become their job to tell us how to feel, how to act, and how to spend our time? Why should I concern myself with the doings of other countries who are not doing anything to help my country in its time of trouble? Why should AMERICAN companies do anything for a world that hates everything we stand for? I told my brother today, and I am going to say it to everyone who reads this post: Watch the candidates! Remember: a RINO is no better than a Marxist!! Know who stands where, and know why! When you have the facts clear, VOTE!! IT IS YOUR AMERICA, TOO!! Deus Patria Sic! Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=F0CB71F7-123F-7491-A4D5993756F9C086 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=EC226318-123F-7491-A478CA3FB3166776 The Federalist Papers Among the many things I have learned over the years, it is that one can learn best the mechanism of a thing by asking the engineer of its making. The radio I listen to; the car I drive; the computer I am typing on as I compose this article – all of these things I have needed to see to some level of maintenance, and I would not dream of effecting such repairs or changes without asking someone who understands best how such things are done without reducing the proper function of the thing being repaired or changed. It is, however, not very likely that I should have personal access to the engineers who designed the computer or car or radio in question. More likely is that I should have a manual containing the knowledge that the engineer would have had about the equipment I own and must now maintain. The actual engineer may live a good distance away, be retired, or even dead. However remote, and for whatever reason, the actual person is beyond my reach. Foreseeing this eventuality, the owner/operator/repair manual provides the needed information to allow those possessed of a modicum of ability to operate and – should the need arise – repair the equipment they own. So it is with the Federalist Papers. A few statesmen – Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison – felt that it was worth informing the people of the state of New York of what was coming in the offering of a new Constitution. While any similar writings composed for other states have lapsed into obscurity, these letters remain today what they were when first published. THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO POLITICAL PROSPERITY The first section – referred to as "Importance of The Union" – deals with the benefits of The Union, as opposed to the two other proffered alternatives: a collection of three confederations, or a free collection of separate states. Addressed are the inducements in its favor, the obstacles standing against it, and the arguments supporting these. Issues touch on security, international prestige, and economy, with further detailing of these issues regarding internal and external arena. THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION This second section – often called, "Defects of the Articles of Confederation" – outlines where the Articles of Confederation, which had been the guiding law of the land so far, had failed in their mission to guide and govern the affairs of American citizens. As was made very clear in the first part of this section, the government of the United States had been so poorly managed under the authority of the Articles that the confederation had all but come undone. This to the debasement, humiliation, spite, and – if not dealt with decisively and soon – the ruin of this fledgling nation. Through comparison of this current form of government with all known similar historical instances, the author determines what have been the most likely failings in our own instance; he then goes on to posit some worthy and practicable solutions to our own troubles. THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT, AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT In the third segment of letters, the focus is on how involved and empowered the government to come would have to be. Up to this time, the central government had intentionally been left rather weak, in order that the sovereign states might function in their own interests while remaining part of the whole. The problems began to manifest when larger states sought primacy within the confederation, or when smaller states feared such – agreements struck between neighboring states and then lightly forgotten, debts incurred and then ignored when payment was inconvenient, and even declarations of war between neighboring states when larger states sought the advantage over lesser, or when lesser states feared as much. These flaws in the original plan became evident in a surprisingly short time. They manifested as land disputes – between individual landholders and between states – and even open rebellions. It became clear that there had to be more power for the federal government to mediate between the states, not just to act on the part of the United States with foreign governments. There had to be some authority that would stand between the several states, keeping them from acting in their own interest and reminding them of the common interest of the Union. THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT The fourth set of letters, called "The Republican Form of Government", sets about defining the characteristics, benefits, and weaknesses of a government through representation. The idea of being represented in a central government was only reasonable, considering that the seat of the federal government was likely to be many miles and many days from most peoples' homes; it would be not work to drag people from their homes and livelihoods in order to conduct the business of the government. Neither would it make sense to insist that the government travel the length and breadth of the land in order to see to it that every citizen was informed; nothing would ever get done The most sensible, reasonable approach would be to have a representative in government for so many citizens – say, 30,000 – to allow that representative to bring the interests of the people to the seat of government, and then return the business of the government to their constituents. Further discussed are: the powers of the proposed new constitution and how these powers compare to and grow from the earlier form of government; the inevitable restrictions on the powers of the states; the transfer of power from the states to the federal government, with reasons to welcome it and to fear it; how the two levels of power – state and federal – would be alike and different; how the power of the new government would be balanced; and the inclusion of the fourth branch of government – the Popular branch, or the people – when any of the other three branches began to step outside of their strict boundaries, as well as at other times. ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION The next three collections of letters – titled "The Legislative Branch", "The Executive Branch", and "The Judicial Branch" – are breakdowns of how the federal government under the proposed Constitution shall mirror the similar functions of the state governments. By structuring the new government with the same basic framework as tested and trusted governments functioning within the several states, the framers thought to minimize the problems of accommodation and familiarization – the people coming to work in the federal government would simply be taking their experience and understanding of government and applying it to a new level. This was a brilliant stroke on the part of the builders and engineers of the new government. With so much opposition to the changes, it would be a simple matter for the officers and politicians currently in place to weave tales of confusion and hopelessly muddled policies in order to cow the populace into giving up on the new plan. By heading off this option and offering the powers-in-place an irresistible olive branch at the same time, the architects of the new plan guaranteed that they would get what they were working for. THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATIONS OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY The last segment – Conclusions and Miscellaneous Ideas – covers a variety of objections to the proposed Constitution – the absence of a Bill of Rights, the power vested in such a remote governing body, and enforcement of debts – and discusses their foundations and errors. These are followed by a number of concluding statements and remarks. This insight into the issues surrounding the adoption of The Constitution of the United States – discussion of the pros and cons between intelligent and informed Americans – is enormously enlightening to the modern American. Most Americans have little appreciation for what our current form of government came from or what problems it faced. Having had this form of government all of their lives, they have come to take it for granted; knowing no other way, they want more because they do not know what it is to have less. Fri, 01 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=EC226318-123F-7491-A478CA3FB3166776 http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=EC0680B3-123F-7491-A4AEA72F1D646129 Fri, 01 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT http://www.lanternsofliberty.us/chrispilie.cfm?thread=EC0680B3-123F-7491-A4AEA72F1D646129