The Sixties Radical- Freedom’s Price Tag

Once again the attack dogs in the media are out in full force. I don’t care if it’s CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, CNN, LSMSD, or Dip shit U these folks are out to pick our candidate to run against the evil one Obama.

This time the cat in their cross hairs is Herman Cain.

Look, let’s be honest I don’t know who I am going to vote for in the Republican Primary.

I will tell you whom I won’t vote for Mitt Romney and Rube I mean Ron Paul (I borrowed this from Mark Levin).

But what grinds my butt is this. The Republican elites and country club types want to tell me whom I should vote for.

The Republican establishment wants Mitt Romney.

He is a liberal.

Look at his record.

Romney care in Massachusetts was used as the model for Obama care.

He believes in crony capitalism and taking from you and me and giving our money to those who need it.

This is called stealing.

Or better yet legal plunder.

It is charity when I reach into my own pocket and give to help a person in need but this is theft when I reach into your pocket and gave away your money to someone else.

Please show me where in the Constitution this is written?

Give me a break will ya.

People like Romney, Chris Christy, the Elite Republicans look down on people like you and me. They think we are idiots and right wing nut jobs.

What is so insane about the Constitution and a limited Federal government?

What is wrong with freedom and giving the people the right to choose how to live their lives?

This cat wants to grow the government at a slower rate than the Democrat Socialist Party.

A statist is a statist I don’t care if they are a Republican or a Democrat.

These folks are all cut from the same cloth.

The only difference is this Obama is a Marxist.

He wants to destroy this country and change it into a Marxist haven while Romney and the stoops in the Republican Party don’t see the real danger that we are in so these idiots will do anything to hang on their power instead of fighting to keep this country a Constitutional Republic.

In the end it is all power.

So as writer Ayn Rand said how do you compromise between food and poison?

Or better yet when good compromises with evil, evil wins.

Rand wrote The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

She rejected all forms of statism and collectivism.

Rand was born in Russia.

She was a non-religious Jew.

Rand lived in Russia until 1926.

She grew up during the Russian revolution led by Lenin.

He father had his entire business taken away from him by the Bolsheviks.

The entire family fled to Crimea.

She saw first hand what is was like to live in a centralized government that controls your entire life.

She knew what totalitarianism was all about.

Here are some of Rand’s quotes.

A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.

Do not ever say that the desire to “do good” by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives.

Government “help” to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.

It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

We are now establishing a centralized government that will tell us how we are to live from womb to tomb.

This is what the evil Obama, the Democrat Socialist Party and the elite Republicans want to do to this country.

If the state can control what you eat and drive they can take away all of our freedoms.

Our founding fathers knew this.

This is why these brave men stood up to King George and his tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, etal knew that all freedom and power comes from the God of the Bible and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I know the words Christianity are not written any where in the Constitution but look at the ideas behind this simple yet powerful document.

Read the Declaration of Independence and you will read that God is given credit for the ideas that have founded this country.

 When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Our funding fathers turned away from the conventional wisdom of the day. This wisdom was founded upon the fact that the King was God or the Godliness of Kings. This was the idea behind the First Amendment of the Constitution. It did away with the state run religion.

“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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This does not mean freedom from Religion but freedom from of a state run religion and the King is a God.

The genius of our Constitution is that it is based upon morals and values.  And this is the very fabric that keeps this great country of ours alive and protected now we have a President who is in the process of destroying the very fabric of what made this country great.

For you see there is a difference between God’s word and religion. Read the Bible and you will see what I mean.

Our founding fathers wanted us to have the right and freedom of choice so this is why the First Amendment was written and included in the Bill of Rights.

Obama wants the state to choose for us.

Obama is evil and this is why he must be destroyed.

 

 

 

The Sixties Radical-

Look folks are country is at the crossroads. We are on the verge of throwing away the very foundation this country is built upon for a Marxist state.

Obama and his minions of evil would have you believe this country would be better off if we had a strong centralized government that would be in charge of everything.

This way the state would take care of all of our needs from womb to womb.

On the surface many fall for this lie.

They shout, this is a good idea.

Let the state restrict our use of water, tell us what we can eat, what car we can drive, how much energy we can use, ad nauseum.

This is one of those straw dog arguments the left uses to trap us into buying  their lies.

This is all about power.

Yes, smoking is bad.

It does kill you.

So do eating carrots and onions.

Everyone who ate carrots and onions in 1860 is dead today.

Smoking does lead to lung disease and cancer.

So does breathing air and drinking water.

The lies are these.

First there is no danger in second hand smoke.

Second if smoking is lethal then ban it.

The left won’t.

Why?

They want you to smoke so the smokers can pay higher prices so this money can be used to fill the public coffers.

Without this money many state, city, and federal agencies would go broke.
They have built into their budgets the sin taxes.

Since the decline of adults smoking the money is drying up so the government is looking for new ways to get into our pockets.

This is called soft tyranny.

God gave man freedom to choose.

Some of our choices are good and some are bad.

When government gets involved in our daily lives this will ultimately turn into totalitarianism.

Obama is not our King.

We are not his servants.

The Congress is not the ruler over us all.

This is what is happening now.

Our problems can be traced to 1962 when the Warren Court kicked God out of our country.

This very act started us on the fast track to hell.

Our country was built upon the Philosophies of John Locke, Plato’s Republic, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, and the Bible.

Our founding fathers knew that a country built on morals ie The Ten Commandments would have a good chance to last a very long time.

Without a moral fiber or anything goes the country will fall.

All one has to look at is Rome, Greece, England, Spain, Cuba, Mexico, I mean the list is endless.

My question is this. How did our country survive without all these government programs prior to 1930?

Very simple, our neighbors, churches, Synagogues, and private agencies helped those in need.

Where is written in the Constitution or the Bible that man or government must support his fellow man from womb to tomb?

The Communist Manifesto and Saul Alinski’s book Rules for Radicals tell us that government is all-powerful.

The ruling classes are the ones who are destined to control us all.

This has been tried throughout the history of man.

Guess what?

It is doomed to failure.

God gave us all the yearning to be free and to live free.

Man is fallible.

Man is not God.

Only God is God.

The God of the Bible is what I am talking about.

            John Adams

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES</CENTER< A>

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1

The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.2

Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.3

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.4

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!5

I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.6

John Quincy Adams-

SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION” </CENTER< A>

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.7

The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].8

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.9

Thomas Stone

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SELECTED AS A DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION</CENTER< A>

Shun all giddy, loose, and wicked company; they will corrupt and lead you into vice and bring you to ruin. Seek the company of sober, virtuous and good people… which will lead [you] to solid happiness.113

Joseph Story

U. S. CONGRESSMAN; “FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE”; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON</CENTER< A>

One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations.114

I verily believe that Christianity is necessary to support a civil society and shall ever attend to its institutions and acknowledge its precepts as the pure and natural sources of private and social happiness.115

Caleb Strong

DELEGATE AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO FRAME THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; RATIFIER OF THE CONSTITUTION; U. S. SENATOR; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS</CENTER< A>

He called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . . all nations may know and be obedient to that grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ.116

The Sixties Radical- Statists are Statists Republican or Democrats

Once again the true colours of the elite Republican Party is coming out. These folks hate us The Tea Party-ie the common man as much as the Democrat Socialist party hates us.

The truth will always come out once the light of good is shown on the darkness.

Karl Rove, the Bush family, Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and the rest are just as bad as the left and the Democrat Socialist Party.

They want to rule us as well the only difference is that instead of going 100 mph over the cliff these idiots tell us it is business usual and so don’t worry we’ll only go over the cliff at sixty mph.

What these clowns don’t get our country is broke.

We are on the verge of losing our freedom.

If the left, the evil Obama, and the Democrat Socialist Party have its way you fools in the Republican Party will lose every thing.

You will forever get sent to the outer portions of Siberia.

The stupid fools on Fox like Charles Krauthammer, Bill Crystal, Bill O’Reilly, George Will and the other talking heads that pretend to be conservatives are leading the charge to force us into choosing your candidate Mitt Romney.

This same thing happened in 2008 and look what happened.

The Democrat who ran as a Republican McCain lost to the evil Obama.

Here’s some more history for you country club elite Republicans.

Bob Dull I mean Dole lost to Bill Clinton in 1996.

George H. Bush lost to Clinton in 1992.

Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976.

All of these men are Liberal Republicans.

They are statists.

They look down their noses at people like you and me.

They think we are stupid.

Yet if it weren’t for people like you and me John “Chicken Shit” Boehner would never have become Speaker of the House.

This is the real truth.

If we really want to get real, Rush Limbaugh is responsible for the growth of talk radio and the conservative media.

Let’s go back to the way back machine, 1988.

When Rush came on the air there was only ABC, CBS, NBC and that’s it.

Fox News didn’t exist.

All the naysayers said Rush Limbaugh would never make it.

Flash forward to 2011 and Rush is leading the charge for Conservatism in this country.

The only one who led the charge in the 1980’s was Ronald Reagan.

He had to fight his own party as well as the Left, the Libs, and the Democrat Socialist Party.

Look folks our country is on the verge of dying.

If Obama is elected for another four years and Harry Reid is still the Senate Pro-Tem, and the Democrat Socialist Party retakes the house you can kiss the USA bye-bye and the rest of the free world will be fucked.

Add to that Elite Republicans like John McCain, John Beohner, Eric Cantor, Susan Collins and the rest we will all surely die.

This is the truth.

Once you give away freedom you will never get it back.

Our Founding Fathers knew this and this is why they put everything on the line so that we can live as a free nation today.

Freedom has a price tag.

This price tag can be very expensive.

One has to be willing to give everything up including ones life.

If our present day leaders were present at the time of the revolution they would have worked out a deal to stay in power and live like Kings while the rest of us would be their servants.

Here is an article written by Gary Hildreth-

Have you ever wondered what happened to the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

This is the price they paid: Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured.

Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary War.

These men signed, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!

What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers and large plantation owners. All were men of means, well educated.

But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

 Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Perhaps one of the most inspiring examples of “undaunted resolution” was at the Battle of Yorktown. Thomas Nelson, Jr. was returning from Philadelphia to become Governor of Virginia and joined General Washington just outside of Yorktown.

He then noted that British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headqurt, but that the patriot’s were directing their artillery fire all over the town except for the vicinity of his own beautiful home.

Nelson asked why they were not firing in that direction, and the soldiers replied, “Out of respect to you, Sir.” Nelson quietly urged General Washington to open fire, and stepping forward to the nearest cannon, aimed at his own house and fired.

The other guns joined in, and the Nelson home was destroyed. Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis’s Long Island home was looted and gutted, his home and properties destroyed.

His wife was thrown into a damp dark prison cell without a bed. Health ruined, Mrs. Lewis soon died from the effects of the confinement.

The Lewis’s son would later die in British captivity, also. “Honest John” Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she lay dying, when British and Hessian troops invaded New Jersey just months after he signed the Declaration.

Their thirteen children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid to waste. All winter, and for more than a year, Hart lived in forests and caves, finally returning home to find his wife dead, his chidrvanished and his farm destroyed. Rebuilding proved too be too great a task. A few weeks later, by the spring of 1779, John Hart was dead from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. New Jersey’s Richard Stockton, after rescuing his wife and children from advancing British troops, was betrayed by a loyalist, imprisoned, beaten and nearly starved.

He returned an invalid to find his home gutted, and his library and papers burned. He, too, never recovered, dying in 1781 a broken man.

William Ellery of Rhode Island, who marveled that he had seen only “undaunted resolution” in the faces of his co-signers, also had his home burned.

Only days after Lewis Morris of New York signed the Declaration, British troops ravaged his 2,000-acre estate, butchered his cattle and drove his family off the land.

Three of Morris’ sons fought the British. When the British seized the New York houses of the wealthy Philip Livingston, he sold off everything else, and gave the money to the Revolution. He died in 1778.

 Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge and Thomas Heyward Jr. went home to South Carolin tight.

In the British invasion of the South, Heyward was wounded and all three were captured. As he rotted on a prison ship in St. Augustine, Heyward’s plantation was raided, buildings burned, and his wife, who witnessed it all, died. Other Southern signers suffered the same general fate.

Among the first to sign had been John Hancock, who wrote in big, bold script so George III “could read my name without spectacles and could now double his reward for 500 pounds for my head.” If the cause of the revolution commands it, roared Hancock, “Burn Boston and make John Hancock a beggar!”

Here were men who believed in a cause far beyond themselves. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the America revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians.

They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: “For the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Do you think John Boehner etal would be willing to put their lives as well as their fortunes on the line so we can live as a free nation?

I will give you three guess and the first two don’t count.

I choose freedom and the Constitution.

What about you?

The Sixties Radical- America The Worlds Last Hope

Looks folks I hate to sound like a broken record but this has to be the case. We are on the verge of destroying the very fabric and foundation upon which this country is built upon.

The very forces of evil are in the process of changing this country from a Constitutional government to a centralized Bureaucratic government.

This was the reason our founding fathers stood up and fought against the tyranny of King George. Now 235 years later we are fighting over the same thing.

Yet this fight is a different one.

We are fighting against our own government.

The Democrat Socialist Party, the evil Obama, and many members of the Republican Party want to control our lives from womb to tomb.

These people think they know best.

They want to rule the masses starting with what we can or can’t eat it all the way to what kind of car we drive to how much water we can use in out toilets to what size of the portions restaurants can serve to how many kid we can have ad nauseum.

This is tyranny plain and simple however many citizens have bought into this idea that a centralized government knows best how to run our lives.

Our founding fathers knew that all power comes from God- the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

These men knew that power corrupts even the best of us.

Man is fallible.

The King is not God.

Yet men like Obama are forcing us to give up or rights and freedoms under the guise of Progressivism.

These roots were sown in our in culture at the turn of the 19th century starting with Teddy Roosevelt.

Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt called themselves progressives.

Progressive means that they advocate change or reform through government action.

Only government can change what is wrong with society not the people.

Progressivism is directly tied to the populist movement.

Populist movement uses the term the people against the elite to change the political and social system of a country.

This on the surface this looks like it is against the Statists but it reality it isn’t.

Usually all revolution ends up in a totalitarian state. Freedom is dead and gone.

Check out France, Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, China, Germany and Iran. Hell you might as well included all of Europe and all of the world for America is the only real Constitutonal government. This is about to change if we don’t stop this insanity dead in its tracks.

Progressivism and populist movements are right of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital written by Karl Marx.

Here are some samples of Marx’s writings from Das Kapital- Chapter 31 Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist.

The genesis of the industrial [1] capitalist did not proceed in such a gradual way as that of the farmer. Doubtless many small guild-masters, and yet more independent small artisans, or even wage labourers, transformed themselves into small capitalists, and (by gradually extending exploitation of wage labour and corresponding accumulation) into full-blown capitalists. In the infancy of capitalist production, things often happened as in the infancy of medieval towns, where the question, which of the escaped serfs should be master and which servant, was in great part decided by the earlier or later date of their flight. The snail’s pace of this method corresponded in no wise with the commercial requirements of the new world market that the great discoveries of the end of the 15th century created. But the middle ages had handed down two distinct forms of capital, which mature in the most different economic social formations, and which before the era of the capitalist mode of production, are considered as capital quand même [all the same] — usurer’s capital and merchant’s capital.

“At present, all the wealth of society goes first into the possession of the capitalist … he pays the landowner his rent, the labourer his wages, the tax and tithe gatherer their claims, and keeps a large, indeed the largest, and a continually augmenting share, of the annual produce of labour for himself. The capitalist may now be said to be the first owner of all the wealth of the community, though no law has conferred on him the right to this property… this change has been effected by the taking of interest on capital … and it is not a little curious that all the law-givers of Europe endeavoured to prevent this by statutes, viz., statutes against usury…. The power of the capitalist over all the wealth of the country is a complete change in the right of property, and by what law, or series of laws, was it effected?” [2]

The author should have remembered that revolutions are not made by laws.

The money capital formed by means of usury and commerce was prevented from turning into industrial capital, in the country by the feudal constitution, in the towns by the guild organisation. [3] These fetters vanished with the dissolution of feudal society, with the expropriation and partial eviction of the country population. The new manufactures were established at sea-ports, or at inland points beyond the control of the old municipalities and their guilds. Hence in England an embittered struggle of the corporate towns against these new industrial nurseries.

The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre. It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions in England’s Anti-Jacobin War, and is still going on in the opium wars against China, &c.

Chapter Six The Buying and Selling of Labour –Power

The change of value that occurs in the case of money intended to be converted into capital, cannot take place in the money itself, since in its function of means of purchase and of payment, it does no more than realise the price of the commodity it buys or pays for; and, as hard cash, it is value petrified, never varying. [1] Just as little can it originate in the second act of circulation, the re-sale of the commodity, which does no more than transform the article from its bodily form back again into its money-form. The change must, therefore, take place in the commodity bought by the first act, M-C, but not in its value, for equivalents are exchanged, and the commodity is paid for at its full value. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the change originates in the use-value, as such, of the commodity, i.e., in its consumption. In order to be able to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find, within the sphere of circulation, in the market, a commodity, whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption, therefore, is itself an embodiment of labour, and, consequently, a creation of value. The possessor of money does find on the market such a special commodity in capacity for labour or labour-power.

By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description.

But in order that our owner of money may be able to find labour-power offered for sale as a commodity, various conditions must first be fulfilled. The exchange of commodities of itself implies no other relations of dependence than those which, result from its own nature. On this assumption, labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, offers it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity. In order that he may be able to do this, he must have it at his disposal, must be the untrammelled owner of his capacity for labour, i.e., of his person. [2] He and the owner of money meet in the market, and deal with each other as on the basis of equal rights, with this difference alone, that one is buyer, the other seller; both, therefore, equal in the eyes of the law. The continuance of this relation demands that the owner of the labour-power should sell it only for a definite period, for if he were to sell it rump and stump, once for all, he would be selling himself, converting himself from a free man into a slave, from an owner of a commodity into a commodity. He must constantly look upon his labour-power as his own property, his own commodity, and this he can only do by placing it at the disposal of the buyer temporarily, for a definite period of time. By this means alone can he avoid renouncing his rights of ownership over it. [3]

Here are the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto-Karl Marx, 1848

1.      Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of Land to Public Purpose.

2.      A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.

3.      Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance.

4.      Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.

5.      Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.

6.      Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.

7.      Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.

8.      Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.

9.      Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country.

10.  Free Education for All Children in Public Schools. Abolition of Children’s Factory Labor in it’s Present Form. Combination of Education with Industrial Production.

Then from Saul Alinsky  Rules for Radicals.

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace…. “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.’ This means revolution.” p.3

“Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.” p.

“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10

“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….” pp.10-11

“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. … The real arena is corrupt and bloody.” p.24

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be….” pp.25-26 “The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means….” p.29

“The seventh rule… is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics….” p.34

“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments…. It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?… If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” p.36

These words describe what is happening now across this country.

This is not about freedom but totalitarian control.

The Sixties Radical- Obama our God

How many ways can one cut this to Sunday? I mean Obama is a one man wrecking crew. This is absolute power gone mad. The evil Obama is charge of changing this country into a monarchy.

He wants to rule this country.

Obama sees himself as the King, his buds in the Democrat Socialist Party, and chosen members of the Republican Party are his Lords.

This country is his private playground where Obama can do what he wants.

The Constitution means is nothing to him.

Obama spits on it.

Look at the crap that is going on.

Fast and Furious, Solyndra, the Stimulus packaged that is in reality a Democrat Socialist Party slush fund.

These people blame the Tea Party for all the countries woes but folks if we didn’t change the balance of power in the house and limit the powers of the Senate our country would have gone off the cliff a long time ago.

Fast Furious, Solyndra and the Democrat Socialist Party slush fund disguised as the Stimulus package is all about a power grab.

Fast Furious was a set up for gun control.

Solyndra was a green energy set up to funnel money back to the Dems so they can use the money to pay off their constituents so they will vote the way Obama wants them to.

Green energy is a scam.

Don’t you think if it was profitable the business community would have discovered a way to use it already?

This is all done in the name of grabbing power to limit our freedom

Obama and the rest see us as their servants.

We are to worship him.

The statists believe all money as theirs.

They see all power coming from government.

Obama said it when he was running for the President he wanted to fundamentally change this country.

Please show me where in the Constitution this is written as one of the duties of the President?

Our founding fathers warned us about these very problems.

Man is fallible.

Power corrupts man if it is not checked.

These men knew that all power came from God.

The King is not God but a man.

This is why our founding fathers put in the concept of a  limited central government and the separation of powers in the Constitution.

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”
Federalist Paper 47; James Madison

“It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.”
Federalist Paper 48; James Madison

“Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government. The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.”
Federalist Paper 48; James Madison

On the Legislature’s override of a President’s Veto: “When 3/4 was agreed to, the President was to be elected by the Legislature and for seven years. He is now to be elected by the people and for four years. The object of the revisionary power is twofold. 1.[35] to defend the Executive Rights 2.[35] to prevent popular or factious injustice. It was an important principle in this & in the State Constitutions to check legislative injustice and incroachments. The Experience of the States had demonstrated that their checks are insufficient. “
Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, as reported by James Madison; Wednesday, September 12, 1787

Consider Federalist Paper 49 written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.

The author of the “Notes on the State of Virginia,” quoted in the last paper, has subjoined to that valuable work the draught of a constitution, which had been prepared in order to be laid before a convention, expected to be called in 1783, by the legislature, for the establishment of a constitution for that commonwealth. The plan, like every thing from the same pen, marks a turn of thinking, original, comprehensive, and accurate; and is the more worthy of attention as it equally displays a fervent attachment to republican government and an enlightened view of the dangerous propensities against which it ought to be guarded. One of the precautions which he proposes, and on which he appears ultimately to rely as a palladium to the weaker departments of power against the invasions of the stronger, is perhaps altogether his own, and as it immediately relates to the subject of our present inquiry, ought not to be overlooked.

His proposition is, “that whenever any two of the three branches of government shall concur in opinion, each by the voices of two thirds of their whole number, that a convention is necessary for altering the constitution, or CORRECTING BREACHES OF IT, a convention shall be called for the purpose.”

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others. The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers; and how are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commissions, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance?

There is certainly great force in this reasoning, and it must be allowed to prove that a constitutional road to the decision of the people ought to be marked out and kept open, for certain great and extraordinary occasions. But there appear to be insuperable objections against the proposed recurrence to the people, as a provision in all cases for keeping the several departments of power within their constitutional limits.

In the first place, the provision does not reach the case of a combination of two of the departments against the third. If the legislative authority, which possesses so many means of operating on the motives of the other departments, should be able to gain to its interest either of the others, or even one third of its members, the remaining department could derive no advantage from its remedial provision. I do not dwell, however, on this objection, because it may be thought to be rather against the modification of the principle, than against the principle itself.

In the next place, it may be considered as an objection inherent in the principle, that as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability. If it be true that all governments rest on opinion, it is no less true that the strength of opinion in each individual, and its practical influence on his conduct, depend much on the number which he supposes to have entertained the same opinion. The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated. When the examples which fortify opinion are ANCIENT as well as NUMEROUS, they are known to have a double effect. In a nation of philosophers, this consideration ought to be disregarded. A reverence for the laws would be sufficiently inculcated by the voice of an enlightened reason. But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato. And in every other nation, the most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on its side.

The danger of disturbing the public tranquillity by interesting too strongly the public passions, is a still more serious objection against a frequent reference of constitutional questions to the decision of the whole society. Notwithstanding the success which has attended the revisions of our established forms of government, and which does so much honor to the virtue and intelligence of the people of America, it must be confessed that the experiments are of too ticklish a nature to be unnecessarily multiplied. We are to recollect that all the existing constitutions were formed in the midst of a danger which repressed the passions most unfriendly to order and concord; of an enthusiastic confidence of the people in their patriotic leaders, which stifled the ordinary diversity of opinions on great national questions; of a universal ardor for new and opposite forms, produced by a universal resentment and indignation against the ancient government; and whilst no spirit of party connected with the changes to be made, or the abuses to be reformed, could mingle its leaven in the operation. The future situations in which we must expect to be usually placed, do not present any equivalent security against the danger which is apprehended.

But the greatest objection of all is, that the decisions which would probably result from such appeals would not answer the purpose of maintaining the constitutional equilibrium of the government. We have seen that the tendency of republican governments is to an aggrandizement of the legislative at the expense of the other departments. The appeals to the people, therefore, would usually be made by the executive and judiciary departments. But whether made by one side or the other, would each side enjoy equal advantages on the trial? Let us view their different situations. The members of the executive and judiciary departments are few in number, and can be personally known to a small part only of the people. The latter, by the mode of their appointment, as well as by the nature and permanency of it, are too far removed from the people to share much in their prepossessions. The former are generally the objects of jealousy, and their administration is always liable to be discolored and rendered unpopular. The members of the legislative department, on the other hand, are numerous. They are distributed and dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society. The nature of their public trust implies a personal influence among the people, and that they are more immediately the confidential guardians of the rights and liberties of the people. With these advantages, it can hardly be supposed that the adverse party would have an equal chance for a favorable issue.

But the legislative party would not only be able to plead their cause most successfully with the people. They would probably be constituted themselves the judges. The same influence which had gained them an election into the legislature, would gain them a seat in the convention. If this should not be the case with all, it would probably be the case with many, and pretty certainly with those leading characters, on whom every thing depends in such bodies. The convention, in short, would be composed chiefly of men who had been, who actually were, or who expected to be, members of the department whose conduct was arraigned. They would consequently be parties to the very question to be decided by them.

It might, however, sometimes happen, that appeals would be made under circumstances less adverse to the executive and judiciary departments. The usurpations of the legislature might be so flagrant and so sudden, as to admit of no specious coloring. A strong party among themselves might take side with the other branches. The executive power might be in the hands of a peculiar favorite of the people. In such a posture of things, the public decision might be less swayed by prepossessions in favor of the legislative party. But still it could never be expected to turn on the true merits of the question. It would inevitably be connected with the spirit of pre-existing parties, or of parties springing out of the question itself. It would be connected with persons of distinguished character and extensive influence in the community. It would be pronounced by the very men who had been agents in, or opponents of, the measures to which the decision would relate. The PASSIONS, therefore, not the REASON, of the public would sit in judgment. But it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government. The passions ought to be controlled and regulated by the government.

We found in the last paper, that mere declarations in the written constitution are not sufficient to restrain the several departments within their legal rights. It appears in this, that occasional appeals to the people would be neither a proper nor an effectual provision for that purpose. How far the provisions of a different nature contained in the plan above quoted might be adequate, I do not examine. Some of them are unquestionably founded on sound political principles, and all of them are framed with singular ingenuity and precision.

This is exactly what is going on now. Only a few brave men and women in Congress coupled with the brave folks like myself in the Tea Party are standing up to fight this tyranny.

If don’t win this fight our freedom is gone.

This is a plain and simple fact of life.

The Sixties Radical- Obama King and Lord over us All

This bullshit never changes. The Democrat Socialist Party will either blame the rich, the Tea Party, the Republicans or the wind for all of our countries problems.

 It’s tax the rich. They are to blame for all of our problems.

Now the evil one wants to put a 5% surtax on the millionaires.

This is endless.

Even if you take all the money of the millionaires and billionaires it still won’t be enough. This might take care of the government for maybe a few days at best.

This is class warfare at its best.

The evil Obama will play either the race card or the class warfare card when it suits his needs.

Yet, “We The People see right through this charade.

The playbook never changes.

This right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Here are his ten rules.

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

 

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

 Alinsky said this “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

Obama and the Democrat Socialist Party view themselves as rulers over us all. They think they have the sovereign power to do what they want.

All power rests with them. They wield power however they want. Obama and the rest are the Kings and Lords over “We The People.”

We are their servants.

Our founding fathers knew that man is fallible.

Power corrupts and this is why folks like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest divided up powers into three separate branches of government.

They are the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

James Madison wrote these words-

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 James Madison to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia] 

“While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.”  James Madison

“Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Christian religion itself ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it.”  James Madison, referring to the establishment of tax-supported denominations in Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and the Church-State Debate, Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed. (Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), p. 117.

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)

” An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”  James Madison

• A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]

“Whatever may have been the private sentiments of Mr. Madison on the subject of religion, he was never known to declare any hostility to it. He always treated it with respect, attended public worship in his neighborhood, invited ministers of religion to his house, had family prayers on such occasions,-though he did not kneel himself at prayers. Episcopal ministers often went there to see his aged and pious mother and administer the Holy Communion to her. I was never at Mr. Madison’s but once, and then our conversation took such a turn-though not designed on my part-as to call forth some expressions and arguments which left the impression on my mind that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible. At his death, some years after this, his minister-the Rev. Mr. Jones-and some of his neighbors openly expressed their conviction, that, from his conversation and bearing during the latter years of his life, he must be considered as receiving the Christian system to be divine.” Bishop Meade

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;

“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,

the LORD is our king;

He will save us.”

Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51-

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.

It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other — that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department?

If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.

There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view.

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority — that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.

PUBLIUS

In the end this argument has come full circle about what type of government we will have. What is proposed by the evil Obama is a strong centralized government. All power comes from government. They will control our lives from womb to tomb.

The government is in charge of everything.

We are the servants of the government and the King.

Our founding fathers envisioned a limited federal government. All freedoms and rights came from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, John Adams, and the rest knew that sovereignty rested with God and that  God gave to the people not government freedom and power. If freedom and sovereignty was doled out and emanated from the King or the government the people would be the servants of the King and the Lords.

Man has been arguing about this since the time of Genesis when God created the universe.

I choose freedom to make my own decisions.

This was the basis of what our founding fathers envisioned for this country.

The Sixties Radical- The Kool Aid Acid Test

Once again the stoops that drink from the Democrat Socialist Party, the Leftist, and the state run sycophant media Kool aid are marching on Wall Street to protest the bankcard fees.

These idiots don’t get it.

It wasn’t the banks and Wall Street that caused this crap. It was Dick Durbin and his little amendment that caused all of this shit.

These clowns are forcing how much banks can charge merchants who use debit and credit cards to buy stuff.

This very action broke the bank.

This cap is the direct result of statists who are taking control of the market place. When this happens business have no choice but to find ways to make up for the lost money so in the end it is passed on to the consumer.

This is another one of those good intentions gone straight to hell.

Now Durbin is telling Bank of America customers to go to another bank.

This is like the fox telling the chicken to go to my cousin’s house.

You’ll be safe there dude.

Trust me, I have your best interests at heart.

Look folks all banks will be charging fees. This is due to the idiocy of Democrat Socialist Party and its members such as Little Dick Durbin, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the statists who are in charge.

These temporary politicians are making permanent decisions that will affect all of our lives, our children’s lives, and their children’s lives.

Now that the shit has hit the fan Durbin and the rest of the idiots in the Democrat Socialist Party are screaming bloody murder.

They are the ones who caused this mess

So instead of taking responsibility for their actions they blame the Bankers and Wall Street for all of our money woes.

Our founding fathers warned us about these very things.

Man is fallible.

Power will corrupt.

Absolute power kills.

This is why safe guards were written into the Constitution.

Our country was based on the sovereign power of the people.

We elected our representatives to take care of the peoples business.

This is called the House of Representatives or the peoples house.

These folks were elected every two years.

The Senate was designed to be the more deliberate body. These folks were elected every six years.  The election cycling was staggered so that approximately one third only came for re-election at one time.

Before the 17th amendment all U.S. Senators were chosen by each states legislatures.

The 17th amendment came into effect on May 13th, 1912. This established the direct election of U. S. Senators.  

James Madison warned us of the absolute power of government.

“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” – James Madison

 “The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” – James Madison

“The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” – John Adams 

“When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.” – Thomas Jefferson  

 

James Madison wrote the Federalist Paper 49. Here are some excerpts from Madison’s writings.

 

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others. The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers; and how are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commissions, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance?

There is certainly great force in this reasoning, and it must be allowed to prove that a constitutional road to the decision of the people ought to be marked out and kept open, for certain great and extraordinary occasions. But there appear to be insuperable objections against the proposed recurrence to the people, as a provision in all cases for keeping the several departments of power within their constitutional limits.

In the first place, the provision does not reach the case of a combination of two of the departments against the third. If the legislative authority, which possesses so many means of operating on the motives of the other departments, should be able to gain to its interest either of the others, or even one third of its members, the remaining department could derive no advantage from its remedial provision. I do not dwell, however, on this objection, because it may be thought to be rather against the modification of the principle, than against the principle itself.

In the next place, it may be considered as an objection inherent in the principle, that as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability. If it be true that all governments rest on opinion, it is no less true that the strength of opinion in each individual, and its practical influence on his conduct, depend much on the number which he supposes to have entertained the same opinion. The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated. When the examples which fortify opinion are ANCIENT as well as NUMEROUS, they are known to have a double effect. In a nation of philosophers, this consideration ought to be disregarded. A reverence for the laws would be sufficiently inculcated by the voice of an enlightened reason. But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato. And in every other nation, the most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on its side.

The danger of disturbing the public tranquillity by interesting too strongly the public passions, is a still more serious objection against a frequent reference of constitutional questions to the decision of the whole society. Notwithstanding the success which has attended the revisions of our established forms of government, and which does so much honor to the virtue and intelligence of the people of America, it must be confessed that the experiments are of too ticklish a nature to be unnecessarily multiplied. We are to recollect that all the existing constitutions were formed in the midst of a danger which repressed the passions most unfriendly to order and concord; of an enthusiastic confidence of the people in their patriotic leaders, which stifled the ordinary diversity of opinions on great national questions; of a universal ardor for new and opposite forms, produced by a universal resentment and indignation against the ancient government; and whilst no spirit of party connected with the changes to be made, or the abuses to be reformed, could mingle its leaven in the operation. The future situations in which we must expect to be usually placed, do not present any equivalent security against the danger which is apprehended.

But the greatest objection of all is, that the decisions which would probably result from such appeals would not answer the purpose of maintaining the constitutional equilibrium of the government. We have seen that the tendency of republican governments is to an aggrandizement of the legislative at the expense of the other departments. The appeals to the people, therefore, would usually be made by the executive and judiciary departments. But whether made by one side or the other, would each side enjoy equal advantages on the trial? Let us view their different situations. The members of the executive and judiciary departments are few in number, and can be personally known to a small part only of the people. The latter, by the mode of their appointment, as well as by the nature and permanency of it, are too far removed from the people to share much in their prepossessions. The former are generally the objects of jealousy, and their administration is always liable to be discolored and rendered unpopular. The members of the legislative department, on the other hand, are numerous. They are distributed and dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society. The nature of their public trust implies a personal influence among the people, and that they are more immediately the confidential guardians of the rights and liberties of the people. With these advantages, it can hardly be supposed that the adverse party would have an equal chance for a favorable issue.

But the legislative party would not only be able to plead their cause most successfully with the people. They would probably be constituted themselves the judges. The same influence which had gained them an election into the legislature, would gain them a seat in the convention. If this should not be the case with all, it would probably be the case with many, and pretty certainly with those leading characters, on whom every thing depends in such bodies. The convention, in short, would be composed chiefly of men who had been, who actually were, or who expected to be, members of the department whose conduct was arraigned. They would consequently be parties to the very question to be decided by them.

It might, however, sometimes happen, that appeals would be made under circumstances less adverse to the executive and judiciary departments. The usurpations of the legislature might be so flagrant and so sudden, as to admit of no specious coloring. A strong party among themselves might take side with the other branches. The executive power might be in the hands of a peculiar favorite of the people. In such a posture of things, the public decision might be less swayed by prepossessions in favor of the legislative party. But still it could never be expected to turn on the true merits of the question. It would inevitably be connected with the spirit of pre-existing parties, or of parties springing out of the question itself. It would be connected with persons of distinguished character and extensive influence in the community. It would be pronounced by the very men who had been agents in, or opponents of, the measures to which the decision would relate. The PASSIONS, therefore, not the REASON, of the public would sit in judgment. But it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government. The passions ought to be controlled and regulated by the government.

We found in the last paper, that mere declarations in the written constitution are not sufficient to restrain the several departments within their legal rights. It appears in this, that occasional appeals to the people would be neither a proper nor an effectual provision for that purpose. How far the provisions of a different nature contained in the plan above quoted might be adequate, I do not examine. Some of them are unquestionably founded on sound political principles, and all of them are framed with singular ingenuity and precision.

In the end this country is in danger of losing its freedom. This is happening now with laws that are passed to give absolute power to a central government.

 James Madison added this warning- But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other — that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority — that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.

 

The Sixties Radical