The professional politicians in Washington and across the states (now to be referred to as the "establishment") are falling by the wayside. Yet they think so highly of themselves that some refuse to lose. Some excellent examples are Charlie Crist (FL) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska). The "establishment" still has not grasped the meaning of We, the People.
The "establishment" politicians (both parties) in Washington and across the states honestly don't know what to do with the rest of their lives now that the movement collectively referred to as We, the People are speaking up and telling them "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH". "They" didn't believe in We,the People when this movement began almost two years ago. They listened to the pollsters (main stream media) and “political experts”, both of whom still haven’t figured this out yet. So they assumed that their political lives, their liberty to do as they please when “legislating”, and their pursuit of a lifetime as a professional politician (their version of pursuit of happiness) would just continue on.
The “establishment” should wake up real fast. The movement of We, the People is just getting started. More changes are coming within the next four years. So the “establishment” might as well get ready for some REAL CHANGE!!
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
ISLAMIZATION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, on 9/25/08. Geert introduced an Alliance of Patriots and announced the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem, which was held in 2009. Geert has been and is currently still a member of the Dutch Parliament. He has been warning of the "stealth jihad" methodology of the Islamic faith throughout Europe. His claims here became prophetic, both in the increase in intensity in Europe and slowly growing stature in the USA:
"Dear Friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.
The Europe you know is changing.
You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.
In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.
Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.
In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels because he was drinking during the Ramadan.
Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Prof. Bernard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.
The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example,against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.
Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the “grievances” of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything.
So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing.
The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs.
With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish.
My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and Imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.
Please take the time to read and understand what is written here. Please send it to every free person that you know: It is so very important.
"Dear Friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.
The Europe you know is changing.
You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.
In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.
Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.
In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels because he was drinking during the Ramadan.
Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Prof. Bernard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.
The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example,against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.
Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the “grievances” of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything.
So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing.
The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs.
With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish.
My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and Imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.
Please take the time to read and understand what is written here. Please send it to every free person that you know: It is so very important.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
OUR REPUBLIC DOES NOT BELONG TO ILLEGALS OR RADICAL ISLAMS
The following is a liteary license of a "supposed" speech by Australian Prime Minister (in 2009) Kevin Rudd, which has been debunked as an hoax by many website sources. Thus, I am going to use my literary license and adopt this "debunked" speech to the USA's problems with radical Islams, Sharia Law and illegal immigrants in our country:
IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT TO THE LAWS AND SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If you don't like our culture, LEAVE!! Political correctness is over and done!! I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the Jihadists attacks on 9/11/01, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by We, the People.
Our American society and culture has evolved from over 230 years of trials, tribulations and victories by millions of men and women who have sought and fought for freedom. We, the People speak primarily ENGLISH, not Spanish, Arabic, or any other language. So, for you immigrant (legal and illegal) whiners, if you want to become part of our society, learn how to speak English!
Christianity is the primary religion in the USA. This is substantiated because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is documented within our Declaration of Independence, Constitution (as guided by Natural Law/God's Law) and clarified in such writings as the Federalst Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers, to name a few. There is no Constitutional principle to forbid displaying our Christian beliefs in school, despite the bogus "separation of church and state" arguments.
If you are offended by God, then go back to the part of the world where you came from, because God is part of our culture. We will accept your peaceful beliefs, but not any jihadist proclamations. This We, the People will do as long as you accept our peaceful Christian beliefs, and live in harmony and peace with us.
This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will provide you every opportunity to enjoy all of this. But if all you can do is complain and declare infringements on your "rights" regarding our Flag, our Pledge of Allegiance, our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, then I encourage you to take advantage of another freedom afforded to you,THE RIGHT TO PACK YOUR BAGS AND GET OUT OF THE USA.
No one forced you to come to OUR country. You made that choice. So accept this country YOU asked to live in. OTHERWISE, SHUT UP AND LEAVE; NOW!!!!
IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT TO THE LAWS AND SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If you don't like our culture, LEAVE!! Political correctness is over and done!! I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the Jihadists attacks on 9/11/01, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by We, the People.
Our American society and culture has evolved from over 230 years of trials, tribulations and victories by millions of men and women who have sought and fought for freedom. We, the People speak primarily ENGLISH, not Spanish, Arabic, or any other language. So, for you immigrant (legal and illegal) whiners, if you want to become part of our society, learn how to speak English!
Christianity is the primary religion in the USA. This is substantiated because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is documented within our Declaration of Independence, Constitution (as guided by Natural Law/God's Law) and clarified in such writings as the Federalst Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers, to name a few. There is no Constitutional principle to forbid displaying our Christian beliefs in school, despite the bogus "separation of church and state" arguments.
If you are offended by God, then go back to the part of the world where you came from, because God is part of our culture. We will accept your peaceful beliefs, but not any jihadist proclamations. This We, the People will do as long as you accept our peaceful Christian beliefs, and live in harmony and peace with us.
This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will provide you every opportunity to enjoy all of this. But if all you can do is complain and declare infringements on your "rights" regarding our Flag, our Pledge of Allegiance, our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, then I encourage you to take advantage of another freedom afforded to you,THE RIGHT TO PACK YOUR BAGS AND GET OUT OF THE USA.
No one forced you to come to OUR country. You made that choice. So accept this country YOU asked to live in. OTHERWISE, SHUT UP AND LEAVE; NOW!!!!
GIBBS AND OBAMA BECOMING MORE CENTRIST: WHEN IT SNOWS IN HAWAII
Regarding Robert Gibbs' comments degrading the "left", let's keep this in perspective. Gibbs will express what his boss, BHO, wants him to express. So, if one asks, is BHO working on going more centrist like Clinton did after the 1996 elections?: NOOO!!! This is expected, orchestrated, and definitely not done in earnest. For example, just look at the recent signing into law of HR 1586
HR 1586 was originally a FAA modernization and safety improvement act which was completely rewritten by King Harry in the first week of August “in a perfecting nature” which resulted in appeasing labor and teacher unions, and then passed by the House in a recall from recess and signed into law within a week. Pure liberalism at it’s best.
Don’t even think that this latest ploy by Gibbs and BHO, accompanied by this so-called “outrage” by the liberal Congress is in earnest. BHO and the Democratic Party are becoming desperate as they see the power slipping out of their hands come this November.
HR 1586 was originally a FAA modernization and safety improvement act which was completely rewritten by King Harry in the first week of August “in a perfecting nature” which resulted in appeasing labor and teacher unions, and then passed by the House in a recall from recess and signed into law within a week. Pure liberalism at it’s best.
Don’t even think that this latest ploy by Gibbs and BHO, accompanied by this so-called “outrage” by the liberal Congress is in earnest. BHO and the Democratic Party are becoming desperate as they see the power slipping out of their hands come this November.
Monday, August 9, 2010
THE FRAGILITY OF OUR NATURAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS
The following is a quote from almost 45 years ago. If the citizens of the USA are not truly dedicated to the philosophy behind this quote, then the Republic is on perilous waters: “Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment... You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children, this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. “ – Ronald Reagan
This country survived the devastating economic times of the Socialistic policies of President Carter by implementing the conservative measures of the Reagan years. This prophetic statement has risen again because We, the People remained apathetic towards governmental affairs within our states and our federal government for the following decades. Now, the citizens of the USA are waking up and becoming more involved in our governments’ business (from local up to federal) in an effort to ensure that we are truly being represented by our elected officials.
Yet, we still find ourselves in this same prophetic situation as described by President Reagan. We, the People still have a lot of hard work to perform and it will go far beyond the remaining primaries and general election of this year. It is up to the citizens of our Republic to remain vigilant towards our governments’ affairs. Otherwise, the reality that was spoken of some 45 years ago will become a prophetic reality for our Republic and for our future generations.
This country survived the devastating economic times of the Socialistic policies of President Carter by implementing the conservative measures of the Reagan years. This prophetic statement has risen again because We, the People remained apathetic towards governmental affairs within our states and our federal government for the following decades. Now, the citizens of the USA are waking up and becoming more involved in our governments’ business (from local up to federal) in an effort to ensure that we are truly being represented by our elected officials.
Yet, we still find ourselves in this same prophetic situation as described by President Reagan. We, the People still have a lot of hard work to perform and it will go far beyond the remaining primaries and general election of this year. It is up to the citizens of our Republic to remain vigilant towards our governments’ affairs. Otherwise, the reality that was spoken of some 45 years ago will become a prophetic reality for our Republic and for our future generations.
Monday, July 26, 2010
OUR REPUBLIC AND HOW WE THE PEOPLE AFFECT THE FUTURE
Our republic, the United States of America, stands at a definitive crossroads in its future. We, the People have the power to determine which direction our republic takes. How we determine our republic’s future depends on how well we understand the history of the USA and the world.
Our republic was developed by a group of patriots who had undergone one of the greatest struggles for freedom. They had the choice of creating a country modeled after empires of the past which depended on the decisions of the elite or establishing a republican form of government where the citizens of the country had a voice in making decisions for the good of the people. Their choice was the latter and they were guided by the principles defined in Natural Law (God’s Law).
Now we, the people have the decision before us as to whether our country is to continue upon the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as ascribed to us in the Declaration of Independence) or to relinquish those principles to the whims and decisions of the elite. Faith in the teachings of God’s Law and our love for the longest living republic in the history of the world have been the major ideals that have driven we, the people to stand up for our God-given rights.
The rights of life (being free to make our own choices), liberty (being free from misled elitists who believe that they know what is best for each individual and our country as a whole) and pursuit of happiness (being free to strive and work for our paths in life autonomously) are granted to We, the People by the ideals of the Constitution of the United States. Now the decisions as to whether or not we continue to survive as a republic, with these rights intact, have been laid before us.
Many great republics in our world’s history found themselves at this crossroad. Examples include the republican governments in Athens and Sparta, the initial founding of the Roman Republic and the First French Republic. In each case, these republics destroyed themselves by demanding more centralized control, over-extending their causes over the known world, and/or relinquishing their republic to a monarchial style of leadership.
For decades, our republic has been relinquishing various principles over to a centrist style of governing. Now is the time for We, the People to decide if our republic will continue down this direction or if we pull back our republic within the original principles of the Constitution. The choice is ours. The future of following generations of Americans rest upon our shoulders.
Our republic was developed by a group of patriots who had undergone one of the greatest struggles for freedom. They had the choice of creating a country modeled after empires of the past which depended on the decisions of the elite or establishing a republican form of government where the citizens of the country had a voice in making decisions for the good of the people. Their choice was the latter and they were guided by the principles defined in Natural Law (God’s Law).
Now we, the people have the decision before us as to whether our country is to continue upon the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as ascribed to us in the Declaration of Independence) or to relinquish those principles to the whims and decisions of the elite. Faith in the teachings of God’s Law and our love for the longest living republic in the history of the world have been the major ideals that have driven we, the people to stand up for our God-given rights.
The rights of life (being free to make our own choices), liberty (being free from misled elitists who believe that they know what is best for each individual and our country as a whole) and pursuit of happiness (being free to strive and work for our paths in life autonomously) are granted to We, the People by the ideals of the Constitution of the United States. Now the decisions as to whether or not we continue to survive as a republic, with these rights intact, have been laid before us.
Many great republics in our world’s history found themselves at this crossroad. Examples include the republican governments in Athens and Sparta, the initial founding of the Roman Republic and the First French Republic. In each case, these republics destroyed themselves by demanding more centralized control, over-extending their causes over the known world, and/or relinquishing their republic to a monarchial style of leadership.
For decades, our republic has been relinquishing various principles over to a centrist style of governing. Now is the time for We, the People to decide if our republic will continue down this direction or if we pull back our republic within the original principles of the Constitution. The choice is ours. The future of following generations of Americans rest upon our shoulders.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
TEA PARTY CAUCUS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES??
On July 16, 2010, the House Administration Committee granted a request by Representative Michele Bachmann for the formation of a Tea Party Caucus, just one day after the request was submitted. As a side note, approval of caucus requests normally take days before the Committee even considers such request. I find it interesting that a House Committee dominated by members of the Democratic Party would be so “eager” to grant approval for this caucus. I’ll try to tie this opinion into this editorial in the wrap-up comments. In order to deliberate on establishing a Tea Party caucus, we must remember the original premise behind the We, the People movement (commonly referred to by the media as the Tea Party movement) and some changes that we have endured.
Almost two years ago, the movement by We, the People began which was centered on the frustrations of Patriots across the country on how our government structure, from the local level thru the state and into the federal bureaucracy, was operating the legislative business of our townships, states and our country. This frustration stretches before the Obama (to be referred as BHO) administration to previous administrations. Actions by our elected officials have been committed in contrast to what We, the People expected. The movement recognized that ignorant decisions by our elected officials were being “allowed” by the American citizens because we inherently trusted the promises of our elected officials during their campaigns. Yet We, the People failed in the duty and trust dedicated to us by our Founding Fathers and “sat on our hands” in trust as our country was being led away from the Republic that our Constitutions (federal and state) designed and is slowly and effectively digressing into a Socialist-type “state”. In response, once We, the People decided that we had endured enough, we began a movement that was (and is) designed to reeducate ourselves, our family, friends and fellow citizens on the principles of our Constitution and the philosophies that influenced the decisions of our Founding Fathers in their formation of the Constitution of the United States. We began to study how the Constitution was the Law of the Land and how it influenced the formation of each individual state’s Constitution. With this education under our belt, we accepted the responsibility of spreading this knowledge across our land so that We, the People (as individual American citizens) could look for viable citizens who were Constitutionally-principled, fiscally conservative and morally ethical so that we could convince these like-minded citizens to run for office (again, from local up to the federal levels) as true representatives of We, the People. With our support, We, the People could present these candidates to our fellow citizens and support them in their campaign efforts. This movement was not based on political party ideology; rather it is designed to be party neutral. The goal was (and is) to induct citizens into the political processes who would truly represent the American citizens (not organized lobbyists and overbearing union desires) without party affiliations as a requirement for our support. We were warned from the beginning that this movement would be a hard and arduous endeavor which ran the risk of being influenced by organized political causes/parties in their effort to take over OUR movement as We, the People.
Already we have seen evidence of this warning; from some National Tea party organizations publicly endorsing candidates (ex., Tea Party Express and Tea Party Federation endorsements), some 9/12 organizations openly endorsing only candidates from one particular party, and other National organizations openly endorsing causes and candidates. The purpose of OUR movement was for individual decisions to be made based on justified and vetted decisions about the candidates that we, as individual American citizens, had chosen. Invariably, many national organizations grew out of this movement, some constructive and others not so constructive. As long as the national organizations served as a focal point for helping to start local and state groups, the purpose of OUR movement was being fulfilled. But when some National organizations took it upon themselves to endorse candidates “in the name of it’s members”, they violated the very essence of this movement. The vast majority of local groups have continued to work under the original premise of We, the People and should be highly respected for holding true to their original convictions. Some National organizations, such as Tea Party Patriots, have openly isolated themselves from this idea of endorsements because, as they have openly stated, the decisions of each individual for a choice/support of candidate was left up to the individual. They recognized that the purpose of the National and affiliated state organizations is to provide a pathway towards the “education process” that We, the People must take in order to be able to make sound and justifiable decisions.
Now back to the issue of the Tea Party caucus in the House of Representatives. The various definitions of a caucus are closely related to one goal: REACHING AGREEMENT. Some definitions for caucus, as vetted from various sources, are as follows:
A. Meeting of members of a political party or subgroup to coordinate members’ actions, choose group policy, or nominate candidates for various offices.
B. Closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy.
C. A group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause
A list of the current caucuses in the House, as found on http://cha.house.gov/member_orgs111th.aspx , shows upon review that the caucuses represent political agendas designed to influence (or act like a lobby) the legislative process. On first glance, this may sound like a good agenda for the Tea Party caucus, which will be chaired by Michele Bachman. But deeper insight indicates that this process of how caucuses are used is part of the ongoing problems that have plagued our legislative branch for decades and decades. Do We, the People need a “caucus” in the House of Representatives to reach agreements on policies? Are We, the People capable or incapable of reaching our own consensus as American citizens on what policies need to be pursued, how they should be written and constructed and then passing on our convictions to our elected representatives? Though I admire Michele Bachmann (currently, my personal presidential ticket in 2012 is DeMintt/Bachmann or Bachmann/DeMintt; it works either way), are her intentions truly honorable in this endeavor to help out the movement of We, the People? I hope so. Or does she truly comprehend the problems that could affect this particular caucus, as similar problems have plagued other current caucuses? Has anyone truly questioned the intentions of the House Administration Committee as to why this committee was apparently over-eager in approving this caucus? To paraphrase a great philosopher, these are the questions that try men’s souls.
The opinions of this caucus and the intentions of some National organizations (Tea Party, 912, etc.) in their current endeavors and the conflicts these endeavors present towards the original premise of the We, the People movement are for each individual citizen to make, preferably after some thorough deliberations. Your decisions may affect the effectiveness of the movement by WE, the PEOPLE in our efforts to RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC.
Almost two years ago, the movement by We, the People began which was centered on the frustrations of Patriots across the country on how our government structure, from the local level thru the state and into the federal bureaucracy, was operating the legislative business of our townships, states and our country. This frustration stretches before the Obama (to be referred as BHO) administration to previous administrations. Actions by our elected officials have been committed in contrast to what We, the People expected. The movement recognized that ignorant decisions by our elected officials were being “allowed” by the American citizens because we inherently trusted the promises of our elected officials during their campaigns. Yet We, the People failed in the duty and trust dedicated to us by our Founding Fathers and “sat on our hands” in trust as our country was being led away from the Republic that our Constitutions (federal and state) designed and is slowly and effectively digressing into a Socialist-type “state”. In response, once We, the People decided that we had endured enough, we began a movement that was (and is) designed to reeducate ourselves, our family, friends and fellow citizens on the principles of our Constitution and the philosophies that influenced the decisions of our Founding Fathers in their formation of the Constitution of the United States. We began to study how the Constitution was the Law of the Land and how it influenced the formation of each individual state’s Constitution. With this education under our belt, we accepted the responsibility of spreading this knowledge across our land so that We, the People (as individual American citizens) could look for viable citizens who were Constitutionally-principled, fiscally conservative and morally ethical so that we could convince these like-minded citizens to run for office (again, from local up to the federal levels) as true representatives of We, the People. With our support, We, the People could present these candidates to our fellow citizens and support them in their campaign efforts. This movement was not based on political party ideology; rather it is designed to be party neutral. The goal was (and is) to induct citizens into the political processes who would truly represent the American citizens (not organized lobbyists and overbearing union desires) without party affiliations as a requirement for our support. We were warned from the beginning that this movement would be a hard and arduous endeavor which ran the risk of being influenced by organized political causes/parties in their effort to take over OUR movement as We, the People.
Already we have seen evidence of this warning; from some National Tea party organizations publicly endorsing candidates (ex., Tea Party Express and Tea Party Federation endorsements), some 9/12 organizations openly endorsing only candidates from one particular party, and other National organizations openly endorsing causes and candidates. The purpose of OUR movement was for individual decisions to be made based on justified and vetted decisions about the candidates that we, as individual American citizens, had chosen. Invariably, many national organizations grew out of this movement, some constructive and others not so constructive. As long as the national organizations served as a focal point for helping to start local and state groups, the purpose of OUR movement was being fulfilled. But when some National organizations took it upon themselves to endorse candidates “in the name of it’s members”, they violated the very essence of this movement. The vast majority of local groups have continued to work under the original premise of We, the People and should be highly respected for holding true to their original convictions. Some National organizations, such as Tea Party Patriots, have openly isolated themselves from this idea of endorsements because, as they have openly stated, the decisions of each individual for a choice/support of candidate was left up to the individual. They recognized that the purpose of the National and affiliated state organizations is to provide a pathway towards the “education process” that We, the People must take in order to be able to make sound and justifiable decisions.
Now back to the issue of the Tea Party caucus in the House of Representatives. The various definitions of a caucus are closely related to one goal: REACHING AGREEMENT. Some definitions for caucus, as vetted from various sources, are as follows:
A. Meeting of members of a political party or subgroup to coordinate members’ actions, choose group policy, or nominate candidates for various offices.
B. Closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy.
C. A group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause
A list of the current caucuses in the House, as found on http://cha.house.gov/member_orgs111th.aspx , shows upon review that the caucuses represent political agendas designed to influence (or act like a lobby) the legislative process. On first glance, this may sound like a good agenda for the Tea Party caucus, which will be chaired by Michele Bachman. But deeper insight indicates that this process of how caucuses are used is part of the ongoing problems that have plagued our legislative branch for decades and decades. Do We, the People need a “caucus” in the House of Representatives to reach agreements on policies? Are We, the People capable or incapable of reaching our own consensus as American citizens on what policies need to be pursued, how they should be written and constructed and then passing on our convictions to our elected representatives? Though I admire Michele Bachmann (currently, my personal presidential ticket in 2012 is DeMintt/Bachmann or Bachmann/DeMintt; it works either way), are her intentions truly honorable in this endeavor to help out the movement of We, the People? I hope so. Or does she truly comprehend the problems that could affect this particular caucus, as similar problems have plagued other current caucuses? Has anyone truly questioned the intentions of the House Administration Committee as to why this committee was apparently over-eager in approving this caucus? To paraphrase a great philosopher, these are the questions that try men’s souls.
The opinions of this caucus and the intentions of some National organizations (Tea Party, 912, etc.) in their current endeavors and the conflicts these endeavors present towards the original premise of the We, the People movement are for each individual citizen to make, preferably after some thorough deliberations. Your decisions may affect the effectiveness of the movement by WE, the PEOPLE in our efforts to RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
