In the recent GOP debate held in South Carolina, we saw a few interesting events. The one I found most disturbing was Governor Romney’s answer to the question:
“When President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, he enacted a provision allowing him to indefinitely detain American citizens in U.S. Military custody. … Governor Romney, as president, would you have signed the National Defense Act as written?”
Romney replied, without hesitation that he would have and that he believes that it is “appropriate in our nation to have the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of Al-Qaeda….”
He went on to acknowledge that this power could be abused, but that he would not abuse it and does not believe that President Obama will abuse it.
Well, that’s comforting. Our current president, supposedly, will not abuse it and neither will one of the presidential candidates. What about after that? I was sort of hoping that America would still be around after that. We cannot give away rights like Habeas Corpus and simply trust that they will come back. Nor can we give such powers to a government that has shown itself to have little, or no regard for the Constitution.
It is appalling that a presidential candidate, claiming to be conservative, can tell the American people that Indefinite Detention is “appropriate.” First Romneycare and now this. Aside from the fiscal policy that we are all assured is conservative, what has he done to show us that he isn’t as much of a nightmare as Obama?
You’ve probably heard about Mitt Romney’s recent “gaff” about firing people. In fact, you may have heard about it from one of his opponents who pounced on the remark and quickly demonized him for it. Jon Huntsman, in his version of the attack, implied that Romney was anti-jobs. But was his statement really the ruthless remark his opponents are calling it, or is he right?
Posed another way, imagine you hire someone to cut your grass on a regular basis. They come out with their lawn mower and they miss several patches and neglect to edge it and maybe even chop a few flowers with the weed eater. Your are displeased with their work and decide to find someone else to cut the grass for you. Isn’t that your right? Don’t you get to decide who cuts your grass and who doesn’t? After getting a terrible haircut, haven’t you complimented “firing” your barber?
I don’t understand why the right to fire people is such a depraved notion. It’s the basic idea for how capitalism functions. If Walmart sells bad produce, go to Publix, or Safeway. Fire them as your produce provider. Pretty soon, Walmart may get the hint and get better produce.
I like having the right to fire people, too! To hear Ron Pauls reaction, go to the Red White and Blog Facebook page and watch his interview on the subject. What are your thoughts?
In 1959, Communist dictator Nikita Khrushchev told Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson that Benson’s children would live under communism. As a strong patriot, Benson disagreed saying that he would do all in his power to spread and preserve freedom. Khrushchev responded:
“You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism.”
The audio is available here”
This is why I draw special attention to a document diametrically opposed to our Constitution. In every way it spurns the principles that the US Constitution is designed to protect. It is the Communist Manifesto. More specifically, I will focus on the ten planks of communism found therein. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, its authors, included these planks as necessary attributes of a communist nation. How free are we? Posed another way; how communist are we? Have we begun to implement the essentials of communism? Here are the planks:
Abolition of private property
Heavy progressive tax
Abolition of all rights of inheritance
Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels
Central Bank
Government control of communication and transportation
Government ownership of factories and agriculture
Government control of labor
Corporate farms, regional planning
Government control of Education
First, why is private property such a big deal? It’s only one of the most central ideas behind the Constitution. If the government can ignore your rights to your property, do you have any rights? This is among the most fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. It is one of the reasons the Federal government cannot own land except for a very few instances such as post offices. At first glance, this right seems relatively safe in our country, but is it? Many citizens’ private property rights are violated by the Bureau of Land Management who defines how they can use their own land. The Patriot Act is a major invasion of privacy and of private property. For an even more vivid example, look up Agenda 21 under Current Issues.
This is possibly the greatest threat to our freedom, but we will examine a few others.
The second plank, a heavy progressive tax refers to our exact income tax model. Namely, the more money you make, the greater percentage you pay.
The fifth plank, the central bank, has been in force for a long time. Does it make more sense, now, why Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve?
Plank number six should also be familiar. Government agencies regulate air travel (Federal Aviation Administration), personal travel (Department of Transportation), and communication (Federal Communications Commission). With the TSA’s use of full body scanners and aggressive pat-downs, it’s hard to argue that government intervention in this area has gotten a little out of hand.
The eighth plank describes a situation all too familiar to business owners. Agencies like OSHA and states’ health departments have the ability to shut a business down if not compliant with government regulations.
The tenth and final plank is, like many we have discussed, easy to spot. The Department of Education has been meddling in our education system for far too long. With this power, government officials can promote their own beliefs to the youngest and most impressionable of their future voters. That power should rest alone with the parents.
While it is important to study the Constitution and the intents of our Founding Fathers, it is just as important to recognize the enemy and his beliefs. To often, our debates are only about Democrat vs. Republican. Before we can change this country, we must recognize the real enemy. Know what he looks like so you can spot him in any face, and hear him in any voice, however eloquent.
Over the past months, we’ve been hearing all the dirt there is to hear on every GOP candidate in the race. They have now started taking Ron Paul seriously and, as a result, have begun to attack. Interestingly, there is very little dirt to find on the consistent, principled congressman. All they can find are some articles written under his name, though not by him. Ron Paul has denied responsibility for this repeatedly and I really don’t feel it is very relevant. The only somewhat valid point against him is his foreign policy. He would stop policing the world and cut the defense budget considerably.
This has many Republican pundits shaking in their boots. What about Iran? What about Israel? They fear a non-hawk in the White House. But is there really anything to fear? Wouldn’t a strong defense be even more effective than having our entire army spread over the globe? Ron Paul gets his foreign policy from the Constitution and the men who wrote it had just experienced a war. General Washington had waged it. Shouldn’t they know what they’re talking about? All I hear is “What about Iran and Israel?” I’ve never heard any reason beyond that. I found an excellent explanation of his plan here. Check this out for further understanding.
I’m trying to keep up with the debates these days. I feel like I should watch them and see what the hopefuls are saying about themselves, about the issues, about each other. Lots of arguing and lots of “you said this” and “No, I didn’t.” After this past debate, I started wondering how helpful they really are.
Until recently, Romney shone in each debate as he cleverly evaded every stab at his political past. Perry is still bringing up what he wrote in his book and then deleted. Still, the most that the debates could tell us for sure is that Romney is an excellent debater and Perry…well, I really feel for the guy. Gingrich has since replaced Romney as star of the debates even in spite of his massive and frequent flip-flops. In fact, they may be helping him more than hurting him as every pointed question allows him to brandish that silver tongue of his. It really is quite impressive. He can take those questions and turn them to his benefit, or not answer them at all. He’s good.
But, through this, all he’s shown is that he can talk. Nice. Our president can do that to, but three years with him haven’t exactly been a picnic. I don’t care if he can talk!And that brings me back to the relevance of the debates. If everyone who watched them went home and looked up the issues and the records of each candidate, then they might do some good. However, most people don’t do that. Most people see Gingrich on stage making everyone else look foolish and think, “Hey, I like that guy.”
Gingrich can talk. Romney can talk. Each candidate is impressive in his, or her own way. Good, now check their records. Look at what they’ve done in the past. How do their past actions line up with the Constitution? This November, we need voters standing in the booths who have done their research and know the candidates. This November, don’t vote for a candidate, vote for the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is a vital document. Not only does it symbolize freedom and American excellence, it ensures them. A bold hypothesis at the core of the American experiment, it represents a kind of government never before seen. Pieces of various past governments are found within, combined in a new way to perhaps weather the test of time. I believe it is very nearly perfect. If the American experiment is to succeed, this is the most likely solution. Almost every check and restraint imaginable is placed upon the Federal government to ensure our republic does not become a dictatorship. However, the continued success, or eventual failure of this form of government hangs on the question: can the people rule themselves? If we cannot rule ourselves, the Constitution cannot save us.
Having said that, I ought to explain myself. Even if our Constitution were significantly less perfect than I believe it is, our liberty would still depend on our enforcement of it. That is because observance of the Constitution means the rule of law. So long as we hold our government and ourselves to the laws which our founders have set up and we have agreed to, we live under the rule of law. Neither we, nor our government can take any power not given them by the law while we are loyal to it. Therefore, our rights are protected. The trouble starts when we the people stop paying attention to our government and they start expanding their powers a little bit. As soon as that happens, that constitutes the rule of force and that doesn’t have quite the ring to it that the rule of law does. Our duty, as the people, is to know what rights are given to the government by the Constitution and then hold them to it. That requires study. It requires knowledge. We have to actually know what the Constitution says and what it doesn’t.
Now we come to the purpose. We, the American people, need to know what the Constitution says and what politicians are doing that they shouldn’t. It isn’t easy. Freedom isn’t easy. However, it is part of ruling ourselves. The Constitution gives us a lot more responsibilities than most people have. We really have to look after ourselves. That is why I write about current threats to the Constitution. If you know that, you have the tools. If you know that, perhaps the American experiment will succeed.
