II: Radical Change Is Taking Place

Our populace is suffering malnutrition of civics, thanks to the warping of education by the progressives, along with an attitude of “What can the government give me?” We are in search of the free lunch. Even though we were told by Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winner in Economics and holder of the National Medal of Science for Behavioral and Social Science, that “there is no free lunch” and everything has a cost. We are becoming a nation of tax takers and not tax payers. Today the attitude is let the other guy pay and take care of it or let the government take care of me.

Whatever happened to the President John F. Kennedy once famous quote?

“…ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”

Considering what we expect from our government today, we now have nearly half our people who do not pay income tax – 47%. The Congressional Budget Office reports as of March 2013: a record 45 million Americans (one out of every seven people) are now receiving assistance from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a 70 percent increase in participation since 2007. The federal government’s poverty guidelines are suspect. It appears that the federal government has created poverty guidelines that are wholly unrealistic, most likely for the expansion of the federal government. A few years ago “The Heritage Foundation” did a study of poverty in the United States and looked at the life style of our “poor”.

“Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?”
By Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield; July 19, 2011

“…According to the government’s own survey data, in 2005, the average household defined as poor by the government lived in a house or apartment equipped with air conditioning and cable TV. The family had a car (a third of the poor have two or more cars). For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children in the home (especially boys), the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a microwave, refrigerator, and an oven and stove. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the average poor family was in good repair and not overcrowded. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. (Note: that’s average European, not poor European.) The poor family was able to obtain medical care when needed. When asked, most poor families stated they had had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs…;

…By its own report, the family was not hungry. The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from children in the upper middle class, and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-class boys of similar age in the late 1950s, and are a full one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than American soldiers who fought in World War II. The major dietary problem facing poor Americans is eating too much, not too little; the majority of poor adults, like most Americans, are overweight….”

We have allowed the devilishly sinister forces of formerly covert progressive socialists, promising unending care from the federal government to not so stealthily separate us from the finest form of government ever. These forces have many faces.
Today’s unions are pushing for socialism and universal health care (can you say SEIU) – in many cases their pension funds are seriously underfunded and will need government dollars to correct the problem.  In other cases where they provide health care to pensioners, the costs and promises simply cannot be maintained. They look to socialism and the government to solve this problem with your money. Believe it or not, Wall Street is on board thanks to the Fed’s tinkering with the money supply and interest rates. The ultra-big banks and investment firms have been solidly behind the forces of progressive socialism and statism. You might ask why.

Well, in socialist economies, the government picks and chooses the winners and losers, and the relationship between the ultra large financial firms and the government becomes symbiotic. These firms are the mechanism of the government’s financial control of the population, thus it has a tool to succeed with control. Other large corporations see universal health care as a means of dumping extraordinarily high health benefit costs on the government and of course you will now pick up that tab.

What makes this separation of us from our former form of government even more disturbing? It is that these progressives are not moving us to a new, better form of governance. Instead they are moving us to a form of governance, socialism based statism, which has repeatedly failed its people wherever it has been tried.

Socialism / communism /statism, or whatever “ism” you wish to call it, is never for the people, never of the people, and certainly never by the people. It is of, for, and by a ruling class – the rich do get richer and the poor do get poorer. In this case, the movement is powered by a small group of very rich, possibly godless people who simply seek the power derived from being the ruling class. These forces fund the soldiers of the movement, from unions to even the American Communist Party. The obvious players in the forefront of this movement include Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reed. Additionally, there are forces outside of and beyond those in the forefront. These include members of Congress including members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus – more than 50, money power brokers, and well-meaning misguided moneyed folks such as those in Hollywood. Yes, the list even includes some of the Republican Party. These people represent the forces that have used money and power, through media bias, to fill, not only the presidency, but when the democrats have control of a house of congress just about every congressional committee chair is a progressive socialist.

Our once well balanced republican form of government has suffered radical change both without the requisite constitutional amendments, and with the requisite amendments. At the beginning, we did have a central or federal government with three branches and limited powers. We did have checks and balances. We did have the union of states as the ultimate power.

Taking stock of where we are today, radical change is an understatement! Our government today does not remotely resemble what was created in the eighteenth century. Some say we evolved; these espousing evolution are mostly elitist progressives. We have been push, mislead, and coerced.

Why should the Constitution need to evolve, beyond the amendment process? Doesn’t the amendment process, used by the progressives, already provide the evolution process? Under what authority do we evolve if it is not by the rule of law? Any change to the highest legal document in the nation is by amendment and not by evolution. If we have evolved, then we will amend the document. This was done in the early twentieth century with four amendments of the statists clearing the way to move us toward a larger centralized federal government and less individual freedom. Yet we did it the prescribed way. The basic tenets of individual liberty, with God given rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights; and a States created limited central government, remain as powerful today as it was when the Constitution was ratified. We simply started the slide away from these tenets.

If you doubt the almighty gave us these rights statement – you may want to check out that pesky Declaration of Independence. If you are more of a pragmatist and still doubt then consider that if people created the government, then government could not possibly give the people “rights”. If the people created the government, then they exercised their natural God given right to do so. It is logical to consider that if people created government, than these people would have retained their freedom rights to themselves. Further, if you believe that government gives you your rights, you must then understand that government can then take those rights away or decide which people get which rights. In this scenario, who then decides what rights you are permitted to hold; another man or woman working in the government?

Despite these strong continuing tenets of the Constitution, the forces of progressive socialism have managed to steal our government, by emphasizing that the Constitution no longer applies and is outdated. Have you noticed that our President, Mr. Obama, each time he quotes a passage from the Declaration of Independence leaves out three key words – “…by their creator…?”

President Obama regularly misquotes from the Declaration as follows: “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed [by their creator] with certain unalienable Rights…” Where does he believe our rights come from? By misquoting the Declaration, he intentionally misleads the listener – he simply will not admit that our rights come from God or are retained by the individual. The idea of statism does not work if people have rights.

We have been and continue to be told that our Constitution is outdated and that we must interpret it to modern times. A number of Supreme Court justices past and present truly believed and believe that precedent of international law or, simply put, laws of other nations should be considered as precedent for adjudicating our legal matters, including Supreme Court decisions.  Jutice Ginsberg has espoused this international law methodology.  Imagine using laws passed by another nation and not by the elected representatives of the people, our Congress, as precedent for our judicial decisions – bypassing the Constitution. Yet, this is happening now. Justice Ginsburg is only one example of those who have been vocal on this matter.

We are told this by the progressives who need to rid us of this pesky statement of our rights and the charter of limited government. Yet the founders gave us a method to keep the Constitution current, but by serious due process. We cannot change it on the whim of a movement or a simple majority of Congress. Any change is too serious to leave to a few with an agenda.

Since the Bill of Rights containing ten amendments was ratified in 1791, we have amended our Constitution seventeen times with one being overturned by a following amendment. The eighteenth amendment, prohibition, was overturned by the twenty-first amendment. The eighteenth is commonly referred to as being repealed. Yet the passage of this amendment was perpetuated by progressives bent on having the federal government telling its citizens whether they could drink alcohol. It passed because the media of the day, and the progressives in office achieved a victory by persuasion of the people and the states. The progressives are still using the media to change minds and culture.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s