Jump to content
Thank you for your comment.
My letter is intended to reach those that retain the ability to think for themselves after passing through the indoctrination centers called the public school system and being exposed to a lifetime of propaganda from the controlled corporate “news” media.
Your comment on women’s suffrage provides the opportunity to expound on an issue that can not be completely covered within the space allowed in the PILOT’s Letter To The Editor policy.
The original Constitution did not establish who could vote. This was left to the states. State voting policies generally restricted voting to landowners to avoid the redistribution of wealth via mob rule democracy from those that have to those that have less. Many states allowed women and free slaves to vote if they met the property ownership restriction.
Thank you for your “living document” comment for it allows me to dispel yet another myth espoused by “Progressives” to justify dismantling the Constitution. Your statement that the Constitution is a “living document” written in general principles allowing the courts to decide how those principles should be applied in specific situations is patently false. When the writings of the Founders are examined it is clear that the Constitution is to be interpreted precisely as written. Every word that is included was carefully selected. Statists, socialists (Progressives), collectivists use every twisted bit of legal logic imaginable in an attempt to change the actual meaning of the Constitution to suite their own anti-American agenda.
In closing I repeat something from one of my earlier posts that applies here: “Collectivism is a mental condition that causes free people to voluntarily enslave themselves…”
For once we agree.
To learn real history we must be inquisitive and think for ourselves. We must not take what is taught by those that control the school system and Academia at face value. Math used to be an exception but with the new Common Core curriculum not even math is exempt from the state’s collectivist influence. Paraphrasing Napoleon Bonaparte: “Those that win the wars write history.” Quoting Josef Stalin: “Education is a weapon; whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and whom it is aimed.” In 1969, at age 20, finding myself enslaved against my will at Ft. Ord I had the good fortune to come to know a well informed Drill Sergeant from Alabama. At 20 years I did not yet quite have a brain but the beginnings of critical thinking started to manifest. In spite of what I had been taught in public (government) schools it began to dawn on me that the federal government may not have my best interests at heart. During a discussion about the “Civil War”, the War of Northern Aggression from the Southern point of view, my Alabama Drill Sergeant introduced me to the concept of state’s rights and how these rights are fundamental to the preservation of the Constitution, and of course the Constitution is primarily about preserving freedom of the individual. The subject fascinated me and I have been researching it ever since, well before the Internet.
You are correct, with a few notable exceptions. This…”History is not taught in schools, Colleges or Universities.” The master prefers to teach their subjects what they want them to know. No more and no less.
A small correction. The original stiff arm salute used during the pledge of allegiance “may have” been influenced by the Roman Army salute but his is not proven. Both Hitler and Stalin greatly admired Abraham Lincoln for his total disregard for the Constitution and his ability to crush descent with brute force. Hitler admired the “Bellamy” salute and adopted it for the Nazi Party.
This history is of course not taught in government schools.
You make some excellent points. However, your comments may have been better directed at the pledge of allegiance rather than the National Anthem. It is the difference between the country that was and the country we have today. Following Lincoln’s unconstitutional war on the South that crushed state’s rights, and effectively overthrew the Constitution, the pledge of allegiance was written by the socialist (they weren’t called “progressives” or fascists in 1892) Frank Bellamy. The key words: “the republic”, “one nation” and “indivisible” are cited as a daily mantra by public school students. The purpose is to condition the students to think of the United States as a single nation state with centralized power rather than the Founders vision of a voluntary confederation of sovereign states. While citing the original pledge of fidelity to the single nation state students faced and saluted the flag using the “Bellamy salute, similar to the “Hail Caesar” salute of the Roman Empire and later adopted by Hitler as the Nazi salute.
This brings to mind Lenin’s quote: “Give me four years to train the children and the seed I’ve sown will never be uprooted.”
A pledge of allegiance to the principles upon which the United States were founded; freedom and individual liberty would be far more appropriate than a pledge to the American Empire that is in opposition to individual freedom.
This comment will no doubt create cognitive dissonance from some.
This might be worth exploring:
The difference is that the current incumbent now has a track record, which she is trying to keep off the radar screen. With enough informed voters, and of course that is a stretch, she will be tossed out.
Then there is always the idea of voting principle no matter the outcome.
I am not...." running Bob [sic] McConnell against her again." I am just a concerned citizen doing what is possible to publish the voting record DMB will not talk about
The current incumbent has never created a single job nor has she contributed a single dollar to the GDP yet she has the audacity to legislate our liberty and lives away. When given a choice I will vote for a candidate that comes from that part of society that pays taxes, not lives off of them. Chuck McConnell has a proven track record of creating jobs and making considerable contributions to the GDP. He is not looking for a career in politics. He is concerned about the direction our country, our state and our county are heading. Too much government at every level is the problem. To my understanding Chuck McConnell is in favor of smaller constitutional government. I am confident that when he swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution his constituents can count on it. He can be trusted. I am not... “running Chuck McConnell against her again” but I am voting for him. It's an easy decision.
DMB’s political advertising campaign is a lie. She is not running on her record. She is running away from it. If she was proud of her record her endorsement of Amendment 66 and vote to kill the coal industry should be prominent in her advertisements. Her …“promises kept” … ?? She promised to uphold and defend the Constitution yet one of her first betrayals of her sacred oath, and therefore the people, was to vote for unconstitutional gun control laws. Claiming an endorsement she doesn’t have isn’t a stretch for a political animal without integrity. Her record proves that she can’t be trusted.
Those that feed at the public trough take care of their own.
According to economist Gary Shilling that portion of Americans feeding substantially at the public trough now stands at 52.6 percent. Is it fair that the 47.4% in the minority must support the majority? Given today's culture this will continue until it can't.
“We depend upon our government to meet the constitutional responsibility of providing for the common defense and general welfare.”
The only purpose of government in our Constitutional Republic is to protect individual rights and defend the United States. You welcome a government solution for every issue and justify it in your articles by misusing the general welfare clause. The general welfare is used in the preamble to the Constitution. Absent a literal interpretation government has used this clause to justify controlling nearly every aspect of our lives. In doing so government attempts to usurp the unalienable rights codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Government does not have the lawful authority to legislate away our unalienable rights.
Preambles do not constitute power or law. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, made it clear that the preamble had absolutely no legal force. A preamble is not law. It is an introduction.
Article 1 does include a reference to general welfare. Once again James Madison made it crystal clear that the federal government can not use the general welfare clause to do anything and everything it thinks might advance the general welfare. Dictators and oppressive governments always claim that everything they are doing will advance the general welfare. If the general welfare clause meant that the government could do anything it wanted to advance the general welfare then there would be no need to list the specific and limited powers of the government. The general welfare clause would then make the rest of the Constitution meaningless.
“Right now, Americans are freer than in the past.”
The federal government, in collusion with the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, has bankrupted our country enslaving generations beyond ours to pay for a debt that can never be paid. We, our children, grand children and great grand children are tax and debt slaves. “Right now”, if a person lives to be 90 years old, between direct taxes and the secret tax of inflation, 90% of our income will be confiscated from us. That is not freedom. It is slavery.
We agree when you state that we should not feel sorry for ourselves. What we need to do is recognize reality. The people need to understand how the unlimited growth of government destroys freedom, and then do something about it.
Last login: Thursday, May 14, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.