where do you stand on the political spectrum? some would venture that i stand pretty far to the right of center. but i tend to disagree. i consider myself to be exactly where we ALL should be: on the side of liberty.
i've heard from many in europe that they laugh when they hear the democrats and republicans described as left and right. many tell me that they consider the two parties to be "right" and "further right".
obama, the media (for the most part), the academicians (for the most part) and the whole of the democrat party are definitely leftists. and the republicans are, for the most part, considered to be rightists. as in political alignment, not something to do with the bill of rights, or equal rights or human rights; god knows we couldn't possibly say anything positive about republicans. heck, even republicans are falling all over themselves to see who can say the worst things about the gop even as i type.
but i digress.
i believe that when the gop started, they really were on the side of liberty, but now the party is [mostly] made up of democrat lites, aka rinos. the problem is that the list of items held by the "right" is little different from the list held by the "left" and both lists stand in direct obstruction of liberty.
my uncle david and my uncle jerry are probably the smartest human beings i have ever met. the men are geniuses on too many levels to list here. and my uncle david has the surest grasp of history of any person i know - not saying he's infallible, it's just that i've never been able to find much wrong with his statements and his beliefs.
a few weeks ago my uncle jerry sent this email to my uncle david in response to another email sent by david. i share this here because it's the setup for a much broader discussion.
Dave--you are correct. This country "ain't" what is used to be. Do you think the great turn-around in America's love affair with being independent, self-reliant, moral, truly in charge of government and anti-socialist, came about by accident? Or, do you think the socialists over the centuries have possibly engineered themselves into power against the "natural grain" of real, manly men??
You are correct: trying to influence the majority of "peeple" who've been tricked (tricked by who?) into being pro-socialist (against their own natural self interest) are nearly impossible to convince to vote for a principled person like yourself. Their brain washing has been complete. I wonder who performed the lobotomies on the MASS of people? Could the culprits be those in charge of MASS communications? (a conspiracy?)
Do YOU control or have the slightest say so over the mass media? Are you using the mass media to heal the mass lobotomy? No?
But you instead, are influencing the remnant and strengthening their resolve to fight slavery (by those lowlife creatures who obviously control government at ALL levels).
You are a recognized LEADER of the remnant. Your life is effectively influencing the few strong people with character --love Jerry
I think the real culprits in the collectivization of the USA were the "intelligentsia" ("pointy-headed intellectuals" of George Wallace fame.) They were following the dicta (dictums) of the notorious Fabian Society (Sidney and Beatrice Webb --- read some more about it and be astonished at many of the names of prominent members at this URL) This is a pretty good write up of its history. Fabians are still in existence.
The "intelligentsia" in the USA worshiped playwright and philosopher, George Bernard Shaw, a famous Fabian. It is a long and convoluted trail, but the "Anglophiles," especially at Harvard and Columbia Universities, stealthily, firmly, and thoroughly implanted socialist ideas in the minds of "academe" and in the "teachers' colleges" in the USA. Once such attitudes and atmosphere are in place, it is almost impossible to dislodge because the college faculties are self-perpetuating.
Harvard University at one time was a bastion of freedom-oriented, libertarian/conservative thought. By the turn of the 20th century, it had been converted so that a majority of the faculty were thoroughgoing socialists.
You can well-imagine what happens when the premier university in the country turns out socialist "scholars" who go on to populate the faculties of all the lesser colleges and universities.Surveys find that approximately 95% of US College faculty members admit that they register and vote Democrat (Fabian-Socialist/Marxist) --- approximately the same percentage for reporters in both print and broadcast media.
One of the big problems is that these socialists do not think of themselves as evil. They think of themselves as "righting wrongs." They feel sorry for the "uneducated masses" who cannot understand the intricacies and "benefits" of collectivist, centralized control of the individuals who make up the economy of a nation.
They also deplore the "unfairness of red-toothed, dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest" laissez- faire capitalism. They also have a condescending, self-superior attitude. They just know that the average person "can't make it on his own." Without the superior intellectual guidance of the ruling class, they'd all be starving.
I think these collectivists (so-called "liberals") actually believe that way. They do not understand what we talk about when we talk about individual freedom, self-determination, and self-responsibility.
In addition, they lust for power over others. Since they are the "most intelligent, most-highly educated among us," they are the natural choice for leadership and control of all their inferiors.
Read Plato's The Republic. He sets forth a Utopia that is managed and directed by "philosopher kings" --- the model for our "pointy-headed intellectuals." They are just following the script laid down a couple of thousand years ago by a Greek sycophant who was justifying his position and existence to his political sponsors and keepers.
I will never quit my struggle to keep the flame of freedom alive in The Remnant.
We are beset from EVERY side.
and in another email (but part of the same thread) uncle dave wrote:
The Founding Fathers of America sought to establish a free society that was totally opposite from the historic collectivism of Eurafrikasia.
[Tribes, Dictatorships, Empires, Kingdoms, Monarchies, Oligarchies, Soviets, etc. are ALL forms of collectivism/socialism.]
The Founders left out of the Constitution some extremely important clauses; clauses that should have been included to prevent government (Federal, State, County, Municipal, Neighborhood, Home-Owners Association --- ANY FORM OF "GOVERNMENT") from interfering or intervening in contracts between private individuals or groups of individuals. They also failed to scrupulously protect ALL rights of private-property ownership.
They failed IMHO in great measure because they gave the "lawyers" (SCOTUS --- Supreme Court Of The United States) such unusual powers that it (SCOTUS) soon corrupted the Constitution and all its concepts. We now have the results of their abortion on our hands.
What can be done? Not much, except education IMHO.
of course i immediately wrote my uncle dave and asked him if i could use this email thread as a basis for a blog and what clauses did he think were left out of the constitution. he said "sure" and proceed to give me an education i didn't know i was lacking.
he maintains that the single most important clause left out of our constitution was a clause protecting the sanctity of private contracts. a clause stating that government, at any level, be prohibited from any intervention pertaining to the creation, and/or execution of private contracts; contract between private individuals or groups of individuals including businesses that are not government entities.
i have to agree that this is a big one - especially given that prior to the ascension of "our saviour" (as my uncle calls him, totally tongue in cheek) fdr, every person legally living in the united states had the
"God-given right to contract with any other person or persons in the world.
Contracts could be for any purpose whatsoever. So long as those contracts did not call for damage, injury, or death of another person, the US Courts would uphold and enforce them. A Mafia contract to "whack" someone, for instance, would not stand up court.
and many had the money savvy to include "gold clauses" within their contracts. what's a gold clause? well, essentially, a gold clause provided for the payment of the contract to be in gold coin or bullion or the equivalent in u.s. currency. why am i singling this type of clause out? in order to show you how the government's meddling with things of the free market hinders liberty. an example of a gold clause is below:
For instance, let's suppose you sold your house on 14 DEC 1978 for $50,000 (FRNs --- Federal Reserve Notes -- dollar bills) and "owner-financed it" with monthly payments over a period of thirty years. Now what does this mean?
It means that on 14 DEC 1978, $50,000 was worth 245.098 troy ounces of gold.
(Look it up at: London Bullion Market Association: $204 per ounce on that date --- 14 DEC 1978)
If you calculate the monthly payments to "amortize" that $50,000 loan, you will find it to be $438.785785044. (I carry it out to make sure we don't lose anything.)
Now convert this to troy ounces of gold on the day of the sale.
Divide the monthly payment in dollars by the dollar-price of gold per ounce:
[$438.785785044 ÷ $204 = 2.150910711 troy ounces of gold:]
This is the monthly payment in gold that you would have received had gold contracts not been prohibited.
The actual payment can be in dollars that are the equivalent value of gold coin or bullion on the day of payment!
That's the number of dollars that are required to buy 2.150910711 ounces of gold on that day.
Years go by and you could have been receiving all those "INFLATION-ADJUSTED" payments of gold-equivalents.
Just to show you what you missed, let's suppose that today is the day you are to receive the last payment of 2.150910711 ounces or its equivalent in dollars.
You go to LBMA web page and look up the "a.m. fixing" for today and find it to be: $865.00.
That means one troy ounce is valued at $865.00 on a world-wide basis. Therefore your 2.150910711 of gold is worth $1860.54 in present-day Federal Reserve Notes.
That is the amount that your buyer would have to pay you today because of the gold clause in your contract. This is 4.05 times the number of dollars of the first monthly payment.
Just think of how much wealth you lost as the dollar lost its purchasing power over those thirty years while the dollar-payments you actually received remained steady at $438.79.
lost a ridiculous amount of money, didn't you?? and yet, prior to this lesson, you would have been thinking you'd been making a killing! however, today, coinnews.net has this article relating where a u.s. court of appeals has ruled a gold clause in a lease from 1912 enforceable. is there hope yet?
scotus upheld fdr's (and his congress) legislation making the gold clause in private contracts illegal. they also upheld fdr's hijacking of the u.s. treasury bond payout - changing it from the gold clause inherent in the bond to payable only by federal reserve notes. scotus is responsible for quite a bit of corrupting of the u.s. constitution.
puts me in mind of that famous warning from thomas jefferson (in a letter to abigail adams in 1804) "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." it is indeed becoming just that.
but what does all of this have to do with liberty? or left vs. right? i mean everyone knows that it's the left who is imposing its will through the judiciary and making our constitution into "a mere thing of wax." right?
sort of. while i will agree that the majority of those on the "left" are hell bent on "righting wrongs" or "leveling the playing field" through edict by the judiciary, the "right" is not without its same thoughts. it's just that many rinos believe they can be beneficent more responsibly than those on the "left." huh?
essentially the laundry list on both sides is a discussion of how best to expand the state. and no matter how you slice it, expansion of the state is the greatest real threat to liberty. expansion of the state guarantees more aggressive action against person and property. fdr's removal of the gold clause was an aggressive action against both.
the state acts as a legalized mob - behaving in a manner other mobs (and indeed individuals and corporations) are strictly forbidden.
for instance, much ado has been made about bernie madoff's ponzi scheme; all those poor, poor people and groups who were taken in by his falsehoods and underhandedness. however, what about the greatest ponzi scheme of all? of course i am speaking of the "social security" which dwarfs madoff's scam by huge amounts in both size and scope.
the research staff at the american institute for economic research (aier) wrote an excellent article discussing this scheme where 162 million people pay taxes on labor income to finance the 50 million americans actually receiving benefits. in 2008, income was some $785 million and benefits were $585 billion." see, a legalized ponzi scheme if you're the state.
in an interview with breitbart, george w. bush said recently "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." apparently this is a bit like stalin's action of killing millions to save society. in both cases the outcome is to further concentrate power for the state. btw, did you see where stalin missed out on being voted the "the name of russia" by a mere 5,600 votes out of 123,000,000 (that's 123 MILLION) votes?
meanwhile we're giving money away like its sand to dang near whomever shows up at the congressional steps with their hands out. never mind that no one is guaranteed success in business. never mind that business who can't compete shouldn't remain in business. we're handing out money to select industries and corporations while the american public shoulders the burden.
the expansion of the state follows right along with at least one of the rules of physics "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." in other words, every time the states powers or influences are expanded, the liberty of the people is narrowed. and this is what we must fight.
there is no reason to expand the state in any way, shape or form. there is only a reason to shrink the state until the state is within the confines of the constitution AS WRITTEN. there is absolutely no justification for the state to be involved in at least 99% of what it is involved.
"but heidianne, we NEED government to ascertain that people are safe" or "water is safe" or "water is available" or well you get my point. but this is where most people are wrong.
do you really, honestly believe that a private firm would provide tainted water if the government didn't dictate that they shouldn't do that? or a rancher would provide meat that's unsafe to eat without a government mandate to the contrary? let's think about this.
lets say i am a provider of water to houston, texas and i have a competitor just itching to take over my share of the market place. let's further say that the government has NOT yet insinuated itself into my industry (or maybe we've somehow kicked them out) and both my competitor and i are investigating cost saving ways to sell our water. i come across one method to distribute the water that will save me 3% over my current method, but it lessens the quality of the water.
i may be able to implement the more cost effective method, but if my water is not of the same quality, i will lose that business. even if i don't have a competitor immediately, a lesser quality of water will raise the specter of a competitor, or people getting their own water by some other means. if i am looking to stay in business and market is free (i.e. i'm not a protected monopoly or government subsidized) i am not going to make the decision that leads to downturn.
government involvement in any industry does not assure me a better product, it only assures me a more expensive one. and it guarantees i'll have less freedom to make my own choices.
working with that same water example lets say my competitor puts fluoride in the water, but i don't. or chlorine or whatever. with a free market the consumer gets to choose which is best for him/her. with government dictate, the bureaucrats decide. and often their decision is based on what's best for them to remain (or increase) in power? or maybe it's based on who they "owe" for helping them to get into power.
i am part of the remnant my uncles spoke of. i know many who are with me in regards to politics and our country. i hope this post makes each one of you think about who we are as a country, where we're heading and what you believe.
one final note, as we head into 2009. the campaign for liberty is a liberty loving/seeking group looking to:
"...promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity."
there is no "smart growth" for government. there is no justified reduction of our liberties. i hope that in the new year of 2009 all of you will join me becoming a member of this group and also in adopting these motto's first voiced by alexander hamilton and samuel adams (respectively) many years ago:
"Resist, resist, resist, until we hurl the demagogues and tyrants from their imaginary thrones." --- Alexander Hamilton
"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --- Samuel Adams
happy new year to all of you and may 2009 be a better year for liberty than the last 20. let's find a liberty tree and meet.