Posted on 09/19/2004 9:25:02 PM PDT by Mo1
The squirrel must pay.
he must PAY...
BQ, are you taking a trip to meet some of the Texas FReepers?
It is WAY too quiet around here tonight.
2 Jul 2004 | Dorothy Anne Seese
A FREE NATION DOESN'T DO THIS
NOR DO FREE PEOPLE ALLOW IT!
By: Dorothy Anne Seese
The concept of "government" in the United States, a/k/a United Socialist States of America, is skewed beyond belief, intruding into every aspect of our lives whether we realize it or not. In so doing, people are being trained more and more to ask "why doesn't the government do something?" The proper question to ask is, "why don't we do something?" and leave the government out of it.
Never did the founders of this nation envision a people of such dependence on government less than two hundred years after the American Revolution had freed them from the tyranny of the British Crown. Nor did our founders envision a people who would willingly sell themselves back into such tyranny by allowing government to grow to unprecedented size, with unprecedented expenditures (supposedly for the public good) and unprecedented power to intrude into the lives of the people at every stage from cradle to grave. Such a nation would have been unworthy of the investment they made in the future of freedom and the granting of liberty as the birthright of all Americans and the acquired right of all legally naturalized citizens.
There is nothing in our Constitution that even remotely contemplates a government that is in the business of child care, education, enormous welfare programs, automobile or other transportation design standards, the protection of trees, owls and fish, health and other forms of insurance including home mortgage insurance, the obesity and food consumption habits of its people, underwriting higher education via grants and loans, and the "right" to invade private homes or tap into personal communications without just cause and a proper warrant. Nor did the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights contemplate foreign nation-building by the federal government of this nation at the expense of our citizens, the taxpayers, who inevitably pay the bill, since government has no income of its own.
Farther yet from the minds of the founders would have been the idea that this nation would ever surrender control of its treasury to a private institute deceptively named the Federal Reserve Board, made up of private bankers, domestic and foreign.
All of the above has occurred, and most of it in the twentieth century, with the final power being usurped from the people in bills passed, unread, by the elected Congress after September 11, 2001.
People who understand liberty as more than being able to choose to see the movie of the week, the big ballgame or the latest miniseries on television do not sit quietly by and allow "government" (which is now a catch-all term for the power holders) to abrogate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, nor will they obey a Supreme Court whose interpretations of the law of the land are so far afield as to be ludicrous. Public disobedience is at times necessary when there is flagrant abuse of power by those who assume and wield it because they are backed up by the nation's police powers.
Perhaps the most flagrant abuse of this power by the Supreme Court has come about by a total misconstruction of the First Amendment, to suit the purpose of the government rather than to assure the equitable application of the law of the land.
There is no such phrase in the Constitution as "separation of church and state" or any "wall of separation between church and state."
Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and you shall find no such statements. What is written in the First Amendment, of which so much has been said and which the courts have so maliciously misconstrued is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Ample evidence of the intentions of the founders to rely on the blessings of Almighty God is given in the very statuary of biblical figures in, around and on the buildings in Washington, D.C. including the Supreme Court that denies the strict construction of the words of the First Amendment and enforces their misconstruction on the individual states that should not be bound by federal intrusion into religious practices.
How, then, did the "wall of separation" get constructed, and by whom?
The phrase was used in a letter that then-President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the elders of the Danbury Baptist Church, men who feared that the Congregationalists would imprison them or otherwise interfere with their right to worship as Baptists. President Jefferson encouraged these elders by assuring them that government could not legally interpose itself into the guaranteed freedom of religion, there being a "wall of separation" between government and the church, not between the church and government!
It was the late Justice Hugo Black who misconstrued Jefferson's "wall of separation" to make it go the other direction -- that the church was walled out of government. He knew better, because on the Supreme Court building there is statuary of Moses and the Law, the Supreme Court Crier opens each session of the Court with an invocation to God, and both the Senate and the House of Representatives have chaplains. There is to be no state religion (Congress is prohibited from enacting any law creating a state religion such as our founders had as subjects of the Crown) but the founders' own words clearly contemplated a Christian influence over the persons in our government. It was not mandatory. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for holding office, but it was contemplated that men of faith made more honorable and trustworthy representatives of the people to whom they were elected public servants. Further, the constitutions of all fifty states mention God in one context or another as the Deity to whom they are accountable and whose blessings they seek.
A free people would not allow their religious freedom to be abridged by a rogue Supreme Court that misconstrues the Constitution, and for a fact, most Americans have now come to believe that the words used by Justice Hugo Black are in the Constitution, not out of his own mind and opinion. (You may thank the media for not informing the people otherwise.)
A free nation would live by a rule of law and recall or otherwise proceed against tyrants who take their children into foreign wars and feed their friends millions while the people struggle to find jobs that have left America due to rigorous governmental regulations that do nothing more than stifle the free enterprise of the people. A free nation would have people to stand against such tyrants, but only a few come forth. Some openly rebel, only to find themselves imprisoned on trumped up charges that have nothing to do with the actual power-structure's objection to their activities. The internet writers hammer away, gaining no remuneration for their service to a largely ungrateful public that doesn't bother to read about their lost liberties lest it take time away from their ballgame or computer game.
Hence, by the evidence offered here and in numerous articles in media about further controls pending approval of some member of the now oligarchic structure, it can safely be said,
America is no longer a free nation as freedom is commonly understood and as spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
We are not even free to protect our lives and property against alien invaders crossing open borders, but we are assured that the draconian police powers of the "government" will catch the blighters before they do too much harm. We don't need the draconian police powers of the government to get that job done, if it weren't for the government and its "laws" we, the people, would have made our nation safe long ago.
Now the government police powers are so enormous, and so all-pervasive, no one can take any steps toward their self-protection without government intervention, not for our liberty, but for our enslavement!
America is not the land of the free and the home of the brave. It is a land of those who fear having their creature comforts disturbed now, only to find that down the line, they will all be gone anyway.
***
Here's somethihng to perk things up, Libby.
Yeah.. it's like everyone is watching sports right now.
(Baseball game tonight.)
YES! I am so excited. Lady of Shalott and I have training in Austin in mid-January. I have no idea how tied up we'll be since all the mucky-mucks will be there, but lodwick is coming club-hopping with us one night. Hahahha, just kidding about that last part. At any rate - YUMMY does that food look good! I could not believe the delicious food last time. We don't have anything like that in AZ.
These hedgeapples are falling all over my front yard now from very tall trees. They're as big as softballs. You'd think one would bean a squirrel on the way down.
Depressing.
Boring!
Reminds me of "The Trouble with Harry" (Hitchcock).
Our roses die back in the winter - it does freeze here at night on and off for about three months... But I'm not cutting the highest canes this year - will see what happens.
I'm not into sports unless there's splosions and the possibility of massive destruction.
My area being NY, my rose is supposed to die back.. and it hasn't.
Ever.
I got it in 1997, and it has only died back in spring.
(??? huh ???)
It was supposed to be a "Blue Girl" rose, but is mottled pink/lavender instead of the silvery color.
But it does have a pleasant fragrance and strangely pretty thorns.
(They tip in blood red..)
Awesome!!! I have to go look up the names of the roses in our yard. I think there is a Blue something. We have seven...
.
I got a funckle
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.