AND, last but definitely NOT least:
Posted on 04/13/2006 11:58:25 AM PDT by HHKrepublican_2
Rudolph Giuliani is the antithesis of everything the Republican Party claims to represent.
Bears repeating.
This was taken from the site I linked to...Thought it was interesting...
LOL!
George Allen BTTT
AND, last but definitely NOT least:
Alan Keyes will never get near the Presidency. Don't waste your time.
They gotta all be related! ;-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where's the respect for law?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 15, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
As the drama of decision concerning the crisis of illegal immigration unfolds, many Americans are dismayed at the casual disdain for law enforcement being shown by the supporters of the amnesty bills in the Senate. Common sense suggests that the key to law enforcement is respect for the laws. Without the police force of heart and conscience no external police force can be effective, unless it is so large and pervasive that it destroys the rights government is meant to secure.
Though they are willing to throw a few meatless bones in the direction of border security and enforcement, the real priority of the amnesty advocates is clear. They hope that support for amnesty will reap political advantage among Hispanics. They apparently don't care that the perception that our immigration laws and border controls have no teeth will reap a larger tide of lawlessness along our southern border, encouraging drug traffickers and would-be terrorists along with the shadowy coyotes who bring illegals into the country. Worse still, they seem indifferent to the truth that allowing the perception of successful lawlessness in one area encourages challenges to the idea of lawful government on every front.
Unfortunately for the future of our republic, when it comes to immigration policy the political elites in both major parties seem inclined to sacrifice respect for law to political advantage. This lack of principle reflects what has become the intrinsic nature of our current political elite. They are the practitioners and products of a system of power politics based on the notion that money, media propaganda and the size of one's final vote total are the be all and end all of politics. As far as they are concerned, all legislation and policy are predicated on calculations about the effect of decision and action on these ingredients of political power. By this way of thinking, the constitutions, laws and policies involved in the political process are simply means to an end, which is to get and keep the seats of power. There are no principles that transcend the goal of power, no moral considerations that supersede calculations of successful ambition, no idea of political service or leadership that seeks the good of the people or the nation as a worthy end in itself.
This way of understanding politics is inherently at odds with the oath that every public official swears, since that oath commits one, as a matter of principle, to preserve, protect and defend the form of government established by the Constitution of the United States. The first concern of our elected officials ought to be to do nothing that weakens that form of government and to seek by all means to preserve and strengthen it. Yet for decades now they have adopted or accepted fundamental policies that contradict or systematically undermine it.
In fact, the whole resource base of their political power at the federal level depends on such a policy. Every year around this time millions of Americans file their federal income tax return. As they do so, they must sign or otherwise legally attest to the truth of what it contains. This testimony can then be used as evidence in any criminal or other legal proceedings that might arise as the government collects and enforces the federal income tax. The testimony provided by the income tax return is thus elicited under threat of penalties that include possible loss of freedom and substantial property.
Given this threat, the people naturally feel compelled to submit this testimony, despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution clearly declares "nor shall any person … be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Each year on April 15, Americans are thus compelled to do what the Constitution clearly states they cannot be compelled to do. Though we are told that any failure to comply breaches respect for the rule of law, the requirement itself is contrary to the clear provision of the paramount law, which is the Constitution. If immunity from forced self-incrimination is critical to maintain democratic self-government, the fact that federal income tax law cannot be enforced without systematic breach of this immunity suggests that it poses a threat to constitutional self-government.
A little reflection only adds to this impression. American Founders, such as Alexander Hamilton, were fond of quoting a maxim from Blackstone that "a power over a man's resources is power over his will." The income tax system surrenders substantial control of the people's resources to those who wield government power, along with detailed information about the source and composition of those resources. Blackstone's little maxim points to the possibility that this surrender places in the hands of the authorities the power to manipulate the will of the people, so that those who should be representatives instead become rulers.
The nature of our political obsessions today confirms that this possibility is not just theoretical. All our focus now tends to be on what and how much this or that individual or group gets from the coffers of government. Politicians use these issues to divide us into squabbling factions, and while we squabble over access to the scraps that fall from the public trough, they use the bulk of its resources to structure and sustain the cliques of money and media power that secure their hold on power. Democratic representation slowly transmutes into the restoration of age-old oligarchic domination.
When it comes to the income tax's obvious violation of our constitutional immunity from self-incrimination, I know the members of the lawyer's guild are already jumping up and down to make their usual objections. They will point to convoluted court decisions upholding the tax law's requirements. They want us to believe that once enough court decisions pile up confirming an abuse, it becomes law, even though patently contrary to the clear, plain text of the Constitution. This allows the legal oligarchy to substitute their will for the will of the people, subverting self-government in the name of law, despite the principle that no law is justly given that name unless it derives ultimately from the consent of the governed. When judges contradict the Constitution, which for us is the paramount expression of that consent, they cut themselves off from the source of lawful authority in our republic. If we treat their opinions as law anyway, we abandon the principle of consent; we overthrow the republican form of government.
Tragically for our liberty, income tax policy is not the only area where this subversion of republican government is being supported or achieved through abuses of judicial power. By this means a wholesale assault is in progress against the moral foundations of self-government, starting with the fundamental principle that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.
Though no provision of the Constitution supports it, the idea of separation of church and state is being used to banish the mention of God from our public and political consciousness. Having declared God off limits, all manifestations of public piety come under assault: prayer in the public schools, display of the Ten Commandments in courts and public buildings, etc. Now our marriage laws are being challenged, since their insistence on monogamy and heterosexuality is a reflection of the religious faith and moral beliefs of the majority of our people. If religion is banished from politics, so are all laws that reflect the moral conscience to which it gives rise.
Of course, since no areas of moral policy and decision are free of the influence of religious belief, especially where Christianity is concerned, this implies that the people and their representatives in the legislatures cannot be trusted to decide issues that deal with moral institutions or behavior. The courts become the arbiters of moral policy, the absolute censors of all laws that may give rise to moral controversy. Given the fact that every law affecting human behavior necessarily has a moral aspect (this is what distinguishes human from physical laws) the courts become de facto dictators in every area of legislative policy. Government of, by and for the people becomes government of, by and for the judicial oligarchs, the legal guild, and the money powers that fund and sustain its livelihood.
However they abuse the rhetoric of respect for law, those who accept or promote policies that disregard, subvert or openly overthrow the principles and substance of democratic self-government show no respect for just law or government. More and more of our political elites across the board are guilty of this high misdemeanor. Their apparent willingness to pander to lawless power on immigration policy follows naturally from their apparent willingness in general to cater only to the requirements of raw power, and betray their sworn duty to preserve the form of government that protects and strengthens the constitutional sovereignty of the people.
Can anything be done to forestall this betrayal? The first step is clearly to perceive the nature of it. When enough of the people clear their heads of the fog of factional warfare, when they disengage from the self-serving politics that is used to distract and manipulate them, then perhaps we will begin to remember our common stake in the principles and institutions of democratic self-government and act in defense of our republic. When we survey the current guild of politicians in light of our common commitment to liberty, we will know what to do. They should pray that we remain in the dark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Reagan administration official Alan Keyes was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council and a 2000 Republican presidential candidate. Be sure to visit Alan Keyes' communications center for founding principles, The Declaration Foundation.
Gotta love Alan Keyes!
Why have you buried Alan's column on George Allen's thread?
Weird and wild stuff. Hmmm.
Allen is much more conservative that GB.
Was the best Governor, Virginia has had in decades. Balanced the budget, brought a huge surplus and made Virginia a business friendly place. It is still growing.
He has also blown out all Democrats he has run against.
Just a fun little post to someone who made yet one more nasty comment about the guy.
It gets old, and sometimes I just think folks should be exposed to his cogent thinking and communication skills here at least equally to the snarky little remarks made about him by some.
"Best Available" bump.
LOL -- oh, OK.
"You could do worse and always have!"
WOO-HOO!
1000 posts!
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.