Tag Archives: Constitution

Crime, Culture, Economics, Elections, Governance, Immigration, Politics 2024, Religion, Representation

A Partnership of Success

Leave a comment

Nations are living organisms: biological – with an emphasis on logical – made up, obviously, of living, breathing people who share basic concepts of right, wrong, love, family, economics and social status.  The health of the nation connects to the health of its members, physically, but also to the health of its beliefs, religious and otherwise.  Some nations started because of religious beliefs, but most are or were tribal.  Weaving through hundreds or thousands of years of history – perhaps “progress” – nations either progress evenly enough that its members accept, over time, their relationships to political power-holders, elected or otherwise.  It is a function of “social status” noted earlier.

Wars change nations, usually by a form of cruel, expensive, bloody separation or segregation: almost purification.  If there were some semblance of justice in the origins and results of war, stronger nations, healthier nations, will result.  Former amalgamations of nations are distilled apart leaving nations comprised of people who more evenly – fairly – share the basic concepts of life and cooperation listed at the beginning of this observation.

Historians, of course, amidst their natural biases, justify or castigate wars along a spectrum of perceived fairness or righteousness in their origins.  However, time reveals the health of nations following the wrenching of war, and the correctness of the new or modified nation’s composition.  Is the society healthy?  Do its members accept, if not reinforce one another?  Is there a path for the divisions of social status to soften or encourage improvement of the economic and social status of its members?  If so, that nation will retain its shared identity and ethical agreements.

The advent of writing and written “history” of nations and wars, began a process that has left “modern” peoples with an image, at least, often biased and one-sided justifications of conflicts over the past 5,000 years or so.  The use of writing, long, long ago, was a tool of kings or emperors: ruling classes, certainly.  The recorded story would automatically be told from the outlook of “rulers,” and then, only of the victorious rulers.  As writing and reading spread through greater fractions of societies, somewhat truer, more accurate pictures of the how’s and why’s of wars have been “painted.”  Throughout, the tendency for dominant elements of societies – governors – to control what those dominated know or believe about the nature of the world around them and, more specifically, about the workings and intentions/philosophies of their “governors,” themselves.

Occasionally – very infrequently, actually – only once, in fact, a nation is (was) formed based on the best of the philosophies and histories that human history had delivered to that point and place in time.  To define that nation, the philosophies of individual sovereignty, responsibility, liberty and from-the-people authority to govern, and the reasons for employing those ideas, were written into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights of 1789.  Underlying all of them is the tradition of Judeo-Christianity: 5,000 years of learning what are rights and wrongs and how honesty and honor can and should dissolve lies and hatred and disrespect.

Through it all the Bible has made clear that the most powerful relationship with God is an individual one.  Fellowship and congregation are wonderful reinforcements for the individual’s ability to internalize the concepts of God and His rules for life and ascension.  Without religious freedom the evolution of souls and the growth of individuals would be impossible.  Without the lessons religion provides, the model for 2-parent families and effective fathering of sons and daughters, including economic security, would slip away.  There are those, today, who think the government will take better care of children than will their parents.  God forbid.

The Constitution is both a covenant and a unique, exceptional, partnership with the people – citizens – of the United States.  Unique among nations and history, the CITIZENS of the United States formed the government of the United States.  The founding had flaws, primarily slavery and slaves, themselves.  The problem that the founders hoped would fade away became the gut-wrenching lever that separated the states.  The Civil War became the awful medicine that commenced the cure of slavery fairly quickly, and the cure of racism that has progressed for decades afterwards.  But, in both the forming and preservation of the Union, God blessed our nation with the wisdom and fortitude to earn the right of national identity.

Our identity depends upon our general grasp of the IDEAS, the philosophies that underlie our founding and why the Constitutional model is designed the way it is.  As we select our representatives, governors and President, we should be looking for each of their understanding of our Constitutional Republic being a PARTNERSHIP that makes possible the success of every U. S. citizen.  U. S. citizenship is the “Gold Standard” of all citizenships around the world.  One of the prime tests of the right to lead Americans is whether the person seeking that power/status is prepared to defend the unique value of U. S. citizenship.  Anyone who would dilute, or threaten that value, by definition is unqualified to lead us.  Only U. S. citizens live under the protections and guarantees of the U. S. Constitution and those comprise the most valuable possession – personal property – of every citizen.

An example of PARTNERSHIP would be careful defense of our borders on behalf of every state and every citizen, with proper and strict control over non-citizens allowed to enter our nation.  An example of TYRANNY would be loose or virtual non-control over illegal entrants.  An example of PARTNERSHIP would be careful, balanced budgeting and management of the people’s money, taxes and banking/investment regulations.  An example of TYRANNY would be $35Trillion in national debt and $1Trillion owed in interest every year.  An example of PARTNERSHIP would be honest law enforcement and equal application/protection of the laws.  An example of TYRANNY would be use of law enforcement agencies and even courts, to persecute people because of their beliefs or politics.

An example of PARTNERSHIP would be telling U. S. citizens the truth about government actions and legislation.  An example of TYRANNY would be for the government or its agencies to lie to Americans… or to bring up for a vote legislation with more than the number of words than are in our amended Constitution.

Economics, Education, Foreign Policy, Religion, Terrorism

SEPTEMBER (2001) SONG

Leave a comment
Credit to ABC News, 9-11-2001

Prudence recently located these comments by a well-known small-business owner. They were written shortly after the U. S. began the war in Afghanistan, following 9-11-2001. Statistics are pertinent to those days, but the heartfelt admonitions are timeless. Americans, in particular, should reflect upon them.

I believe, and could argue, that the Constitution is the best possible distillation into secular law of Judeo-Christian ethics. Indeed its very simplicity shows that without a shared moral foundation, mere mortals could not long sustain a government with so few vested powers. It is self government, raising the individual to virtually sovereign heights and it requires both free will and self-restraint: self-governance most profound.

If one believes in God’s role in the evolution of mankind from beast to gentleman or innocent creation to energetic dissembler, one recognizes the great good humor of God in providing us free will. Thou mayest choose from evil. We believe, in the world’s richest larder, that our view of civilization is part of a prophecy or destiny; somehow we have taken over from God on this leg of the relay. Now that the baton of life is ours, we decide if the unborn shall win their freedom to simply be on earth, and we, alone, should decide whether God has particular relevance or is only a super-agency to whom we appeal when, in our judgment, our stumbling arrogance delays some gilded wants.

History flows, more or less, away from savagery toward civilization, if not civility. Most societies see truth as relatively good and lies as relatively bad; charity and sacrifice as relatively good, too, with selfishness and greediness sort of bad. The birth of children is almost universally good, while murder is almost universally bad. A many-branched river, either in a torrent or a trickle, moves toward a more civilized social order where those less able are cared for by others more able. It meanders from backwater to swamp as it seeks a path toward a better human condition, but always, we like to think in our fatted West, toward a free and rewarding system very much like our own.

Those who bridle Islam with terrorism, ride its billion-plus souls into acts more heinous than war, attempting, they claim, to rid the earth of whole peoples whom they judge to be impure. Only by removing us and our open, licentious indecency can they preserve their self-perceived more pious way of life. To some of these, at least, our movies, music and overt sexuality are a terrifying rain of bombs upon their children, women and paternalist hegemony. What do we suggest is their proper defense?

The “West” is their unholiest of infidels, preaching depravity with a global, inescapable power of electronic, and cheap, media that is a new force upon the Earth. To Muslims who can renounce terrorism, but who are consciously pious and committed to the Koran – “deeply religious” we might say – there is no negotiation with the blandishments of Satan’s pit – no co-existence with perceived evil. Our only response, devoid of much imagination, is military.

History and our whole social and economic belief structure allows us no other. The President had to act, must act, did act. He has done the “right thing,” albeit with the wrong weapons, one might conclude. Bin-Laden has succeeded and succeeded again in directing our battle against the quarter of the planet that is Islamic. Our protestations of separating terrorism from Mohammedism serve to strengthen our timely coalitions, but fall upon non-believing ears in most of the Islamic world. The falling bombs are indistinguishable from America, itself. The fine points of selective targeting and diplomacy are lost on the millions who choose not to be like us, who are readily, almost eagerly, led by practiced haters. We sit in judgment of their failures to lead the world in technology, human rights and materialism. Our comforts and prosperity are not the fundament of their aspirations and our discussions of why certain fellow-Muslims must be killed are strictly one-way. We see ourselves as able to spank the errant billion, followed by immediate hugs and comfortings so they will realize we truly love them, but their bad-seed brothers had to go.

Why do they hate us so much? That is the question posed by our deepest thinkers.

“The West” has not only conquered communications, but has ringed the planet with satellites, effectively creating a sea of electronic trash through which Earth spins and rotates, year upon year. Television shows and movies that extol everything from abortion to homosexuality, murder to free sex, flood the airwaves. Books and magazines replete with same, are hawked from Zimbabwe to Mongolia. Not even China can stem the tide. We are angry at the Falwells and Robertsons who deign to point out that God can bless only the good, that His laws are completely Just, that He, Himself exists according to them with absolutely no ability to compartmentalize sinfulness. But, we say, throughout history America has been kind to its vanquished foes. Surely we can all see that this attack on Afghanistan will soon be good for them? God bless America; sing it loud. Drop the bombs of righteousness.

How will we know if the war on terrorism is won? So far we have proven that we can destroy Afghanistan’s tallest buildings as a sort of grandiose tit-for-tat. They are, of course, only a few stories tall. The political support for war, however, depends on both clarity of mission and conclusively good news about its fulfillment. There isn’t going to be much of either. We may not find Bin-Laden very quickly and already proclaim at every juncture that he is only one of many and that catching him is not the only goal. Will we, as in the war on drugs, proclaim the capture or death of some terrorist functionary to be of equal importance? Can we manufacture some interdicted tons of success sufficient to justify the whole war effort? Will Americans buy it? When the next terrorist action occurs will we accept that the need for more war-making is ever more justified? And the next?

And the next?

These questions are are not asked idly. A couple of ounces of powdered anthrax spores have place the nation on edge as almost no other mechanism might do. We readily conceive of fighting fire with fire, as it were, but with what do we fight disease? There is nothing. Cure the sick and worry. Cure the sick and fear.

Imagine a balloon-borne twenty pound tube of this anthrax stuff freely dispersing its load over, say, Chicago. A couple of square miles of city could be powdered and the ensuing panic, growing from media-spread spores of its own, would effectively shut that city down. People would flee, perhaps only to be prevented, possibly(?) from leaving until tested. Some sort of quarantine would be deemed necessary and, most certainly, travel to that entire region would cease. Talk about ripples in the economy. With the populace already so on edge as to run from spilled confetti, so many activities would cease that depression, not recession, would follow.

Not even the U. S. can absorb the costs of abject fear and still prosecute an endless war. The costs of terrorism we have only slightly begun to imagine. The politics of terrorism are also waiting to be unleashed.

The risk is greatest for President Bush. Everyone is backing him, now, in our newfound patriotism, but such high approval ratings are fleeting, in our history. George, the first, had a ninety percent rating eleven months before losing to Bill Clinton. With limited war news to prove his policies are both righteous and right, Bush will quickly be blamed by his enemies when the next big terrorist attack occurs. Every speech made includes an admonishment to prepare for more attacks and some comment about how we are preparing, nationally, for what, everything? But, when the ax falls, it is the President who will be blamed, however unfairly. Careful, methodical thinking and planning could fly out the window, then – and covert operations become overt.

Internationally, should America strike out in political anger rather than simple righteous vengeance, coalitions will fracture into alliances, neutral states and declared enemies. Then what? Terror groups will unleash everything they have; the U. S. will bomb population centers, world trade will slow to a trickle and a dozen opportunities to settle old differences, like Taiwan, Kashmir, Israel and South Korea, will be exercised by virulent enemies who are held in check now by our flexible willingness to oppose them. Like Gulliver, the Lilliputians will tie America down with a thousand tiny battles.

The most dangerous condition in the World is a lack of understanding of what the United States will finally fight for. So long as that point is not reached, we can push and pull and trade and buy a continued flow toward civilization. But when that line is crossed and should enemies in waiting decide that then is the time to fight their own battles, the possibilities of either a huge escalation or retreat into armed isolationism become real. Then the global power centers will shift. Wartime alliance or power vacuum. Either way, the future we have been hazily expecting will be replaced with another that we won’t control. A dark, sheer precipice terminates many of the paths we might take.

I see no one in the Congress who has the wisdom to advise the President better than what he is doing already. Neither do I see a happy ending for most of the right actions he might take. How I wish we, as a nation, had not been spending so much effort to turn our backs on God and His commandments. Perhaps we should have let in some of those aborted in the past thirty years. Now would be a very good time to turn to Him if He is still willing to hear us. With love, Bob Wescott.

Economics, Elections, Governance, Representation, Taxation

AMERICA – Article I

Leave a comment

Our Constitution has seven Articles, or “topic sections,” in a sense. The longest and most important, is the first. It describes the bi-cameral Congress. While both Senators and Representatives are members of Congress, we have customarily called Representatives, “Congressmen or Congresswomen;” Senators are Senators. However, members of both “Houses” are members of Congress. Congress OUGHT to be the most important of the three branches of government. It represents the people of the States (Representatives) and the States, themselves (Senators), at least that is the original design. That design has been weakened variously and repeatedly by those who don’t trust small-r “republicanism.” Those are they who proclaim that the United States is a “democracy,” which is intentionally NOT the basic covenant embodied in the Preamble or in the Constitution, itself.

Before we dig deeper into Article I, we must illuminate the problems inherent in “democracy.” Like many, you have probably been convinced to revere democracy when, in fact, it must be carefully constrained in order to serve the government proposed by the Constitution, a real vessel for reverence. Prudence would instruct that democracy is only a mechanism for selecting our representatives, the most crucial of the members of Congress.

Inevitably, the more power allowed to democracy, the more likely that the government will become authoritarian and no longer a partner with its citizens in their success. Democracy gains power from majority action, only. The majority rules in “a democracy.” There are no protections for minority interests. The intended partnership role of our government of the people, by the people and for the people, will quickly degrade to protection of the government and the governors, which we see now in 2023. What has this to do with democracy or the Senate?

The Senate was originally designed to represent the interests of the STATES, whose sovereignty in our FEDERATION, was paramount for many in the Convention and many in the country (and still should be). Every State had its interests and every Senator had reason to respect the will of his or her State’s legislature. In other words, Senators had to answer to a very small set of representatives of their State’s population. Those worthies ought to have had the needs of their States uppermost in their minds, and could not be ignored at the times of choosing their Senators. Senators were supposed to be responsible to their States’ interests.

The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1913, a most dangerous period for our Republic and for republicanism. It changed the election of Senators to statewide popular voting – pure democracy with almost no accountability, in fact. Since then, the quality of Senators has declined significantly, on average. Democracy places more power in the hands of power and money “brokers,” as it were. Being accountable to everyone has meant being accountable to no one… no one, that is, except the leaders of the Senate and their control of their parties, and of sources of campaign funds.

Pure democracy also is subject to temporary, sometimes mob-like majority emotions. This was recognized in ancient Greece and is an even greater threat in the world of social media, 24–7 news media and widespread (planned) ignorance of reality and history. The mechanism of a Republic filters out those emotions. Citizens must choose the best among them to represent their interests TO the government; States would go through two stages of selection: first to their legislatures and Governors and then to their subsequent appointments of Senators. The Senate, with its longer terms, limited membership and fractional replacement, should be the more thoughtful and, dare we say, wise house of Congress. It’s design is intended to prevent emotional response and to be more accountable for its actions. Much of that “shock-absorber” function was thrown out with the switch to direct election in 1913. For shame.

Still, there are two houses of Congress and both must approve legislation, ostensibly a brake on foolish ideas. In the two-party fog of war, however, and the lack of limits on terms, it serves more effectively to stop good ideas. Abortion, for example can be hotly defended while balancing the budget is set aside. Worse, the Congress has, since the end of the Civil War, rushed to devolve its responsibilities and hand them to the (unelected and virtually un-fire-able) administrative state. About three-fourths of the federal “budget” is in the realm of entitlements or pensions, and “State-aid,” Federal dollars paid out to a thousand programs that States ostensibly control (or misapply). Those dollars twist the sovereignty of states and the thought processes of representatives and senators: No state should receive an unfair allotment of federal largesse. Federal dollars come as if by magic, with many of them being borrowed from the unbelievably distant future, sidestepping the responsibility of raising taxes to obtain them. Congress, both Houses, have “bought into” this sham. There is little statesmanship to point to among the whole number of them.

The most important power of the House of Representatives is to initiate any raising or, as virtually never happens, reducing of revenues. This includes raising taxes or changing tax rates. The Senate must concur, including amendments to bills, so they are nearly as involved in budgets as the House, including in terms of shucking responsibilities in favor of the administrative state.

Other powers of Congress include BORROWING against the full faith and credit of the United States; Coining money and regulating the value thereof; Set uniform rules of naturalization (for legal immigrants); to regulate commerce with other nations and among the several States; to promote the advancement of the sciences and protect invention and copyrights; to declare war including raising the Army and the Navy; to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the United States, and to suppress Insurrections and repel invasions. Among other things.

The Congress is also charged with making laws necessary to effect Execution of the laws passed for operation of the Government and any agency or Department thereof. This last has proven to be the greatest threat to the “Blessings of Liberty” ordained in the Preamble. Hence the administrative and nearly perpetual state, busy passing regulations that are enforced as if at the status of enacted Law. For shame.

The discussion of Article I has, unfortunately, been mostly a rendition of what is failing in Congress and in the operations of Congress, and how far afield from the intentions of republican governance Congress has strayed. It is intensely advised, and Prudent, that Americans study Article I and reflect on history and the events of the past 30 years or so. Congress needs reconstruction as much as the South did in 1866, for it has engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, attempting to overthrow it by divesting Congress, itself, from its responsibilities. The United States is nearly $34 Trillion in debt.

[ See: https://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2020/09/27/knife-edge-election/ ]

Biden, Climate, Crime, Culture, Economics, Elections, Family, Foreign Policy, Health Care, Immigration, Obama, Politics 2023, Religion, Taxation

VOTE PRUDENTLY

Leave a comment

What on Earth

Prudence wonders about whether America will resolve to solve its problems – actually stop nonsensical policies – reduce federal spending – let men be men and honor the majesty of motherhood… stuff like that.  Questions abound.  Why don’t we have a secure, tightly regulated border, all around?  That’s one to which there doesn’t seem to be a good answer.

Why have we allowed about 7 MILLION illegal entrants over the past 3 years – unexamined adults and children, with unknown backgrounds and unknown useful skills – to pour into our country IN CONCERT with criminal drug and trafficking cartels?  How do we propose to house them in a nation where housing costs are the highest in the world?  How will we educate them in schools that are becoming a black mark on our society, in how many languages, at costs per student that are the highest in the world with the lowest quality of education results?  What sort of a plan is there?  Looks like there isn’t one.

How can a country that is 33 Trillion dollars in debt invite multiple millions of illegal migrants onto our welfare rolls?  No good answer – or reason – here, either.

Americans are wondering – or should be wondering – how it is that our military is being reduced precisely when China’s military, especially their navy, is being increased at its fastest rate ever?  Why are our soldiers, airmen and sailors being weakened by critical race and gender theories as Russia, China and Iran are growing as direct threats to the United States and our allies?  For that matter, why weren’t the military leaders who engineered the stupid and dangerous abandonment of Afghanistan, fired and forced to answer for their stupidity and the preventable deaths of service members at Courts Martial?

Here’s a crucial, life-or-death question for Americans: Why did President Obama and, now, Joe Biden, fight so hard to help Iran become a nuclear power?  Keep thinking…

How can the once-best medical system in the world allow itself to be compromised by a federal government agency that is financially beholden to pharmaceutical companies, to the point of dictating treatments and even outlawing viable treatment options(!)?  How can that medical system allow licensed doctors, many who are recognized researchers, lose their licenses and positions – including having their research suppressed?  How could it?

How could so many tens… no, hundreds of thousands of needless deaths of Americans be permitted, even forced, by the rotten collusions indicated above?  How can we ignore the thousands of “sudden adult deaths” occurring among young, healthy recipients of mRNA injections?  Why are those same being pushed down to 5-year-olds?  Have we lost our minds?

We seem to have lost “America.”  To some, the “some” that wish to eliminate America from the future, there is no good in any part of the United States because of slavery, a practice our nation sacrificed horrifically to end.  The promise of freedom and individual sovereignty for which we also fought and sacrificed – a promise made to all who descended from our founding and which is enjoyed by all who wish to destroy America, now, is a promise based upon Christian sacrifice and faith in God.   There is nothing coincidental that those same wish to destroy Christianity as they tear down America.  When did we lose our courage to defend both?

Rubbing raw the memories of slavery is a process very similar to climate fear-mongering.  The abiding purpose of both movements is never solution or even resolution of those supposedly existential threats to humanity: it is only to empower centralized, political control of humanity and its various nations and economies.  Where is the American Constitution in all of this?

Lately we have taken to defunding police departments where they are MOST needed, in cities where crime has been the worst, and where normal people and commerce are being threatened to the greatest degree.  There must be a good reason to do this in the minds and hearts of those who control those funds.  Prudence cannot discern what it might be… unless, and it’s becoming less and less of a long-shot, those who advocate and promulgate those anti-police policies, are actively trying to destroy America, too.  Evidently, they believe that the hollowing out of American cities – turning them into crime-ridden enclaves, will weaken America’s ability to defend itself when the final push to turn America communist, arrives.

The economic stress of “losing” the cities will also hasten the downfall of the nation.  Cities are the engine of growth and strength; they are always attacked in war.  George Soros and, now, his son, Alexander, have targeted American cities for collapse by financing District Attorneys who are radically opposed to bail, prosecution and incarceration of criminals.  Capitalizing on the unfortunate death (not a murder, more a suicide) of George Floyd, Soros and other anti-American types in the Democrat party, fed so-called protests that mingled with brutal, destructive riots and demanded the end of policing as we knew it in cities.  Some purpose is being served by what seems completely stupid.

The United States, Canada and Mexico sit atop the richest sources of carbon-based fuels on earth.  With the right economics and politics, North America (and South America for similar reasons) could be energy-independent and wealthy, industrialized and CLEAN.  Unfortunately, Mexico is nearly controlled by criminal cartels, Canada has slid into globalist socialism, and the U. S. has fallen sway to anti-scientific “climate-change” hogwash that leads us to sacrifice both freedom and wealth – and global influence – as well as our national sovereignty.  For unfounded reasons, we can’t use the energy we own; we must buy it from hostile countries that obtain it less cleanly than we do, and ship it by the millions of tons in dirty ships.  This dumb idea makes sense to a fringe element that benefits from battery-powered vehicles, solar panels and windmills.  As with other, numerous life-changing trends and forces at work within the federal administrative state, government falsehoods are actively diverting our nation from its history and heritage.  Why do we allow this?

Lithium-ion batteries, mostly controlled by China in terms of materials and manufacture, are being forced upon a public that doesn’t want them.  Why?  Because the government-types believe we need to want them.  They don’t work well and they are toxic and dangerously combustible.  This is all to reduce “carbon,” one of the key building-blocks of life on earth.  There is a belief – an ideology – that claims that carbon-dioxide, the major product of breathing, is capable of such a massive “greenhouse effect” that it will destroy life on this planet, including raising sea levels 20 feet or more.  People motivated by their faith in this concept are unable to consider that it is probably incorrect… and they are noisier than most of us, gaining political sway.  They are forcing the switch away from our extraordinarily efficient gasoline-fueled vehicles and from the freedoms they enable.  So, we are being forced – not encouraged, FORCED – to switch to less capable and less safe modes of transportation that cost more to operate… when they do operate.  They do have slick electronics, but they are relatively useless except in very limited applications.  Why do we, the People, permit our government to batter(y) us?

Our so-called Representatives have divested the Congress of most of its responsibilities.  Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, among other financial responsibilities of the Congress, states that “the Congress shall have the power… To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; …”  Yet the same band of worthies created the Federal Reserve in 1913 and, in stages, slipped the “Fed” into a position of financing unlimited debts on the credit of the United States.  Despite its supposed purpose of managing liquidity among banks and preventing financial crises, the Fed enables politicians to make economic promises that they generally do not understand the consequences of, knowing that there is unlimited funding available by “borrowing” from the Federal Reserve.  The Treasury issues U. S. “bonds” of various maturities and the Fed “buys” them with money it doesn’t actually have.  What could go wrong?  Socialism… socialism devolving into communism… that’s what could and is going wrong.  Why are the inheritors of the world’s greatest political and economic system allowing their nation to be stolen by socialist enemies… from inside?

The next set of presidential elections in 2024, may be our last opportunity to reverse at least SOME of the stupidity we have been borrowing for since 1963.  It will be Prudent for Americans to reaffirm their Americanism rather than their adherence to any party, and vote accordingly, and not by mail – DON’T VOTE BY MAIL!  It’s too easy to steal your vote or negate it.  Show up and vote… for America.

Biden, Culture, Economics, Education, Foreign Policy, Health Care, Politics 2022, Religion, Responsibility

WHERE THE GLOBALISTS STRUCK FIRST

Leave a comment
No need to run for office.

A year from now, or 5 or 10 or 50 years from now, the sacrificial role that Ukraine has played in the direction history flows, will be understood far better than it is today.  The forces of freedom and integrity are fortunate that Ukraine is where the globalists struck first.  Ukrainians… not so much.

This chapter is not written, yet, but it is taking shape.  The average American is poorly informed, generally, but right now, dangerously so.  We don’t understand the Ukraine invasion no matter the details portrayed on our screens: the awful deaths and explosions.  We don’t recognize the interplay with China; we don’t recognize the interplay with Iran; we don’t recognize the “cat’s paw” role of North Korea.  We don’t recognize the far, far leftist swing of the Biden administration.  We don’t recognize the damage already done to America’s standing in the world and the inroads into our sovereignty that Covid-19 fostered.

Yet even with all of that, our greatest failure is not comprehending the expanded, vital and increasingly crucial role of the United States as the last and only impediment to global communism.  You may be shaking your head at the wild conspiracy theories that seem completely im-Prudent, but we’re working only from the statements of very powerful people who are in a position to guide and facilitate the imposition of the “Great Reset” you ought to have heard of by now.  What does that reset consist of?

The number-one component of the globalists’ plan is the end of nationalism.  Yet nationalism accounts for the greatest progress mankind has ever made in virtually every arena from health care to nutrition to family and personal safety.  Donald Trump became president on a platform and promise of “America First,” and it is an ideal that resonates with Americans.  We believe in our nation; we believe in the exceptionalism of our nation’s history, founding and divine purpose.

Barack Obama became president on the premise of a flawed and somewhat illegitimate nation, forever soiled by slavery and racism – soiled in a way that cannot be eradicated – and, specifically, as Obama made clear in foreign speeches, no more exceptional than any other nation.  We elected him out of guilt as much as anything else, as if to say that it was high time we had a “black” President, and that perhaps race relations would become even better if we did so.  Where Trump fought the leftists to secure our borders, Obama had loosened enforcement of immigration laws, the essential definition of nationhood: borders.  The Obama administration saw the rise of “sanctuary” jurisdictions, both cities and states.  The very nature of self-declared “sanctuary” status is the rejection of United States’ national authority over matters of national concern: borders, immigration, citizenship and the myriad matters ancillary to those concerns, not least of which is law enforcement and public safety.

Inherent in the concept of nationhood and of patriotism, itself, is that of abiding by true and just laws.  For citizens of the United States this starts with fealty to the Constitution and to the principles of rights enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, neither of which documents implies hatred for another country, particularly England, but which declare independence from England’s misapplication of rights normally enjoyed by English citizens, even under a monarchy, however tempered.  The U. S. was founded on the basis of ideas and ideals to which belief in God, or Providence, impel humankind.  Based on the Bible, and particularly the New Testament’s instructions on how individuals should relate to God and to one another, the U. S. Constitution established a framework of civil decency and authority, individual sovereignty and responsibility, and individual private property, within which U. S. citizens could and do perfect themselves.  Neither the founding documents nor the government they spawned take the place of the Bible, or of God or of the individual’s relationship with God.  A system of government like ours requires that individual citizens carry both the burden of freedom and of responsibility, and it works best, if at all, only when individuals have the moral guidance of a well-informed “conscience” such that most governance is from the self.  This means that only when both citizens and legal residents of our nation share essential beliefs in what is legally “right” and “wrong” can justice prevail for everyone.  Only then can civil society – and civilization, itself – succeed and produce progress in living standards and both individual and public safety.

Americans have both the benefits of Freedom and the obligations of defending Freedom and all that is implied under our Constitution and Declaration.  Our civic responsibilities are NOT LIKE those of any other nation.  We are exceptional.  We are not perfect.  Back to nationalism.

President Trump was often accused of being a “nationalist” as though that linked him to NAZISM in some way.  He obviously was not – is not – a leftist, which generates the abject hatreds aimed at him, and he certainly is not a NAZI, as in National Socialist, another stripe of leftism.  The fact that there are white supremacists who have adopted NAZI symbols and gestures does NOT mean that they have anything to do with conservatism, nationalism or “the right.”  To be pro-American nation is not on the left-right spectrum.  To claim that is merely a means by which leftists make it seem as though the right were evil and that, therefore, being “good” is to be some sort of socialist giving out “free” stuff from the government.  Otherwise, one is a “hater.”

Not having recognized nations simplifies the plans of super-rich oligarchs who meet in Davos every year: the WEF, or World Economic Forum.  There are two major elements of their “perfected” future for mankind: Far, far fewer human beings on the earth, and global governance and economics, such that no one will “own” anything and that will enable us to be happy.  It also requires the dissolution of organized religion, since an individual with faith in a higher purpose than survival will not accept simple worldliness.

The Executive Secretary of the W.E.F. is Klaus Schwab.  He is smart, capable and very rich, much like every other member of the Forum.  There are strange people among them, including Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, every major bank in the world, major industries, major securities trading exchanges, huge international companies of all sorts, particularly in energy and food distribution/production.  Also, unsurprisingly, major pharmaceutical companies partner with the forum, too.  There are heads of state or relatives, but none of the executive or managing Board members are popularly elected.  No one has granted them power: they have created this shadowy “world management system” through self-selection and financial influence.  It is more than Prudent that we grasp what the existence of this “Forum” and its growing bureaucracy means to the residents of Earth.

We have seen in the United States, for all of its magnificent founding, how government types congregate in the “deep state” where their full-time jobs are developing and enforcing tens of thousands of regulations, most of which are unknown even to our elected representatives.  Almost to a person, this invisible “state” believes in its ability to “run” things better than individuals… right down to whether babies should be born or weird gene therapies should be mandated for all humans.  To this group, elections are side-shows.  The “voice of the body politic” is not loud enough to affect their far-more-important-work-than-that-of-any-elected-official’s – representative, senator or president.

We have about 150 years of experience with how inefficient and often criminally so, the process of “federalizing” problems is.  One need consider only health care – a most personal problem – as it becomes increasingly “federal” and politicized… one of the base principles of communism.  The nearly immeasurable waste of resources and the dishonesty connected to the NIH, the CDC and the NIAID agencies, and even the “independent” FDA, should be a lesson to Americans that dumping problems onto federal bureaucrats is the same as foregoing our fundamental rights.  We think we are a “free people,” but our freedoms have been diminished faster through federalized health care than by any other mechanism.  There are hundreds of federal mechanisms.

Our Constitution is under assault almost daily; the morality that enables it to guide our national identity is under assault almost hourly.  The process is made worse as rapidly as our shared beliefs crumble, our shared morality dissipates, our institutions shift leftward and our shared freedoms are politicized.  We have become a nation of rules rather than of law.  Yet our Constitution is still defended in the courts to a great degree, and it still protects individuals to a great degree.  However, as the globalist W.E.F. inserts itself into governance in almost every nation, the erosion of our very nation accelerates.  The Constitution will simply be collateral damage.  We need only observe the elimination of the southern border and the laws that ought to be protecting it, to realize that there are people in our “elected” government who are accelerating the dissolution of our nation.  Nationalists have their irreplaceable place.

The United States of America, then, in its exceptional position and DUTY, is the only significant stumbling block to a global, uber-socialist government.  That anti-nationalist, W.E.F. oligarchy will not be bound by the quaint rights and responsibilities of our famed Constitution.  It will govern more closely to the habits of Communist China.  “You won’t own anything and you’ll be happy,” said Klaus Schwab.  Think about that.

The concept of private property, owning the fruits of one’s labor, having rights of possession even under rental or lease agreements, has been the greatest spur to progress in all of history.  Globalism and anti-nationalism cannot succeed where capitalism – if properly regulated to prevent the effects of the worst of human nature – is allowed to flourish and fuel the dreams of billions of free people.  It is no coincidence that the nature of capitalism has been allowed to create the oligarchy we have, today.  For the success of globalism, the image and understanding of capitalism must be destroyed along with nationalism and individual sovereignty with rights granted by God.  Today’s youth, almost to a majority, view socialism as a superior economic system to our increasingly putrid capitalism.  Thank you, public education and essentially communist universities.

Thank you, also, to our socialist-infiltrated governments of the “United” States.

Can we regroup and re-educate quickly enough to stave off the globalist revolution?  Are there enough Americans left who will refuse to trade freedom for some hollow “safety?”  Has America enough courage left to throw out the snakes, eels, alligators and constrictors who have settled in to “Deep State Swamp,” from whence they are sucking from us our livelihoods and our independence?

Is resurrection possible?  God save America.

Biden, Health Care, Politics 2022

SUPREMACY IN QUESTION

Leave a comment
Dr. Anthony Fauci responding to charges of lying about origin of Covid-19 virus –
Jan. 11, 2022 Senate hearing. (Greg Nash/Pool via AP)

SUPREMACY IN QUESTION

America’s faith in the ability of the Supreme Court to figure out difficult issues of constitutional law, has been shaken over the past couple of years, and at no point more than during the first week of 2022.  Facing the Court is the question of the Executive branch’s authority to incorporate OSHA rules on workplace safety into its (the President’s) desire to mandate the taking of an injection by a major fraction – although not all – of the U. S. workforce (those who work for employers of 100 or more employees).

Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor, managed to demonstrate unimaginable ignorance about Covid-19 and the purported vaccines available to fight it, and so much so, that other ideas they may hold could be judged troubling for those who rely on their cognitive discretion.  They believe some weird things.

A fair question for all 9 Justices is, “What research do you do to prepare for evaluating testimony?”  Don’t they have staffs to help them prepare?  They were all aware of this case reaching the Court… what is the source of the false ideas and statistics that these three Justices espoused from the Bench?  It’s scary.  What on earth do they listen to?

Breyer, for example, stated that the vaccines are unequivocally the way to “stop” Covid and the pandemic, itself.  Yet, increasingly, the very opposite of that impression should be drawn from the latest Covid statistics.  He stated that “750 million” people had tested positive the previous day, which is about two and a quarter times the population of the United States.  Rather than enter the Courtroom with knowledge, Breyer appears to have entered with only beliefs.  What sort of penetrating questions would he ask plaintiffs?

Justice Sotomayor shared her “knowledge” that there were 100,000 children in hospitals, seriously ill with Covid, many on ventilators.  In fact there were about 3500 in hospitals across the country, many of whom were in hospital for non-Covid reasons and tested positive for the virus.  She then questioned why the federal government didn’t have police powers similar to those of states, to enforce health-care mandates.  The Bill of Rights should inform her.  Where did she get her ideas?  What sort of preparation to hear testimony on the federal “vaccine” mandate, did she do? Leaves one nervous.

Finally, Justice Kagan stated that “We know” that vaccines are the best way to stop the virus and the best way to stop serious illness is also the vaccine.  The next best thing to do is to wear a mask.  All three ideas are wrong according to the latest data.

Other justices did not add to Americans’ concerns about the understandings of Supreme Court Justices.  We can hope that most were prepared CONSTITUTIONALLY, to issue opinions based on that document.  Supremes’ opinions based on “talking points” or CNN and MSNBC commentary, or on comments from Tony Fauci, should have no place in that hallowed Court.  See: http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2021/12/29/in-pharmas-fields-the-rumors-grow/

Governance, Politics 2021

BONEHEADED 25TH

Leave a comment

Even a jaded observer must consider that the U. S. of A. has been protected through divine intervention more than once, especially considering the boneheaded law-making we practice.  The “work-product” of the Congress over the past 50 years, particularly the past 21 years, has been so mendacious and partially understood that we are now $30 TRILLION in debt.  But our foolishness extends even to the amending of our majestic Constitution, and one of the worst of the twenty-seven such “improvements” is Amendment XXV, “Presidential Disability and Succession.”  The warped geniuses of the 89th Congress passed this abomination in 1965 and had it ratified in 1967.  President Johnson signed it, although that step has no meaning in the ratification process in fact – just political theater.

What does the 25th purport to do that is so crucial as to be part of the Constitution?  Ostensibly, its 396 words resolves the problems that might occur should a president become disabled and be unable to fulfill the duties of the president.  Unfortunately, it creates multiple gray areas that practically invite a coup d’etat.  Let’s look at the text.

Section 1

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

No problem, here.  This has always been so.  “Removal” is the time bomb.

Section 2

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

This has worked well as when Spiro Agnew resigned and Gerald ford was appointed and confirmed as Vice-President, then again when Nixon resigned and Ford named Nelson Rockefeller to be Vice-President following confirmation.  And, it’s ‘safe,” since a President is unlikely to appoint a political enemy to be Vice-President, although the 46th may have.

Section 3

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

This seems to cover the matter of temporary disability such as medical incapacity that is going to end as the President heals from the disease or surgery involved.  In fact it is rather loosely thought through, potentially creating a problem rather than a solution.  The president holds the power at both ends of the equation: he alone decides to transmit the written declaration that he is or will be disabled, and he, alone, sends the written declaration that he is no longer disabled.  The assumption is that the president is an honorable person who would do what is right and best in both circumstances, but should that not be the case or in cases of mental slippage, Section 4 of the Amendment will apply; that section is a relatively dangerous assemblage of words that are very likely to yield the opposite of the intention of this amendment.

Section 4

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Trouble rests in these two paragraphs.  In this case, the president’s disability, inability or, conceivably, unwillingness to perform the duties of his office, is a matter of the opinions and judgments of others.  This implies a conflict of opinions between the president and either form of the committee of opposing opinions (The V.P. and Cabinet members, presumably, but described as the “principal officers of the executive departments,” which could include military personnel not of Cabinet rank – a bad idea, or some nebulous alternative “body” passed into “law” – how is not stated and questionable if the President refuses to sign it), and such a conflict could involve use of force to make the committee opinion effective.  At that point, who in the Secret Service or White House guard contingent is loyal to whom?  What forces would the committee of opposing opinions  have at its disposal?  What a mess.

The first paragraph of this section states that the Vice-President “shall immediately” assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.  If the president is not in agreement with how that step is taken, can he or she transmit a written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House stating that he or she is no longer disabled?  Now what? 

Does the President’s written declaration dissolve the opposing opinions of either of the committees of opposing opinions?  How quickly?  Could the Vice-President “immediately” assume power at 1:30 PM, say, and give it up at 2:45 because of the President’s written declaration?  Or, if the Vice-President is aligned with other powerful people who have been tolerating the President until a certain point is reached, would that group maintain a forceful restraint on the President, preventing such a transmittal as proposed in this Amendment?  Holy cow!

We might think this is an impossible set of circumstances, except we are in the midst of all of them, right now.

The Vice-President and whichever committee of opposing opinions then has 4 days to re-state the supposed inability of the President.  This causes the Congress to decide the issue if in session, or to assemble within 48 hours to decide the issue, BUT, Congress has 21 days to decide by 2/3 vote in both houses!  During this period, is the President prevented from resuming his or her duties? All in all we’re looking at nearly a month of Constitutional leadership turmoil.  If the Congress fails to rule with 2/3 majorities, the President can assume the duties of his office.  Yeah, right.

Suppose the House and Senate create their undefined committee because of some dissatisfaction with the committee formed by the Vice-president; two committees of opposing opinions are extant. Nothing is said in the Amendment language about a “first-come, first-served” political courtesy that prevents there being two committees. Since the House and Senate have the roles of voting on either committee’s opinion of the President’s infirmity, one might assume that Congress’ committee would take precedence. They could simply refuse to vote on the Vice-president’s committee’s report, yet the Amendment says they must take that vote within a certain period of time. Should they vote the V.P. report down by, in effect, voting for the result that matches their own report, what power does the Executive branch have to thwart implementation of the Congressional committee’s report? What power does the Congress have to enforce its report should it conflict with the V.P. report?

What a mess.

The whole process could be a bit more transparent and made medically sound.  With hatred as a common political tool in the 21st Century, the numerous weaknesses of the current amendment simply invite political chicanery.

How much better it would be to obviate most of these problems.  Suppose an amendment called for a periodically changing, confidential list of 20 or more medical and psychological doctors, well-recognized in their fields, who would be prepared to be called-upon in the event Section 3 or the first paragraph of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment were activated.  A random selection of 5 from among these experts would be called to be a Committee of Evaluation regarding the President’s condition, and sworn to secrecy until 5 years following the President’s end of Presidential service.  Those 5 would select one of the group to be a “Monitor” who would shadow the President for a period of time chosen by the group, not to exceed 5 days, in frequent consultation with the group.  Such monitoring would be fairly intimate and include consultation with the President’s personal physician and access to all medical records and histories.  This group, one hopes anonymously, would make its recommendation to a select, equally bi-partisan joint committee of the House and Senate, in secret.  That committee would bring forth identical resolutions for both houses to vote on.

Only with a 2/3 vote in both houses could the Vice-President then assume the duties of Acting President.  Should the President later transmit his or her declaration of ability to fulfill the duties of the office, the same Committee of Evaluation would reconvene and ultimately submit a second recommendation to the Joint Committee, in secret.  Should the two Houses again vote 2/3 in the affirmative (within 5 days of receiving the second Evaluation) to declare the President still incapable of discharging his or her duties, the Vice-President shall continue as Acting President.

The President may, then, within 30 days, appeal his or her Congressional “suspension” directly to the Supreme Court which shall, upon full hearing and discovery of all pertinent evidence, including Evaluations, reinstate the President or find him or her unable to discharge his or her duties and leave the Vice-President as Acting President.  The suspended President shall then vacate the White House while retaining the rights and privileges of any retired President.

If the next Federal Election is a “Mid-Term” election, every state shall include a referendum question on its ballot that will return the President to office with a “Yes” vote, or keep him suspended and effectively “retired” until the following Presidential elections at which time he or she may run for his or her party’s nomination and subsequently, if nominated, run for a full term as President.

These proposed changes make clear the medical/psychological bases for taking the drastic step of unseating a President, and temper the purely political forces that might attempt to subvert a President.  Finally, voting citizens deserve to have the final say should a President appeal to the Supreme Court and fail reinstatement.  Prudence recommends these improvements by amendment to the Constitution.

Crime, Governance, Politics 2020, Representation, Responsibility

ADMIRABLE CRIMES

Leave a comment

After following the flood of evidence of election thievery in 2020, Prudence leads one to wonder many things, posit many questions.  These are questions to Americans who love our nation, our history, our traditions and the ideals embraced by the Constitution.  Asking the same questions of people who are willing to riot, loot, burn and destroy the properties of others, or who are so consumed by hatred for any individual or group that they are unable to consider any ideas with which the objects of their hatreds may agree, or of those who think they are communists and Marxists or fundamentalist Muslims or anyone else whose core beliefs and loyalties are antithetical to our constitutionally limited democratic republic, will result not in thoughtful response or discussion, but in restated hatreds.  Let us not waste that time.  Prudence dictates that we place these concerns before those who want to strengthen our present, defend our heritage and who will build a better future than what appears to be gathering force, as I write, against our highest ideals.

With these caveats in mind, then, a question:  given the growing list of sworn witnesses to malfeasance in the prosecution of elections of presidential electors in multiple states, and given the corollary existence, therefore, of dozens or hundreds of electoral criminals, should not the worst and most significant bad actors be prosecuted?

In other words, crimes against state, county and federal interests – defined by laws at each level – and against states’ and the U. S. Constitutions, were committed.  This fact means that there are criminals guilty of committing those crimes.  Neither Jonah Goldberg nor Joe Biden nor Chief Justice, John Roberts can deny those simple facts.  By some sleight of magic, however, the three Jays and a host of lower-court judges, elected and appointed, are able to determine without reviewing evidentiary specifics, that none of the witnessed crimes – civil rights violations of the highest order – were of sufficient consequence to matter to the declared outcomes of the states’ electoral votes.  Maybe there is a perspective to this that escapes the hapless U. S. citizen who trusts the upholding of his or her Constitution, state or federal.

It’s Friday at 3:00 PM  in downtown Philadelphia (or Milwaukee, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, Phoenix or Raleigh) and people are streaming out of the city for the weekend.  A well-planned robbery of the Republic Bank branch at 1601 Walnut Street is executed with the perpetrators making off with six bags of cash just delivered by the armored-car service at 2:54.  They exit by a rear door, setting off alarms, and they casually drive away in a sedan, changing cars at Franklin Hospital visitors’ parking and disappear.  Total take: $510,000, all insured.

City police and the Philadelphia FBI “SAC” are all over the case.  The Bank, which handles several millions of dollars every week, is deeply concerned and cooperates in every way possible, sharing video tape and testimony from every person who witnessed anything of the event.  Bank personnel are carefully questioned, since these crimes often have an “inside” component.  Newspapers publish articles and photos, local radio and TV decry the ease with which the terrible criminals made off with, well… money.  By 6:00 PM the insurance carrier has been alerted, coverage processes begun and it sends its own investigator to check out the nature of the incident.  For a while, the whole city seems concerned.

On Monday morning, however, the FBI and City police make a joint statement that since the acquisition of the cash was so very important to the thieves, and since the amount of money is not enough to threaten the continuation of the bank, itself, they have decided to drop the case and congratulate the criminals.

Another question: What sort of reaction would other banks, the Department of Justice, the FBI Director and the governor of Pennsylvania have to that announcement? Do you think they would accept that since the investigators didn’t have all the evidence or “proof” necessary to win a case in court, that the matter should be dropped and the thieves congratulated for such a smooth operation?  Do you suppose that someone, a Republic Bank depositor, say, could file suit in state court demanding that the various investigatory authorities be enjoined from dropping the case?

Another question: If tens of thousands of votes, not dollars, were questioned by witnesses to their tabulation being performed illegally, possibly disenfranchising the same number of legal voters – effectively stealing their fundamental, unalienable right – is not an investigation that might restore their rights and provide the evidence for a trial of criminals who stole them be justified?  Should not the co-conspirators be enjoined from destroying evidence or from dropping the investigation, the theft being so well-executed, after all?

And, if the bank robbers were to use their ill-gotten gains to buy a beautiful, white house with servants, do you think they should be allowed to keep it?  No?

So, if dishonest people steal money we will chase them to the ends of the earth and convict them, but if dishonest people steal as many as a Million votes in an election we should let them keep them and enjoy all the fruits of their crime?

Tell me again, about what the Constitution means.

Culture, Economics, Education, Governance, Health Care, Politics 2020

The Prices of Freedom

3 Comments
We're surely safe, now....

Our recent – and continuing – experiment with executive, unconstitutional tyranny in the name of public health, ought to wake up a nation that has been doing a poor job of conveying America’s exceptionalism and founding ideas.  At least two generations have matriculated with limited and essentially non-philosophical education about our own country’s history.  The unique responsibility that is part of and the foundation of  United States citizenship is barely mentioned, if not derogated, in government-monopoly “public” schools.

Being shut-down, locked-down, and pushed-around by a variety of state governments brings to mind the importance of our Constitution and our individual sovereignty as U.S. citizens – sovereignty that does NOT extend to non-citizens.  We are exceptional precisely because our form of government, and the IDEAS that define it are an exception to commonplace tyrannies that defined governance prior to the American Revolution.  Our nation is not an outgrowth of ethnicity or tribal history, but of a rare, exceptional set of ideas and philosophies.  One of these is that citizens are sovereign  and the federal government is formed by their consent, limited  by the Constitution that We the people created, ratified and (should) hold sacred.  If we only understood it!

It is hard to explain to Obama types who perceive the Constitution as flawed since it doesn’t list all the free stuff the federal government is obligated to give to people.  Those are they who bristle at the description, “free stuff.”  People will be paying taxes out the wazzoo for all the federal gifties, they note.

Still, as any veteran can tell us, there is a price to pay for freedom; we just don’t contemplate what that statement actually means.  A young-to-middlin’ man whom Prudence has known for his entire life, has grown to be a good observer of political fallacy, and he pointed out a good one regarding coronavirus tyranny: our freedom… our sovereign independence is not a gift from any government.  It is God-given, or, if you can’t stomach those concepts, it is a birthright if born under the Constitution, and precious.  Yet we wiil happily share it(!) with anyone who wishes to become a U. S. citizen.  That’s a gift that isn’t even offered anywhere else in the world, except somewhat in Canada and a couple other former dominions.

Freedom belongs  to the individual; it is personal, private property.  Unless we hurt others by committing crimes, no one can CONSTITUTIONALLY take our freedoms away.  Free citizens installed the constitution to limit the powers that the federal government THAT WE CREATED, could exercise on OUR behalf.  WE delineated the limits to government, not the government – not the congress – not any president except in the rare instances when the survival of the nation was threatened, war was declared by our supposed representatives, or when internal uprising threatened the nation.  Nowhere in its clarity and brevity is there a power granted by the people to restrict our inalienable rights in the event of  really bad influenza.  These bedrock concepts may sound quaint, but THEY ARE THE FUNDAMENTS of the United States of America.

So, since freedom of movement, assembly, religion, the redress of grievances, of speech and from unreasonable search and seizure belong to US, along with freedom from excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments, from being forced to quarter soldiers in our homes unless provided by law in times of war, from frivolous criminal charges except by a grand jury, from deprivation of life, liberty or property except by due process of law, and from having our property taken for public use without just compensation, they are OUR PROPERTY.  We also have the right to a speedy trial, and to confront witnesses against us and to have the assistance of counsel.  We may demand a trial by jury.  The enumeration of rights (protected by the Constitution) shall not be taken to mean that other rights not enumerated are not still retained by the people.  Do you grasp the enormity of those words and others in the Constitution?  WE are the top of the heap: NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

The Fifth Amendment enumerates our right to JUST COMPENSATION when our properties are TAKEN from us.  Where does this leave our small-g governors when they attempt to force us to stay home, to stop working, to stop going out without a face-mask, to stop assembling with whom we please, or to stop earning our lawful livings?  How can we be restricted from buying any lawful product from any lawful seller thereof?  Our RIGHTS are our PROPERTIES… inalienable except in the most dire circumstances.  Over the years courts and even the Supreme Court have established that there must exist some overarching PUBLIC PURPOSE for ANY restriction of citizens’ rights.

There are 1,000 definitions of “public purpose” for every 100 instances of the exercise of police power.  Since the government, AND THEREFORE THE POLICE, exists to serve and protect US, our property , our rights, our citizenship, in fact our sovereignty, public gatherings, riots, parades and demonstrations and other incidents that block commerce and free access to public works like streets and sidewalks which WE PAID FOR AND OWN, legally and only appropriately, may be restricted to serve a public purpose (that purpose being the defense of good order so that private rights and properties may be legally enjoyed), including commercial properties.  Public safety in terms of free and safe flow of traffic and commerce, is also a public purpose.

So where is the government when the “public purpose” umbrella has evaporated in the presence of new information, scientific and otherwise?  It is in the increasingly comfortable position of tyrant, decreeing and attempting to enforce restrictions on the sovereign rights of citizens for NO GOOD PUBLIC PURPOSE.  And here is where we are regarding restrictions on movement, assembly, commerce, travel and personal hygiene in the guise of imaginary “Law” that says no one may exit his or her domicile without wearing a face covering.  We need not get in to keeping 6 feet away from other people.  These restrictions on rights actually form an offer to take with just compensation, our personal properties: things we own without restriction.

So WE THE PEOPLE should issue letters of conditional acceptance to our governors and Mayors and selectmen and Aldermen and police officials if necessary, stating our CHARGE for the loss of freedoms and rights.  That is, “just compensation” is not a price set by government who desires to take these properties for NO compensation; no, it is a price that seems “just” to each of us based on our own free judgment of the importance and therefore value of specific ones of our rights.  It seems Prudent that wearing a silly mask that has neither medical nor public value, should cost $80.00 per day, no terms: payable upon receipt.  Restriction to one’s home is worth at least $336 per day, unless one has school-age children, which adds $121.77 per child.  Staying 6 feet away from others is worth $2.25 per foot, per hour times the number of people so distanced.  The federal magicians have already tried to pay us for our inherent right to work.  Freedom of Religion is worth a lot more than these tiny sums.

It’s a whole lot less costly than days in court with juries, which cases the state and municipalities will lose.

Education, Governance, Responsibility

ULTIMATE and PERPETUAL

Leave a comment

America’s accelerating trend toward denial of reality – and of codified law – is and should be worrisome.  Unfortunately, large segments of the polity see no reason to worry because the gulf of unreality has yielded political power, or comfort, and promises more.  Confronted with claims of actual, or imminent, damage linked to the rush toward unreality, those who find the unreality comforting are compelled toward hatred of the claimants, even to the point of attacking them.  One should wonder whether the trend alluded to is comprised of innocent reaction to “reactionary” opposition to “progress,” or is it the fruit of evil, aggressively transformative attack.  Why would the latter be so?

The prime question, of course, is who benefits from the disunity of the United States and following that, the discrediting and dissembling of the ideas of America?  The unimaginative can readily suggest that “the RUSSIANS” or “the CHINESE,” or “IRANIANS,”  would want to destroy us, but those peoples actually like us well enough, and respect and love us enough to come to the United States for a better life.  There are relatively small subsets of both Russia and China that definitely DO work toward our failure, but not because of their, or our, nationalities.  The forces who would revel in our spiritual  destruction are, themselves, spiritually motivated, unrecognizably in some instances, even in their own mirrors.

America is a spiritual invention.  Prudence would cause us to not call it a religious invention, given the many ways religions have so distorted the inherent purity of spirituality.  The waves of peoples who sacrificed to come to the “New World” to begin America, did so with strong spiritual underpinnings… essentially Judeo-Christian.  Were they perfect?  Clearly not, as we look back and judge them from today’s sensitivities, but at their times they were doing their level best as they strove to make a better civilization than the corrupted ones they left behind.  And religious freedom was – and is – crucial to the new form of self-government that evolved from their sacrifices, and repeatedly since.

We should wonder why Judeo-Christianity is the prime target of attack in the U. S. over the past 60 to 70 years.  As the basis of our laws and social order – conscience, if you will – its destruction is the most rapid way to destroy “America” and all of its quaint ideas of individual sovereignty and responsibility, private property, charity and sacrifice.  Who would want to do that?

If we concentrate on the enemies of America – or of our Constitution – as competitors for oil, or food, or land or military power… or competitors for limited budget resources who disagree on how to make life “better” for all of us, we will miss the point, tragically and historically.  Our misdirected concerns expose our failure to comprehend American exceptionalism.  It exposes, as well, the danger of relinquishing public education – and much of our administrative ‘state,’ and even parts of our law-enforcement and judiciary – to people who agree with our enemies.

“America” does not, and cannot, run or survive on its own.  President Reagan observed that we are only, ever, one generation away from losing it altogether.  This powerful country?  With this military?  With our wealth?  All these McDonalds?  One generation?  Surely not. 

Let’s open our eyes.

America can survive only so long as its citizens believe in it… simple.  We have to believe in our Constitution, in our founding, in personal liberty as well as personal responsibility, and in what we term, “Judeo-Christian” tradition.  Unfortunately, as more and more people are attracted to dis-belief in God, they are encouraged to disbelieve in the United States.  No one outside of the United States is going to carry the burden of believing in the ideas that sustain it for us.  It is our test of citizenship and no one’s else.

“We the People of the United States, (they were people with quite similar moral compasses, if not religious upbringings) in Order to form a more perfect Union, (consider the capitalized words to this point: We, People, United, States, Order, Union) establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, (sic) promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain (wonderful choice, there) and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  These words cannot be improved upon.

The intent of Americans, then, was incontrovertibly NOT to create a more powerful central government… or to create a new monarchy… certainly not to establish a theocracy or an aristocracy of inherited baronies and dukedoms.  It wasn’t even to create a more powerful military.  Americans wanted to live and let-live; develop their nation and prosper without wars.  Wars have always vexed the “New Jerusalem,” some completely from outside, some as would tear us asunder, but all that was desired for the first 8 generations or so was a “return to normalcy” after each conflict was over.

For a like period “we” had no interest in dominating other peoples or re-shaping their societies and governments for them.  But almost from the start, and more specifically following the second Civil War (“The” Civil War), forces – or A force – has arrayed itself against the ideas  of America, against the dream of e pluribus unum.  Why?  Who would care how we live or govern ourselves?  And even if “they” didn’t like how we chose to do things in our own country, what would prompt “them” to infiltrate us and attempt to tear us apart?  Something, apparently.

Is it not apparent that “they” are not simply envious churls?  Looked at from a position of Prudence, the impetus to destroy the first nation founded on anti-tyranny seems spiritual, not material.  Indeed, the two competing philosophies, or faiths, dare we say, if one is represented by the ideas of America, would be essentially Judeo-Christianity and socialism-communism.  Which, from a broad perspective, still begs the question: why bother to destroy America?  Socialism has proceeded on its destructive path quite well despite the presence of the United States.

In a way we are engaged in the ultimate, and perpetual, struggle between darkness and light, good and evil.  Our enemy can survive only by weakening the strong, sapping our strength.  It behooves us to acknowledge that we have the seeds of “goodness” and the strength of Light, and that it is high time we reinforced and nurtured those things, and defended them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, rooting out the latter. 

What might that defense entail?