DrD

Archive for March, 2011|Monthly archive page

Establish justice and secure the blessings of Liberty

In American Sovereign on March 25, 2011 at 10:10 am

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[Preamble]

WE, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

Definitions:

Preamble: An introductory statement; preface; introduction. The introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows.

Establish: To found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis; to install or settle in a position, place; to show to be valid or true; prove; to cause to be accepted or recognized; to bring about permanently; to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, as a law.

Justice: The quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness; rightfulness or lawfulness; justness of ground or reason; just dealing, or treatment; the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings

Secure: free from danger or harm; safe; dependable; firm; not liable to fail, yield, become displaced, etc., as a support or a fastening: The building was secure, even in an earthquake; affording safety, as a place; in safe custody or keeping.

Blessings: a special favor, mercy, or benefit: the blessings of liberty; a favor or gift bestowed by the Creator, thereby bringing happiness; the invoking of Creator ‘s favor upon a person; approval.

Liberty: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control; freedom from external or foreign rule; independence; freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice; freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint; freedom or right to frequent or use a place; unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties; freedom from despotism.

Any questions?

 

Advertisements

I just lost the last bit of respect I had for Glenn Beck

In American Sovereign on March 22, 2011 at 10:11 am

I was flashing channels last night and came across the Glenn Beck show.  They are coming up on the 2 year anniversary of the 9/12 project.

Anyway, he showed a small portion of this clip ……

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY-_JsNrxiM&feature=player_embedded

opps…  I guess it has been deleted…

Well anyway, he showed two short clips were Farrakhan warns, advises Obama on Libya where he says something like.  You see what is happening in the middle East?  The same thing is coming to America.

then he cuts away to return to another clip that says something about the muslim brotherhood.

These two clips were not even in the right order.  Mr Farrakhan said “the same thing is coming to America and it will not be the Muslims.  It will be the white state militia.  They are very well armed and are coming for you.

Now the original is deleted and no one can even debate this extremely misleading presentation.

Here is a functioning link

A Crucial Constitutional Fact

In American Sovereign on March 21, 2011 at 3:45 pm

Saturday, March 19, 2011 – by Dr. Tibor Machan

Dr. Tibor Machan

In my efforts to defend the free society and its basic principles, the idea of natural individual human rights, I run across the objection – advanced by both conservatives and “liberals” – that once a constitution has been accepted, it overrides those principles. Putting it differently, while perhaps human beings do have the basic rights to life, liberty, property and so forth in, as it is called, the state of nature – that is, prior to the formation of a community with a legal foundation – once that state is given up and a community is formed, they no longer have those basic rights. Instead, they have delegated to government or the legal system the authority to limit the previous freedoms they enjoyed. So instead of the constitution limiting the legal authorities or government, it supposedly limits the rights and liberties of the citizenry.

There is some plausibility in this since in the case of contracts when people enter into them they often bind themselves to obligations and responsibilities they didn’t previously have – e.g., when they marry or lease an apartment. So perhaps the constitution is that kind of a document, through which people commit themselves to abide by rules, even serve rulers, they would be free to ignore prior to entering civil society. This certainly is one rationale being advanced in opposition to libertarians who hold that what the constitution achieves, if properly conceived and instituted, is to establish the protection and elaboration of the rights of the citizenry, something they arguably lacked outside civil society.

Yet even in the admittedly murky case of the U.S. Constitution and the founding of the republic, there is evidence any lay person, let alone legal expert, can detect pointing to the libertarian interpretation that a proper constitution does not give away but attempts to secure individual rights. First of all the Declaration of Independence makes it clear what the American founders set out to do with their efforts to institute a government via the U.S. Constitution. The precise road to the establishment of free government may well be complicated but once one realizes that at heart government is supposed to secure the rights laid out in the body of the Declaration, there is little reasonable doubt that the ensuring setting up of a constitutional government wasn’t meat to abolish individual rights, quite the contrary. Government was meant to give security to those rights in light of the plain fact that without a legal system and its competent administration, the rights the individual have would be at the mercy of anyone bent upon violating them. Yes, people do have those rights in the state of nature or prior to entering civil society but their security would be dependent entirely on how well individuals are able to defend themselves, without the benefit of a specialized body of men and women who could be counted upon to provide the expertise needed to make those right as secure as humanly possible.

If one then looks at the U.S. Constitution itself, there are other clues to reading it along libertarian lines. The Bill of Rights not only mentions several of the rights that are to be safeguarded by the legal system but makes explicit reference to non-enumerated rights, ones the citizenry retains even if they are not mentioned in the document. This, it would appear, makes it clear, unambiguous, that leaving the state of nature does not imply at all giving up the basic, natural, individual human rights all human beings have.

The point of joining civil society as far as the American system is concerned isn’t, then, to give up but to secure the basic and all the derivative rights human beings have. Those who argue otherwise aren’t on solid ground. That much is pretty clear, so they must reinterpret the American founding to shore up their case for American statism. Yet some of the most influential legal scholars advance this untenable position – namely that the law in the American tradition aims to limit the liberty and rights of the citizenry – and numerous prominent law schools teach it as well.

Let me make a final point about rights. Much communitarian thinking from both Left and Rights laments that Americans are too fond of rights but not of responsibilities or obligations. Yet if one realizes that having rights also implies having obligations, this lament is quite misguided. Everyone has the legal obligation or responsibility to respect the rights to everyone else. And that is just as it should be, with other obligations and responsibilities left to be worked out in the private sector, mainly via morality and contract law.

 

Welfare Spending at Popular Vacation Destinations – Missouri Senator Luann Ridgeway

In American Sovereign, Missouri politics on March 21, 2011 at 10:37 am

Watching Out For Your Tax Dollars:
Welfare Spending at Popular Vacation Destinations

How many times have you been in line at the grocery store counting pennies to pay for imitation hamburger and off-brand pasta, only to see the person in front of you unload a cart full of steaks and then whip out a welfare EBT card to pay for it? It happens to me and I bet it happens to you as well. The program that provides for your hard earned money to be spent in this fashion by people as able-bodied as are you and I is called TANF, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. If you get upset watching someone buy groceries with your money, hang on because you are about to get boiling mad.

Because welfare benefits are now delivered with a plastic debit card, where and when these benefits are spent is easily tracked. Chris Nagus, a St. Louis television reporter requested these records from the Missouri Department of Social Services (click here for a link to the DSS data). What he found is unbelievable. Keep in mind, this is just one month of spending.

Since most of Missouri’s population lives near a state line, it is not unusual for some benefits to be spent in adjoining states. However, some states were further away, much further away and not even connected to the mainland.

Over the course of one month, in Florida, Missouri welfare recipients spent $84,061 on food and withdrew $9,737 in cash from ATMs. In California, the month’s totals were $69,672 for food and $7,818 in cash. In the biggest insult to taxpayers, during one month welfare recipients spent $2,737 for food and withdrew $175…in HAWAII!

I am sure many hard working Missourians would love to take their families on a vacation to Florida, California, or Hawaii. However, it now appears they cannot since they are busy working to pay for someone else to go who isn’t working. Personally, I would like to see any transaction that takes place more than one state away red flagged for inquiry. If there is not a valid reason for the person to be there, benefits should be terminated.  The assistance is intended for needy families to survive, not for freeloaders to travel on someone else’s dime.

There was a time when being on public assistance came with a stigma. Now the government goes out of its way to sign up more people. Where public welfare used to be a measure of last resort, it is now considered normal since that is what their parents did and what so many of their friends continue to do. Young unmarried women have actually been heard saying they want to have their baby before marriage as then the birth and maternal after-care will be “free”.

Maybe this discovery will serve as a wakeup call that the program is out of control and must be reformed. Despite what the liberals will tell you, personal responsibility and charity are pretty good things, for everyone.

The 10 Demandments

In American Sovereign on March 20, 2011 at 7:37 am

If you agree please make your mark and comment below.

Are you a 14th amendment Federal Citizen?

In American Sovereign on March 16, 2011 at 10:36 am

Hello JR,

The Civil War and the 14th Amendment changed the whole American landscape. It was never contemplated by the Founding Fathers that the federal government would begin to create its own citizens.

Approximately 3.5 million freed black slaves were “absorbed” or “incorporated” into the 14th Amendment beginning with the so-called ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Then 200,000 Chinese coolies (endentured unskilled workers)
were brought from China to help build the transcontinental railroad. The Chinese coolies were treated as virtual slaves, as expenables. As non-Whites, they were added to the federal government’s growing list of “federal citizens”. Following the Chinese coolies, the treaties with Spain and Mexico brought the Hispanics in the Western Territories into the 14th Amendment and made them “federal citizens”. All the Europeans and those from eastern Europe who came through Ellis Island were added to the 14th Amendment. The remaining American population (the White people) were not “absorbed” or “incorporated” into or brought under the 14th Amendment until the 1930s. This was accomplished by the federal government “inviting” or “enticing” the rest of the American people to participate in federal programs, such as the 1932 Agricultural Adjustment Act) — farmers and ranchers were paid NOT to plant crops or raise various animals, by handing out subsidies — and by more than 90 percent of the adult population signing up to participate in the Social Security Act of 1935. Now there is what is legally called “a universally applied presumption in the law” that ALL Americans are 14th Amendment “federal citizens” more commonly known as “citizens of the United States (government)” and as mere “residents” in or among the serveral States of the union. “Residency” is a commercial term. Such U.S. citizens exist totally in privilege. They have indirect access to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They receive “procedural due process” which means merely administrative due process. They are NOT recognized as having inherent Unalienable Rights and are NOT accorded Substantive Due Process in the courts. They are treated as “creatures of Congress” and are under federal protection at all times and in all places they may sojourn, especially when they are “away from home”, meaning their home is Washington, D.C. They carry federal jurisdiction with them wherever they “reside”. The 14th Amendment applies to the original freed slaves, their progenitors, and others similarly situated. In terms of the present time, 2011, the 14th Amendment applies to not more than 15 percent of the U.S. population. It is being improperly and unconstitutionally applied to ALL Americans as a “universally applied presumption in the law”. However, it is a REBUTTABLE presumption. Unfortunately, very few prople are aware of this REBUTTABILITY and fail to challenge the presumption and correctly establish their STATUS and STANDING in the courts and administative agencies.

I hope this helps you understand why there can be no “returning to the original united States of America” until a critical mass of We the People correct our Status and Standing. There is a very old English maxim that says: Can a slave or serf challenge or criticize his Master? No, he cannot. He lacks standing to do so.

Please note: Unalienable Rights are endowments from Heaven. As Thomas Jefferson stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain (means absolute and infinite) unalienable Rights, that among these (means unlimited in extent) are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (refers to ownership of property, that is, private property).

Yours in God-given Life and Liberty,
Virgil

Which category do you fit in?

In American Sovereign on March 4, 2011 at 7:56 am

I see four categories of people living in America today.

  1. There is a large population of people that are in their third generation of living directly off the government. They teach their children how to stand in line and fill out forms and vote for the right people to keep the gravy train rolling.
  2. There are a few people in America garnering great fortunes with special noncompetitive state contracts to dish out the handouts, build the jails and such who’s lifstyle would suffer greatly if the gravy train stopped.
  3. There are many who work to manage the dispersal of state funds. Accountants, lawyers, clerks, and such that would need to find more productive work if the gravy train stopped.
  4. Then there is a shrinking number of people in America trying to live creative and product lives in a very hostile environment where everyone wants to take what they make even before they make it!

Which one are you?