Relativism, Multiculturalism, and Drugs Led To Gifford Shooting
The triple crown of liberalism is relativism as opposd to absolute truth, multiculturalism as opposed to tradition and virtue, and self-indulgence (in the form of drug use) as opposed to self-discipline. Is this what led to the shooting in Tucson, Arizona?
Thanks to the tenets of relativism, the Arizona man who tried to murder a member of Congress, and who murdered 6 others, including a 9 year old girl, was able to imbibe in the worse possible ideologies without any real social constraints on such thinking or context.
Was the shooter’s avowed love of Karl Marx or of Mein Kampf, both manuals for totalitarianism, questioned or were his studies of these writings put within the context of writings of our Founders or the Bible? In our present culture, imposed as it is from above, he would not have received such instruction that might have dissuaded him from embracing the hatefulness of Marx and Hitler.
When the murderous young man was rejecting a culture of life and love and justice, would this present imposed culture have provided any context or social pressure to dissuade him from his chosen path? No, the multiculturalists don’t believe in any kind of “judgment” of “other cultures”, just like they refuse to “judge” the pan-Islamic culture of Jihadism and intolerance.
Finally, the murderer was imbibing in mind-altering drugs, the kind that many want to see made illegal, the kind that many like to say are harmless. Marijuana, possibly cut with other chemical substances, gave the shooter the drive, the daring, and the twisted beliefs that allowed him to grab a weapon and murder other people.
Today, as America stands in shock and anger, hard questions need to be asked about America’s illicit affair with relativism, multiculturalism, and drugs. The left is to blame for these kinds of things, the left is ultimately the first cause of this kind of shooting.
Perhaps this is the reason why the left, knowing how their idolatrous love for such things is the root cause here, tried to hang the label “Tea Party” around this young murderer’s neck.
UPDATE- 1-12-11-
Notes on Jared
The blood libel meets a wall of truth, shows the true anti-freedomist and regressive agenda of Sheriff Dubnik, Freedom’s own “Benedict Arnold”, a Quisling pretender whose own oath of office was violated when he tried to spread a blood libel as a Rechstag fire justification for censoring his freedomist oponents.
“He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.”
Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson massacre.
Dubnik is being joined by other Quislings, including the governor or Rhode Islamnd who is banning officials from speaking on talk radio in a blatant attempt to restrict access to public officials to only progressive journolist news media outlets.
“Chafee doesn’t plan to spend his own time on talk radio, and he intends to ban state employees from spending their state work time talking on talk radio, which was Carcieri’s favorite medium and an integral part of his communications operation.”
The Founding Fathers knew about dangers of warfare-welfare state
Freedom News, Politics, Conservative News, Tea Party News, Constitution Watch, Freedom Report, Bill Collier
American Founders’ Prescience Continues To Serve Us
Bill Collier- Freedomist.com
The prescience of our founders speaks strongly to a 21st century rebirth of populism and the necessary demise of the warfare-welfare state of the 20th century.
“The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent….To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations….. The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman’s farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.” Thomas Jefferson
The notion that the courts can use the commerce clause to excuse excesses of Federal power beyond this simple vision of a strictly limited government is a outright betrayal of the intention of the founders.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ” George Washington
Simple truth like this is so lacking from the mouths of our scholars and the Journolist media who want us to see government as elegance and kindness, as something warm and paternal.
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves. ” William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
How often have we been told by radical Progressives and the Journolist media of some “necessity”- the bailouts, the TSA molestations, and on and on all pushed over our civil rights by the “necessity” of the hour!
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Patrick Henry
How can anyone read, for instance, the 1st Amendment as a prohibition on the free exercise of religious bodies in ALL aspects of our public life, including political, if the Constitution is meant ONLY to LIMIT and constrain government rather than the private associations of the People?
“Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.” – William Blackstone
In short, we don’t need legal mumbo jumbo or endless debates about this or that “provision” or law or the like in order to claim, assert, or practice our natural, God-given freedom to be secure in our rights, persons, and property.
“The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity.” – William Blackstone
If the Holy Scriptures and their ancient precepts are true, we should follow them, and those who deny them cannot simply say “we shouldn’t follow this because it is religious in its roots” but, rather, they have the burden, as the accusers, to prove that such precept are guilty of being wrong.
Now, here are some quotes which speak of a freedom that is liberty in our rights, persons, and property within the constraints only of virtue and “the laws of nature and nature’s God.”
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” – George Washington
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” – Benjamin Franklin
“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who … will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” – Samuel Adams
Liberty is not license without constraint, nor is it “whatever doesn’t hurt others.” Liberty without virtue, or godliness, is the formula for tyranny because people who have no limits other than their own desire and the desires of people around them are bound to do things that are most harmful to themselves and their society.
“Every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded [bound] by it.” – John Locke
Think about this. Freedom requires participatory self-government, but once a society has determined its values, natures, and characteristic norms, then one is justly bound to respect that, obey that, or failing this, to leave that society for another.
This theme of liberty within the just and useful limits of godliness (virtue) is almost universal amongst those who wrote our Constitution and whoever chooses to ignore this chooses to ignore the law of the People’s right to rule.
“(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; …the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained…” George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ” John Adams
“Political interest [can] never be separated in the long run from moral right….
Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God? ” Thomas Jefferson
And HOW do we secure such freedom rooted in godliness, self-reliance, and security of our rights, persons, and property?
The intent of our Founders was that we protect this freedom ourselves, not that we rely on others, especially government, to be the sole possessors of arms for such defense.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. ” Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…”
George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention
The Founders even considered the problem of Pan-Islamic Imperialism, or “terrorism” and dealt with it by waging unrestricted warfare on its practitioners, going to North Africa and attacking the “Barbary States.”
In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Tunisian leaders representing the so-called “Barbary States”, which were pirating the oceans and attacking US merchant ships and taking Americans hostage. This is how they summed up their enemy, and that same enemy exists today, now in a form of Pan-Islamic Imperialism called “terrorism” or “Jihadism.”
“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
When you read these and many other quotes like this you might wonder- how would today’s Journolist media and the quisling Progressive radicals in places of high office label our Founders?
The Tea Party is asking inconvenient questions about the warfare-welfare state.
Bill Collier- Freedomist
Ralph Benko has forced out into the open what many of us have privately known or felt about our future and its possibilities. The future belongs to the populists, not the warfare-welfare state, but how that future is reached and when is an open question. The forbes.com piece written by Mr. Benko is in and of itself, as I see it, prima facie evidence of the historical necessity of ending the corporate warfare-welfare state of the 20th century and replacing it with a constitutional republic ruled by the People in their communities and states.
This message of the triumph of populism over gigantism in statecraft is not well received in some parts, especially amongst conventional two-party thinkers.The broad tendency amongst many of the conventional thinkers inside the two-party establishment seems to be to take the populist and limited government message of the Tea Party movement and label its practitioners with some epithet, like “racist” or some such thing. Never mind that the epithets are just that, epithets, and not facts. The real issue is a refusal on the part of some to seriously answer the inconvenient questions that the Tea Party asks, namely questions about the need for or the validity of the warfare-welfare state as it has been crafted since the 20th century.
This question cuts both ways, making big government conservatives and big government liberals equally uncomfortable with those who would ask it. Neither the big government liberals around President Obama nor the big government conservatives around Mitt Romney want to open up such a can of worms. This does not mean that they are bad people. The anachronism of those who learned to thrive in the old warfare-welfare state, and who came to associate that entity as synonymous with the nation itself, is as much a part of the well-worn path of historical necessity as the “barbarians at the gate” who dare to question the very NEED for keeping the old guard around.
This cyclic nature of history is
These cycles of gigantism followed by populism are like a sociological DNA.
Consider this- when scientist re-engineered the DNA of fruit flies, they discovered that within a few generations the DNA would “reset itself” to its norm.
If the natural state of social man is to seek a populist environment, minus gigantism in statecraft, then the external influences which led to gigantism cannot forever fend off the natural tendency to reset. Once these external influences, such as an existential threat to humanity, are virtually eliminated, the impetus that compelled people to accept the unnatural warfare-welfare state in order to avert certain termination of their existence was removed and the natural tendency, to want more and more freedom for the individual and their free associations, becomes an irresistible urge.
It may seem to many that the Tea Part movement, which is asking inconvenient questions about the warfare-welfare state, just “came out of nowhere” but there are historical forces at work which, to my mind, make both the Tea Party movement and the ultimate demise of the warfare-welfare state inevitable, if not in this generation, then in the next.
Here is where a new narrative is emerging, not something contrived, but something that has the logic of history to back it up, and the wisdom of common sense to make it a living and present reality.
The basic thesis is simple, compelling, and hopeful for every populist heart- with the demise of existential threats to the human race What is more, the public’s appetite for the warfare-welfare state is greatly diminished, in fact, there is no popular consensus in favor of anything but the elimination, almost en toto, of the warfare-welfare states of the 20th century., although serious threats exist in the form of Iran or North Korea, the need for the warfare-welfare state is greatly diminished.
This may be going beyond Benko’s narrative, but the basic narrative is simple and powerful, and it explains WHY the Tea Party movement emerged so suddenly and, in less than 24 months, reshaped the entire landscape of American politics in a manner never before seen.
The logic of history is expressed, as I see it, by Benko’s paragraph on the Constitution-
“Under the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. is designed to be a ‘small r’ republic. That means that we citizens elect representatives to carry out our will. And the elected representatives are meant to be just that: representatives, not Supreme Leaders. During times of mortal threat citizens readily cede power to the elected officials who grow in power, prestige and position. It is a sensible course. Plain citizens are not, and know they are not, personally equipped to guide the U.S. through a potential apocalypse.”
Quite simply, the cycle has gone its course, and now that the existential threat is, at worse, an extremely improbable potentiality, the society that was born on these shores is moving back to its sociological DNA.
In history, the idea of something being inevitable is not applicable in the short term or to specific groups of people, historical necessity and inevitability are seen over the course of dozens, sometimes hundreds, of years and the path of historical necessities and cycles is never even or constant- often progressions through phases and cycles can look like a zigzag route with occasional double-backs, as if the society or people in question weren’t sure they were going in the right direction and had to step back a few steps, afraid they had gone too far.
No person or single generation can rely on historical necessity or inevitability, but in the end, history, like truth, will “out”
The question is not so much whether, ultimately, the historical necessity and inevitability of the empowerment of the People and the elimination of the warfare-welfare state will occur. The unknowns here are what that pathway will look like. Will it be strewn with the debris of failed attempts top halt its progress in the form of concocted wars and crisis that give just a few more PAINFUL years of life to the ancien regime?
Will it be the privilege of THIS generation to usher in the end of the warfare-welfare state and erect a people powered governance in its place or will this honor be surrendered and have to await another generation?
We are determined to see the “peace dividend” result in all power reverting back to the People, to live and manage their lives in their homes, private associations, local communities, and states with little external control by those who think they know what is best for them, but we know that to make this happen we must work hard and consistently because, inevitable as such a future may be, it is for us only a POSSIBLE future!
From Forbes.com By Ralph Benko
(Republished with permission)
The Political Consequences Of The Peace
With Peace in hand we’re ready to downsize our government
As a proud, card-carrying, rally-going member of the Tea Party Patriots (co-emcee of the 2009 Boston Tea Party, how iconic is that?), I have noticed how quickly some Progressives are to label us as racists. They genuinely believe, or at least suspect, that the Tea Parties are partly a reaction to the United States’ first African-American president, Barack Obama.
The quickest way to get kicked out of the Tea Party Patriots is to express any sign of racial animus. Since the TPP is by far the largest (2,800 chapters), most active and most authentic of all of the Tea Party groups, our public and vehemently enforced anti-racism policy is no small thing.
Yet my left-leaning friends are groping for the answer to a very interesting question: Why now?
Why now? Because, barely noticed by the political and media elites–world peace is breaking out. This is a tectonic shift in world culture, one that transcends left vs. right.
For almost 50 years–from the bombing of Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, until the fall of the Berlin Wall on Nov. 9, 1989–the U.S. was beset by mortal enemies. It was an era of guerre a outrance, or war without limit, with Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers, and then the Soviet Union and its satellites, threatening America’s and the West’s liberal democratic values and our, and our allies’, very existence.
Now that epoch has ended. But cultural shifts take time: A country that has been at war for generations does not lower its guard quickly.
Shortly after peace began to dawn, dawn was clouded by the infamous 9/11 attacks. Having only recently emerged from an epoch of total war, the U.S. responded by going on to a total-war footing. We reacted by invading Afghanistan and then Iraq (which had methodically given out the misinformation that it possessed of weapons of mass destruction). At home we created the Department of Homeland Security and its most visible, and recently controversial, branch, the TSA.
Almost 10 years later, not one similar attack on American soil has occurred. The world remains a dangerous place in some very real respects–especially with nuclearizing rogue states such as Iran and North Korea–and this requires a significant degree of vigilance. Yet no external enemy or group of enemies has the military power to threaten the American way of life or our existence.
The U.S.’ military budget is the size of the next 14 nations’ in the world combined. Twelve of these 14 are our allies, and the other two, China and Russia, who might (or actually might not) be cast as adversarial, have vast landmasses to protect and certainly cannot afford to pick an all-out fight with a far better-armed nation. The American way, and existence, no longer is threatened from outside.
The defense budget is pumped up by threat of war. The grandiosity of these expenditures casts broad penumbras. The whole government grows. A single presidential motorcade, or a single U.S. senator’s office, comprises more people than the entire staff of the Executive Office under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Mortal threat is the predicate for a “warfare/welfare” state. That’s over.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. is designed to be a “small r” republic. That means that we citizens elect representatives to carry out our will. And the elected representatives are meant to be just that: representatives, not Supreme Leaders. During times of mortal threat citizens readily cede power to the elected officials who grow in power, prestige and position. It is a sensible course. Plain citizens are not, and know they are not, personally equipped to guide the U.S. through a potential apocalypse.
But when the mortal threat has passed and the culture begins, however vaguely, to sense and trust in this, we citizens begin to reclaim our native power. In our era, MoveOn.org, the Progressive online movement, may have signaled the first stirring of a citizens’ uprising. The center of the uprising has passed to the Tea Party movement. Whether or not we Tea Partiers are thinking in terms of the end of the epoch of war, we sense that the federal government is wielding an unjustifiable amount of (our) power and of (our) money for an era of peace.
No longer content to delegate governance to our “leaders,” or to overlook their notable lack of competence, we are reclaiming the power we had ceded. We are slowly but steadily withdrawing the all important “consent of the governed” and demanding that our political leaders recede back to the representative status envisioned by the Constitution, and by Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and by the Declaration of Independence.
The Tea Party is not a racist or revanchist movement. Instead, Tea Partiers signal that society is beginning to perceive, and trust, that the epoch of total war has ended. War is the mother of the State. As we come to understand that the war is over the rationale for a gargantuan State disappears. Our officials, long finding delight in acting as a ruling class, are unlikely to surrender their privileges lightly. But without the rationale for such exorbitant privileges, surrender them they shall.
There are many ramifications to peace. We can make the transition to peace and prosperity easily in a few years–or painfully over a few decades. We can fail and stumble back into an epoch of war. How long this takes, its success or failure, is up to us, not to our representatives. It is our choice. It is our challenge. It is our opportunity.
Ralph Benko, 12.13.10, 06:00 PM EST , the inevitable and the necessary will ultimately occur. This is why it says in Ecclesiastes 3 that “for everything there is a season” and in the same book it tells us that “nothing is different.” The change WITHIN the cycle is different for the people who experience it, but it is the same change, the same cycle, and the more it seems to change, the more it repeats what has always existed.plus ça change: the rise and fall of gigantism in statecraft occurs in a very similar and well-worn pattern.
Freedom News, Freedomist, Top Freedom Report, Progressive, MSM, Bill Collier
Bill Collier
Bill Collier- Co-editor- The Freedomist
The Tree of Liberty has deep roots, going to our God-given inherent rights which transcend any law, edict, ruling, rule, or charter.
It has many branches, including free speech, freedom of religion, the free market, the rights of free association, the rights of electoral participation, and the rights of self-reliance and self-preservation.
Its trunk is composed of freedom based on virtue, thrift, and independence.
There is never any reason or justification for hewing away at the trunk of this Tree, of trying to hack off any of these branches nor for assaulting the roots of this tree by denying that our rights are inherent and God-given. No good that is sought and no evil that is confronted can justify or excuse any effort to cut down this tree!
That is why our motto is “Whoever Tries To Cut Down This Tree Is an Enemy of the People.” Such a sign as this was posted on “Liberty Trees” all over the 13 Colonies where “Patriots”, who saw British Imperialism as threat to their Liberty, would gather.
The Tree of Liberty is even now under assault, from Pan-Islamic powers and their proxy terror attacks to Progressives and their subversion and co-opting of our leading national institutions towards ends never intended by our Founders and opposed by most of our People.
The real enemy, however, is not who you might think it is, namely the pawns used to push through measures that assault the Tree of Liberty. The real enemy, the puppet master and king-makers behind the scene, have two primary branches- the news-shapers and the professors.
It is through news-shapers who control the dissemination and publication/broadcasting of news that most Americans learn what is happening and why and, since few Americans truly grasp how much their “news” is doctored so at to manipulate them and deceive them, this allows the news-shapers enjoy a very high degree of power.
The professors use their “credentials” to create an “appeal to authority” that is meant to censure critics and opponents of their Progressive ideology and all of the front-causes, like racism, global warming, or what have you, that are a cover for their true intentions.
It is the news-shapers and the professors who are the enemy o the People, because every day they do their best to assault the roots of that Tree, to hew at its trunk, which is virtue, thrift, and independence, or to hack away at is branches.
Rather than targeting the puppets, the politicians, we need to shift our response to the real enemy- the Progressive Elites who play the roles of news-shapers and professors, and we need to deny them any sanctuary or safe haven as they use claims of freedom of the press, academic freedom (that extends to them but neither their students nor non-Progressives), their so-called “authority”, or their “tenure” to shield themselves from the accountability they richly deserve to “suffer.”
Freedom News, Freedom Czar, Freedom report, Samuel Adams, William Penn, State of Freedom, Politics, Obama News, Obama Watch, Upadaria, Editorial
What will motivate Americans to resist the Freedom Takers?
The Freedom Czar Report- Bill Collier
Bill Collier- Co-editor- The Freedomist
The State of Freedom In 2010
When right or rights are called into question, then is the time to assert them all the more! -William Penn
PART ONE- Upon WHAT Is Our Freedom Founded?
Is our freedom an individual thing defined by courts and laws and government or is it the power of a People to create a society after its own conscience and consensus to preserve the rights, persons, and property of its People in a manner that fits its religious or other sentiments and that reflects its consensus and, what is more, WHO or WHAT has the final say in how this question is answered?
It seems to us that the very notion of freedom, as the People’s authority to govern themselves in a manner most suited to their values and towards the end of protecting and preserving their rights, persons, and properties against all violators, foreign or domestic, private and public, are being assailed by a barrage of legalistic and intricate doublespeak and other devices of sophistry so as to confuse most people as to the true nature of their freedom and so as to conceal instruments of the destruction of those freedoms, especially under the guise of cries of racism, appeals to the so-called supremacy of Federal law, and appeals to help this or that disadvantaged group at the expense of other’s rights, persons, and property who in no way made or caused to be made the circumstances by which the disadvantaged are so disadvantaged.
We must in all instances, for every Town or Township, County, or City or State, appeal to the People and ask them- what think ye, that YOU in your wisdom and by the lights of your conscience and beliefs and for the cause of your values and your interests, should effectively have supremacy over ALL other powers, including the Federal, or that the Federal Power, by whatever claim or doctrine or logic it may contrive in its defense, shall be so empowered as to thumb its nose at your sentiment, your values, your beliefs, and your wishes and desires as to the type and nature and structure and rules of the society you think best suited for your children and your progeny’s preservation?
Is freedom, the power we own to govern ourselves in our own communities first, and then extending all the way to the highest levels, now to be ridiculed as some have done on the basis of the abuse of that right by others who defended slavery, which is so obnoxious to freedom as to be indefensible on ANY grounds?
Shall we the teeth of the children be set on edge because of the bitter grapes their father’s fathers have eaten?
Shall we surrender our freedom, the local power to govern ourselves as we see fit for the preservation of our rights, our persons, and our property, because others have trafficked in human beings and used the sophistry of defending such freedom as their excuse and justification for denying freedom to others?
Upon what basis do the violators of our rights, our persons, and our property assail our sacred freedom but upon arguments that lack moral, Biblical, logical, or any kind of just foundation? They use lies and slanders and accusations, they use bigotry against people of certain persuasions, accusing the ones against whom their plans discriminate, and all the while call the victims the victimize3rs and use the so-called victims as a mass mob of votes to fling agai8nst the will of free men and women in election after election until the whole land is filled with rancor and hate and schism!
All this they do while denying the very existence of any higher law than the counsel of their own designs and ambitions emanating from their back room parlors and country clubs!
In short, does the doctrine of supremacy of the Federal Power extend now so far, using the commerce clause and other new interpretation of our Constitution, nullify the originating authority of our Declaration of Independence or the Higher Laws of the Creator which alone are the legal and moral foundation of our self-government as a People?
If the Federal Power has NO LIMIT, not before men nor even before God, as the cabal of progressive eltists now claim, then where do the People Stand and where does our freedom to self-govern ourselves in protecting our rights, persons, and property now stand in relation to this progressive slave machine that is discarding everything sacred, from marriage to unborn children, in favor of everything that is evil and obnoxious to the Christian sentiments of most all of us?
If then this progressive slave machine shall go unhindered and if now, while there remain yet lights of freedom shining in this land, we do nothing or we do little, or less than we may, who shall not blame our future progeny when they are born into a land where God is a byword and faith is an epthet and where rights are only what the STATE says they are when these cursed heirs of once free people shall curse our names with bitter hatred and call on the God who once made this land free to increase our punishments in the hell we truly deserve to suffer in?
Do not say you love God and then show your hatred for the future generations who will surely suffer because of our inaction now, because we gave more credence to courts and media and the vain philosophies of men than to the common sense truth of the matter- which is that this land is ruled by a cabal of progressive slave masters who hate our forefathers and foremothers and their God and all who name that God, who is Jesus the Christ, Lord of ALL, and whose minds are reprobate and set on their course by the lies of hell! Shall we choose freedom, which is from God, and refuse to hear or contemplate any argument or so-called logic or ruling or what have you that denies our freedom to govern ourselves in our communities as we see fit?
If we do not do this, if we accept anything less than that we own our freedom and do not need anybody to define it for us nor do we owe to any power on earth more loyalty then to our God, our conscience, and our freedom, which we are obliged to preserve and pass on as a patrimony to future generations, we face God’s just wrath and eternal damnation! We do not honor our parents and we do not honor our God and how think we then that we can be right with a God who has given us such a mandate and a blessing when we dishonor Him so?
We bid you to contemplate these things by reading a few missives from Samuel Adams who, having no such firm Constitution nor Bill of Rights as ours, presented, defended, and singularly agitated for the practicing of our inherent freedom to be self-governing as we see fit, according to all of our values and beliefs, in order to protect our rights, our persons, and our property, and that without the slightest hint of needing any Crown our Court or any human authority to grant it or give us permission to do it!
FIRST MISSIVE
Where did you learn that in a state or society you had a right to do as you please?
And that it was an infringement of that right to restrain you? This is a refinement which I dare say, the true sons of liberty despise. Be pleased to be informed that you are bound to conduct yourselves as the Society with which you are joined, are pleased to have you conduct, or if you please, you may leave it. Samuel Adams 1770
Missive TWO
Every Attempt to enforce the plan f Despotism will certainly irritate them; While they have a Sense of freedom they will oppose the Efforts of Tyranny; and altho the Mother Country may at present boast of her Superiority over them, she may perhaps find the Want of that Superiority, when by repeated provocations she shall have totally lost their Affections.TO STEPHEN SAYRE.1 [MS.,
Samuel Adams Papers, Lenox Library.]
BOSTON NOVr 16 1770
MISSIVE THREE
By an Act of this Province made in the fourth year of William & Mary it is enacted, that “when and so often as there shall be Occasion of a Town Meeting for any Business of publick Concernment to the Town there to be done, the Constable or Constables of such Town, by Order of the Selectmen or major Part of them, or of the Town Clerk by their Order in each respective Town within this Province shall warn a Meeting of such Town” &c.2 And by another Act made in the 2 Geo. I. it is enacted that “When and so often as ten or more of the Freeholders of any Town shall signify under their hands to the Selectmen their desire to have any Matter or thing inserted into a Warrant for calling a Town Meeting, the Selectmen are hereby required to insert the same in the next Warrant they shall issue for the Calling a Town Meeting.”3
But were there no such Laws of the Province or should our Enemies pervert these & other Laws made for the same Purpose, from their plain and obvious Intent and Meaning, still there is the great and perpetual Law of Self preservation to which every natural Person or corporate Body hath an inherent Right to recur. This being the Law of the Creator, no human Law can be of force against it: And indeed it is an Absurdity to suppose that any such Law could be made by Common Consent, which alone gives validity to human Laws. If then the
“MATTER OR THING” viz the fixing Salaries to the Offices of the Judges of the Superior Court as aforesaid, was such as threatned the Lives, Liberties and Properties of the People, which we have the Authority of the greatest Assembly of the Province to affirm, The Inhabitants of this or any other Town had certainly an uncontrovertable right to meet together, either in the Manner the Law has prescribed, or in any other orderly Manner, joyntly to consult the necessary Means of their own Preservation and Safety.
REPORT TO THE TOWN OF BOSTON, MARCH 23, 1773.
Politicians love to claim a mandate and often use the term “the American People want…” (fill in the blank). This kind of “speechifying”, at its most basic level, is a “polite” way of saying, “I’m right because The People say I’m right!” It doesn’t matter whether, logically or morally, that politician is right, much less whether or not the People who gave that politician the votes to win REALLY support their whole agenda, or even whether the People are simply tossing out the other politicians who disappointed them!
Today, the new majority party for the House and for State governments overall, the GOP, is sounding not much different in its grandiose claims than the old majority party, the Democrats, who still control the Senate and the White House, and most of the media and education establishment.
Did “the American People” choose one set of ideological principles over another in the 2010 mid-term elections?
In Delaware, the “People” surprised even the Freedomist, with our prediction of an upset based on polling data from multiple sources, and chose a crony capitalist who uses “Progressivism” as a cloak for his, well, cronyism, all because the Democrat controlled media used high school popularity contest tactics, essentially calling his opponent, Christine O’Donnell, “weird.”
Did ALL the voters decide to support the crony insider simply because the media made O’Donnell seem “weird”? NO, many of these voters lean to the Progressive side of the aisle and genuinely believe in limited economic freedom in exchange for public guarantees of their welfare and “freedom from morality.” Most of the Coons voters were, in fact, genuinely voting their ideological tendencies, or at least for their own self-interest (for largesse at public expense) but many of them knew nothing more than that O’Donnell was “weird”, because that’s what their local journolist media SAID she was!
Can the same be said on the other side, that voters rejected Democrats, who took a shellacking in the race for the House and the State gubernatorial races, simply because the media portrayed them as “weird?”
The fact is, the progressive journolists portrayed almost the entire Tea Party movement, and as many of the GOP contenders as they COULD, as “weird.” They did not throw one single punch at the other side. It was as if the only “weird” people were on the side of the aisle that thinks excessive government power over our lives and wealth is itself “weird” in relation to Constitutional norms.
It is not weird, according to this model of weirdness, to think that the commerce clause can pretty much mean anything you want, thus nullifying the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, but it is weird to think, for instance, that fantasying about having sex with someone you’re not married to is the same thing as adultery.
Can you imagine how the Apostle Paul would be treated by the progressive journolists? TALK ABOUT WEIRD!
Harry Reid would talk about how the Apostle Paul said “those who do not work, should not eat” was “callous and insensitive.”
Nancy Pelosi would read the bit about not being “unequally yoked” with sinners as “extreme.”
Ariana Huffington would read where Paul described homosexuals as “reprobates” as “bigoted homophobia.”
Of course, as with the servant, Paul, so with the Master- Jesus Christ Himself would have been just as easily condemned and crucified for his “crimes” by the progressive journolists and their political allies.
Would the progressive journolists crucify Jesus and the Apostles in the Roman way?
No!
For modern crucifixions see the way the progressive journolists treated Juan Williams and how it treats people like Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Joe Miller, and Sarah Palin! Not only do the progressive journolists seek to smear the names of their political opponents, and turn people off by portraying these people as being “weird”, but they are not happy until they have DESTROYED their lives!
Some Americans, enough to be move an election loss for an ideologue whose policies would not in and of themselves gain popular support, were persuaded by the “coolness” argument- the other person is weird, therefore not cool, and so vote for the “cool person.” In Delaware, Nevada, and California, this “coolness” argument may have been enough to propel candidates whose ideology is shared by only 20% of the population into the winner’s circle.
On the other hand, were the candidates who WON, and whose ideology is not unpopular, propelled to power on the basis of their ideology?
Let’s think of it like this. If a trend is wide and broad and deep, than we might safely say that there are factors at work other than purely local factors.
The “coolness” argument is always a local factor, because it relates to how cool, or un-cool a particular candidate is. If you say “they’re ALL un-cool because of their ideology” you now have the problem of talking about that ideology, which, if your ideology is not popular, opens you up to having to talk about your ideology.
In 2010 the progressive journolists and their political friends and allies pretty much tried, on a massive scale, the “coolness argument.” They had some successes and probably limited their losses, and may even have saved the Senate for their CLASS of Progressive Elites.
The other side, those who rejected Progressivism, used the “ideological argument.” They tried to remind people of their opponent’s true Progressive ideology, or how they SUPPORTED that ideology by their votes, and they presented their own ideology, which was remarkably similar across the board.
What did they say?
They said their opponent’s shared or would support the ideology of Progressive Elitism, based on the premise of state-controlled and managed “solutions” coupled with some form of freedom FROM morality (especially in the areas we might consider “carnal pleasure”).
Not all of the winners from the Popular Constitutionalist side of the aisle emphasized the social morality aspect of their opponent’s ideology, but almost ALL pointed out the difference between Progressive Elitism (using terms like “liberal” or “elitism”) and the basic and fundamental ASSUMPTIONS and beliefs of the Founders of this nation.
When the Democrats ran the board in 2008, they DID NOT make an ideological argument- they made a sales pitch for all the goodies they were going give and all the beneficial things they were going to do for each special interest group in their coalition, and they exposed the rank hypocrisy of the GOP, while capitalizing on the fact that the core supporters of the GOP were themselves angry with the compromise of their leaders.
THIS WAS NOT THE CASE IN 2010! The election did not see an emphasis on the “promises to make your life better” argument, in fact the GOP almost never promises any government largesse or benefit and rarely if ever uses the “promises” argument!
In West Virginia, the one “win” the Democrats were most excited about was a product of a campaign that switched from the “coolness argument” in a state that was leaning against the Progressive Elitist Ideology, to a purely ideological argument in which the DEMOCRAT in the race claimed to be in 100% accord with the IDEOLOGY of his opponent!
While the Popular Constitutionalists argued against their opponent’s ideology, and while some also used the argument that their opponent was corrupt (this, notably, failed in Delaware and Nevada), almost all emphasized their own ideology for “lower taxes, less government, more economic freedom, and a return to the principles embodied in the nation’s founding documents.”
When progressive journolists SAY that the GOP did not “have a positive message”, what they mean, in their own code language, is that the GOP did not OFFER any “largesse.” The GOP offered an ideology, of Popular Constitutionalism, and, for the progressive journolists, to NOT make promises of largesse is an alien concept- their Progressive Elitism is not anything if it isn’t at least consistent!
For a Popular Constitutionalist, the very idea of running on a campaign of saying what government can do to make your life better seems like something that only the technocrats of the USSR or Chavez’s Venezuela would do! Government, in the Popular Constitutionalism embedded in our founding documents, and in the hearts of millions, sees government as a protector of rights, persons, and property, from all enemies, foreign or domestic, but relies on people, free associations, the free market, and local communities as the nearly SOLE vehicle and platform for meeting real needs and finding and doing what brings you fulfillment and “happiness.”
(We refer to Popular Constitutionalists as “Freedomists”.)
For Popular Constitutionalists the predominating argument was NOT promises or how corrupt the other side was, or the coolness argument. Exceptions do not prove a rule and, while there were exceptions, and notably the exceptions seemed to fail, the rule was that the GOP overall ran an ideological campaign. They made ideology the center of their argument AGAINST their opponent and FOR themselves, and they promised to follow that ideology if elected.
On that score, not very many of the voters who supported the Democrats were responding to the ideology argument made by the Democrats, because that argument was not made, except amongst the already initiated, in places like the Huffington Post or Daily Kos. We estimate that less than 20% of ALL voters OVERALL supported the Democrats on the basis of their agenda while as many as 40% of ALL voters were motivated by the Popular Constitutionalists’ appeal to ideology.
Of all the supporters of the Democrats, perhaps as many as 30% of their voters were driven by ideology and upwards to 10% by Party ID, 10% by race, and 10% by union affiliation with the remaining 30% being driven by the coolness argument or the promises argument. A more scientific analysis is begging to be done, but these are our initial estimates based in voter turnout, exit polling, and looking at the arguments made by the Democratic candidates and progressive journolists, who overtly appealed to party ID, race, union affiliation, the coolness argument, and the promises argument.
What then of the Popular Constitutionalists who ran under the GOP banner?
Clearly, the independents came over to the side of the GOP. But what is the overall breakdown?
Since 40% of the electorate considers itself a part of or in approval of the Tea Party, and since over 55% of Americans consider themselves to be Conservatives, one can logically assume that of all GOP voters, 80% or so were motivated by the ideological argument. Clearly, almost NONE of the GOP supporters were motivated by union affiliation. How many were motivated by the coolness argument, the promises argument, party ID, or race? That would be harder to sift out, because most all of the GOP’s candidates did not use these other arguments, or, if they did, few of the winners did.
In short, the 2010 mid-term elections were, largely, and demonstrably, the result of a mostly ideological argument for Popular Constitutionalism which the GOP leadership is compelled, ethically, to obey in all of its practices and policies going forward.
While the progressive journolists and their political allies will try and SAY GOP voters in the 2010 mid-terms were not motivated by ideology and were motivated by base motives, like race or the coolness argument, or even ignorance, the facts don’t bear this out. The Popular Constitutionalists who WON did not overtly or in any covert or indirect way make such appeals as were made by the Progressive Elite candidates who used race, union affiliation, party ID, the coolness argument, and the promises argument so often, and often exclusively, in their public communications.
The plain facts are clear- less than 20% of Americans embraced the Progressive Elitist Ideology, over 40% embraced the Popular Constitutionalist Ideology. Less than 25% of Americans gave support to Progressive Elitists because they wanted to see the Progressives fulfill promises of some kind for parochial reasons. More than 15% of Americans agreed that Popular Constitutionalism was in their interest for various reasons. IN SHORT- most Americans explicitly rejected the Progressive Elitist Ideology, while most embraced or accepted the Popular Constitutionalist Ideology!
Of course, the facts will not get in the way of progressive journolists who are just as happy to lie and make things up as to take any real morsel of controversy and turn it into a public crucifixion!
Freedom Takers Versus THE PEOPLE as Freedom Makers!
A Forward Looking Narrative
…if and when a civilization begins to lose its creative power, the people below its surface and beyond its borders….begin to resist assimilation with the result that the society…becomes divided against itself by sharp lines of distinction between a dominant minority and an internal and external proletariat. The minority, having lost the power to influence and attract, begins to impose itself by force. The proletariat, inwardly alienated, remains in, but not of, the disintegrating society until the disintegration has gone so far that the dominant minority can no longer suppress the efforts of the proletariat to secede. On the act of secession, at length accomplished, a new society is conceived.
Aronld Toyndee
A Study Of History (unabridged)
Volume I PP 187-188
Throughout history the most fundamental battle has been between the freedom making aspiration that comes from godliness and the freedom taking aspirations that come from godlessness. No nation, society, and or civilization has been perfectly godly or perfectly godless. Still, the greatest creative powers of any People are achieved at their most godly state, when they are consciously seeking and doing the truth of heaven on earth, as much as they can know it. The decline of a People, which begins as and when it loses its creative power, is closely linked to a decline in godliness and an increase in godlessness.
The student of history, sociology, psychology, and politics must admit, if they survey recorded human history, that freedom stands on the foundation of virtue, thrift, and independence.
Freedom is the power of participation on a more or less equal and meritorious basis where there is a balance between such ideals as Unity in diversity, Popular sovereignty, Democratic equality, and the Rule of law. At the root of Freedom, the People Rule, but with an approved wisdom that transcends their limited experiences.
Freedom stands solidly on virtues that work for the good of all most all the time. It is practiced by a thrift that is self-sustaining and that is openly competitive and yet also cooperative in a balance between the common good and individual initiative. Freedom requires a citizenry that has an independence that is based on self-expression, self-reliance, and a self-governance that takes decision-making power more away from the central authority and more towards individuals, private associations and smaller communities.
Godliness, which produces freedom, is not just the moral code as it applies to “sex”, as some whose education should have taught them better seem to have mistaken it. Godliness is described as “religion” in the Book of James in the New Testament where it says, “pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this- to visit the widows and orphans, and to keep himself unspotted from the present world-reality.”
Quite simply, godliness is an attitude, not brought on by coercion or force but by a willing heart alone. It is a lining up of one’s life choices and way of life with the laws of God and His Creation, of serving the higher things before the lower things, and of giving of yourself, first to your own and then to others, before giving them to yourself.
Because godliness demands excellence, the godly seek knowledge and experience and new insights.
Because godliness demands some form of holiness, the godly are not fooled by slick marketing and rhetoric when they are asked to accept things that just aren’t useful to the whole of the people.
Finally, because godliness demands not focusing on the “lower needs” of your human flesh before focusing on higher needs for others and then yourself, the godly are not tempted by promises of gain without sacrifice, actions without consequences, or safety through surrender of their freedoms.
Freedom Action News- Join
In a disintegrating society, ruled by the freedom takers who stand atop the pyramid of Western Civilization, the citizen of the lowest class, which Latin word is proletariat and which is quoted by Toynbee above, begin to come to two simple and powerful realizations;
WE ARE DIFFERENT- this proletariat, or “country class”, realize that the minority, or “ruling class”, who control the levers of power in their society have different beliefs and interests than the “country class” and that, what is more, those beliefs and interests are not compatible with one another
WE ARE MORE- the country class realize that they are more numerous and that everything good and useful in society comes from them; they realize that they are truly the wealth creators; they realize that they are truly the majority, not the riling class, and they see through the propaganda in schools and the media that has painted the beliefs of the country class as “outside the mainstream” where the “mainstream” is merely what the majority of the ruling class believe
The awakening of the country class to the reality that they truly are different than the ruling class and that they truly have more numbers and more real power AT THE POINT OF CREATION, comes even as there is a growing realization that there cannot be any real peaceful co-existence between the ruling class, its interests, and its beliefs, and the country class, its interests, and its beliefs.
Either the ruling class, its interests, and its beliefs must be set aside or the country class will lose its freedom and its very way of life so that future generations will not even know what the beliefs of the People were!
This is a point of great moment in the history of a People or a Nation, when the “People” become conscious of their status as BENEATH the contempt of the people who hold the levers of power. This is the point where the People go from being “subjects” who wish for freedom to sovereigns in their own right who think and act as FREEDOM MAKERS, not wanting or waiting for the approval or permission of the ruling class or the institutions that class might control.
When the People realize fully that the ruling class are Freedom Takers things begin to change from within.
The People see that they must be Freedom Makers on their own.
They realize they must ignore the wishes of the elite minority who try to tell them that their beliefs and way of life are “extreme” or “not mainstream” or “crazy” or “barbaric.”
This begins an “inner secession” away from the institutions controlled by the elite minority as People Powered institutions, whether official or unofficial, form up and begin to allow the People to do for themselves that which they no longer trust the ruling class and its institutions to do for them.
We are reaching such a point in Western Civilization, here on these shores, where the Ruling Class, what some call “The Political Class”, are so lording themselves over the People and yet so out of harmony with their needs, beliefs, and aspirations that it is creating a massive rift that is not able to be mended.
We see this in how the Political Class says that the country is heading in the right direction, by 67%, while the People say it is not, by 84%!
(SEE: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2010/67_of_political_class_say_u_s_heading_in_right_direction_84_of_mainstream_disagrees)
Freedom Action News- Join
When the media types or college professors or politicians talk about something being “mainstream”, they are looking only at the limited world they live in, a world populated by only around 7% of the population, but who are concentrated in government, the fortune 500, academia, the media, and the judiciary. So, the views of 7% of the population, which are far different than the views of the People, are portrayed as “mainstream” while the views of the majority are portrayed as “not mainstream” or even as “extreme.”
While the vast majority of the People want society to uphold marriage as between one man and one woman and not to encourage alternative forms of marriage with benefits and privileges that are limited to the family (as society’s means of preserving its most basic institution) the Political Class are for such a form of “marriage” as would not be recognizable to human civilizations going back to the beginning of human history.
The upshot of this is that the People’s views on this are constantly depicted as “extreme” or even “right wing” by the Political Class who OWN the media and academia and use them not to inform or edify but to confuse, deceive, and brainwash the People!
Over and over, the Political Class in the media and academia pull out the label “extreme”, “rightwing” and even “dangerous” when referring to beliefs or policy goals that are cherished by the majority of the People. Like any efficient ruling elite, they refuse to even acknowledge that their views are the ones viewed as extreme by the People. They even act as if the People only disagree with the ruling class because the People are victims of bad information, so they try to control the information as best they can, to ensure that only the “right” information gets out.
If you want to see people keep what they earn or invest in, you are “for the rich”, never mind that the people who are saying this are often far richer than the people they are accusing of being for the rich, as we see with the Coons-O’Donnell race in Delaware where a member of the Political Class who is filthy rich, and that, near as we can see, by the advantages of his position in government, accuses a candidate who is far from rich of being “for the rich.” One wonders how such a charade could get past a group of school children, until on realizes who often teaches those children- servants of the ruling class!
Freedom takers have always been with us, and they will never go away, and each time they come at us with a new bag of tricks and a new line of “reasonings” that seem to promise more and more with less and less cost and with more freedom taking consequences than the last run at their brand of “freedom FROM godliness.”
At this time, in America, the Freedom Takers are only now starting to see that their cushy life is in jeopardy, they see that the People are moving past the lies and the propaganda to become freedom makers and assert their own sovereign existence as free people! The inner secession from the political class and its freedom taking ideas, agenda, and institutions has already begun!
A comprehensive and broad Freedomism based on Virtue, Independence, and Sustainability
A very local approach that establishes thousands of 20-120 member “Clubs” to transform their locale into a Freedom Haven
A free-market model as opposed to a charity model so that people pay for and get something of value and if they invest and work they get the credit and the reward
Freedomism, Freedom Havens, and the Free Market are the path forward to a revived and extended American Free Republic!
It’s time to go beyond the protests and the traditional politics that merely try to mimick the anti-Freedomists in their successes, such as Daily Kos and Move On, it’s time to go for greater breadth, greater depth, and for a free market approach!
As founding members of such groups as DontGo and Top Conservatives On Twitter, precursors and launchers of the Tea Party movement, we Freedomists know a thing or two about guerrila warfare in the information revolution that is transforming the world. We know that each movement is meant to lead to the next, we know that the Tea Party movement must grow into something more like an army, completely independent of the establishment’s leaders, money, power, and infrastructure.
We are moving forward, beyond narrow libertinism, toward greater local action, and away from the non-free market “charity” model towards a free market model.
The Tea Party movement has three major weaknesses which the next evolution of Freedomists must overcome- a lack of breadth due to narrow libertinism, a lack of depth due to its national aproach, and a lack of free market support due to its “charity” model.
Overcoming The Lack of Breadth- A Comprehensive Freedomism
Where the Tea Parties claim to be strong, however, is their greatest point of weakness. The infusion of libertinism, which is afraid of social issues like marriage and being pro-life or the need for moral standards even in public life, into some “Tea Party” groups is rendering them socially and culturally irrelevent and no movement has ever become a powerful force for transformation that ignores social and cultural transformation and reformation!
Morals matter, whoever says you can have freedom without virtue is as unintelligable as someone who claims you can have water without hydrogen!
Freedom is the power of participating in the decision-making process by which your life, your community, your culture, your free associations, your society, and your state and nation are governed.
Freedom consists of three key elements, each of which must be present: Virtue, Independence, and Sustainability.
Virtue is nothing more or less than a common or shared socio-cultural standard of conduct and ethic. This virtue is something that serves the common good, is reflective of the sentiments, values, and beliefs of the people, is life and family affirming, creates positive and responsible children, is something that leads to positive results for most all people most of the time, and it is created by consensus amongst the People as opposed to being imposed from outside of above.
Independence is your autonomy as a sovereign individual within your community, your free association, and your nation: by it you participate in consensual self-governance, you speak freely, vote, petition, protect yourself, you worship, you enjoy equality of and due respect for your rights, your person, and your property as well as protection of these things from all violators, be they foreign or domestic, be they private and criminal or public and official.
Sustainability is material and economic self-reliance within a freely competitive marketplace that is self-sustaining for generations in a manner that allows for a balance between all the needs and duties of mankind to their conscience, to themselves, to their progeny, to the Creation around them, and to one another.
The narrow focus on free markets, government corruption, government spending, and excessive regulation fails to so substantially alter the social culture that, in turn, the political culture can be transformed not just for the next election cycle but for generations to come!
This total transformation can only happen by restoring and extending the fundamental beliefs and principles upon which the nation was founded.
Freedomists know that we must lead with the most important things; our moral convictions which affirm life, marriage, childhood in its innocence, basic decency and honesty, healthful lifestyle choices, and the sentiments and affections of the People (instead of the ideology of a radical fringe who control the national media and education establishments).
Overcoming The Lack of Depth- Building Very Local Freedom Havens
The narrow focus of the Tea Parties is one weakness (a lack of breadth), but this weakness, which in and of itself is critical, is compounded by the national-only focus (lack of depth).
While national politics is where it seems all the glory is, local politics is where all the power is, and “local” is where the anti-Freedomists are weakest- your locale is the achilles heel of the anti-Freedomists!
The Tea Party is not systematically engaged in creating fundamental social, cultural, economic, and political transformation at the “very” local level, down to comunities of 10,000 to 70,000 where 20 to 120 organized citizens with the right tools, knowledge and etc. can quite literally come to dominate the social, cultural, economic, and political environment within 3-6 months if they work in a consistent, unified, and disciplined manner.
This is a two-pronged approach: adding breadth with a lead focus on virtue, independence, and sustainability and adding depth with a focus on mobilizing and organizing people at the very local level. The advantages of such an approach are many, but most fundamentally this approach brings real benefits to the practitioners immediately and it allows for the creation of very local “freedom havens” which are the best defense against abuses by state and federal governments which are not yet under Popular control by Freedomists.
The anti-Freedomists wish that you would ignore this and buy into the lie that morals don’t matter and should be avoided while national politics are where the real action is. They know two things- morals are the best defense against arbitrary rule because they hedge everyone in by common standards consented to from below and not from above and the anti-Freedomists know that they control most all the national institutions but almost none of the local institutions, so they’d rather keep the battle focused on the field where they have all the advantages.
Overcoming The Charity Model- Using The Free Market To Defend The Free Market
Today, we see big money coming in to steer the Tea Party Movement in the direction a few rich donors or legacy organizations want it to go towards. Perhaps this is the reason for the squeemishness about social issues, perhaps this is the reason why the focus is on national issues, and perhaps this is the reason why free market principles are violated and even shunned as if providing a product or service to better inform or equip citizen can’t or shouldn’t be a for profit endeavor.
Our emphasis has not changed since 1992: Kross Publishing sells products and services that enhance citizen’s ability and potential to make their own stand for their own freedom in their own home towns! We take our own stands and invest ourselves in the fight for Freedom without getting paid or, often, without getting or seeking recognition, but we do not believe “charity” is the best or exclusive way to defend a fre market or Freedom in general.
Our approach, which is a program we sell on the free market (we defend the free market best by actually using it), is to market a “very local” franchise of The Freedomist, including a Freedom Club and a local digital Newspaper, that will provide the information, skill training, resources, support, and governance needed to bring together and support 20-120 Freedomists who will use the power of the Freedom Press to transform their locale into a Freedom Haven within 3-6 months!
For the franchisees, the local Freedom Club owners, there is an opportunity to earn supplemental income while taking back your part of the country from the anti-Freedomists.
Our role is to create and supply the tools, information, infrastructure, training, and ongoing support that local Club Captains will need and to market this service until we have at least one Club Captain located within every single US Congressional District plus a few in DC itself and in Puerto Rico.
This is a very different approach from the top-down, non-profit approach- people pay to get something of tangible value and they invest in building a support structure to help freedom seeking citizens become more informed and more effective, something people are willing to pay for, instead of giving without getting anything back and working only to see others take the credit and pocket the money!
What we see now are Tea Party groups using essentially anti-Freedomist economic principles instead of relying on the same free market they claim to defend.
Freedomists put their money where their mouth is- we believe in the free market therefore we use free market principles and methods to defend it!
It’s that simple.
With the Freedomist, if you subscribe, buy a product, or invest in a franchise you get what you pay for and if you do invest, you get the recognition and the reward, not somebody else.
I Am Freedomist, Are You?
Do you believe Freedom is based on Virtue, Independence, and Self-Reliance? Do you believe that “local is where the power is?” Do you believe we should rely on the free market and not just charity to defend the Free Market? Through Freedomism, Freedom Havens, and the Free Market we can take back America from the anti-Freedomists!
Do you to take America back from the anti-Freedomists?
If you do, then you have options, and NO you do not have to pay just to be able to say “I Am Freedomist”- we don’t believe in charity only but we choose to not restrict Freedom seekers from becoming empowered based on their ability to pay- we want to give ALL Americans, including rich and poor, an equal shot at becoming Freedomists!
Do you want to go beyond the Tea Party and actually have a way to earn income while working to take back your part of America from the anti-Freedomists?
A local franchise for a region of around 50,000 people costs $600 per year and gives you the tools, knowledge, and resources you need to develop and profit from a local Freedom Club of 20-120 members and a local “Freedomist” digital newspaper with anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 paid subscribers.
It does get better, however, as we will be setting up some 100 “super franchises” each with up to 20 regional franchises and 100 local franchises as well its own “Home Club.” These franchise licenses will cost $1800 per year plus a marketing invesment of $500.
Do you want to stay updated on Freedomist news and what Freedomists are doing to take back America from the anti-Freedomists? You can do that for FREE by simply registering you name, city and state, and your email address with freedomist.com/register and we will set up an account for you at no charge.
As a free user, you will receive offers, but nobody will get your information- advertisers can pay to send information which we will send, nobody can rent or buy lists from us. If you want this information ad-free with extra updates only for our paid subscribers, we offer an annual subscription for $60 per year (you can pay it in 12 installments of $5 each) or you can try it for 90 days at $25.
So let’s recap how you can use and benefit from The Freedomist:
Free- register and get news and updates with special offers from advertisers
Subscribe- get ad-free updates, and more in-depth reports, all for $60 a year in 12 installments, or pay one-time $47 and save over 20%, or pay $25 for a 90 day plan.
Franchises- the local franchise is $600 per year, payable in 12 monthly installments of $50, in 4 installments of $135 (10% discount) or one-time at $480 (20% discount)
Super Franchise- $500 marketing fee up front with an annual cost of $1800 payable in 12 installments of $150 (save 20% by paying $1440)
Our readers include some of the most important “opinion shapers” online, including the left and the right, and our stories often impact the narrative at the national level, but our PREMIUM subscribers get MORE and know more FIRST than anybody else! (See below for an opportunity to become a premium subscriber), and feel free to check out the latest round of links to our site to see who’se talking about what our readers KNOW FIRST!
jason330
saying, “The Forum’s program attempts to address Africa and …”
admin
saying, “There’s quite a kerfuffle brewing in the conservat …”
Rick Moore
saying, “Some conservatives are supporting Mike Castle over …”
Lonely Conservative
saying, “Would the conservatives arguing about the power of …”
Dan
saying, “They say neurotics build sand castles and psychoti …”
Dan
saying, “One of the things that has always struck me as int …”
Thers
saying, “Delaware and the GOP need fresh blood: Christine O …”
Michelle Malkin
saying, “Huffington Post desperate to take down Glenn Beck …”
Marc
saying, “Mike Castle is not ashamed of his Cap and Trade su …”
Dr. Glen Barry linked here
saying, “So has conservative kingmaker Sarah Palin endorsed …”
Ralph Benko, one of the premiere leaders within the online political community, author of The Websters’ Dictionary at http://www,thewebstersdictrionary.com, says of the Freedomist “these boys are Ninjas online and I count myself a DAILY reader of the freedomist!”
Federal Government Could INSTANTLY Create 2 Million jobs!
The average annual compensation costs for federal civilian workers is over $120,000, over twice the average annual cost for private sector workers.
{{{*}}}
The Freedomist has a simple proposal: reduce the annual budget for ALL civilian Federal employees by 50%: let people who don’t want to stay go out and find a new job, but reduce the Federal Civilian payroll budget by 50% immediately. Once this is done, take all the money saved and give a “tax credit” to employers who have fewer than 500 employees for every new employee hired within the last 18 months and for the next 12 months and for a 5 year period.
We’re talking a cool $120 BILLION a year for 5 years to help small businesses employ 2 million ADDITIONAL Americans!
{{bronze}}
Of course, the unions for these public workers won’t hear a bit of it and their cronies in the Democratic Party who need those 2 million votes won’t hear any of it, so this is a proposal that just doesn’t have legs with the people who REALLY run the country: the UNIONS!
Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!
Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here
