Sunday, March 11, 2012

Report on Democrat-Socialist Agenda

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment I to the Articles of the Constitution of the United States of America
In June of 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a “Committee of Five” assigned to draft a declaration addressing grievances against the King of England and announce a declaration of independence as decided by the representatives of each of the thirteen colonies' conventions. The committee consisted of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut. It was decided within that committee that Thomas Jefferson write the first draft i and had to do so within seventeen days. Jefferson consulted other members of the Continental Congress, as well as John Adams as promised to committee members. 
The draft copy of the declaration document was presented to Congress on June 28th, 1776 and took two days to edit Jefferson's accomplishment, which reduced the writing to about one fourth of its original content. Jefferson had written a portion that asserted that Britain had forced slavery on the colonies, but it was removed in order to obtain support from persons in Britain who were for the colonies independence. Jefferson wrote in his diaries and in letters that Congress had “mangled” his draft version, but finally conceded with the majority that the Declaration of Independence was completed. After several days of voting for the resolution of independence, to include Thomas Jefferson's critical passage of the slave trade, ii which he still resented, the wording of the Declaration of Independence was approved and sent to the printer for publication, to include 56 signatures on July 4th, 1776 – which has become the day set aside for the celebration of the anniversary of the birth of the United States of America. 
In 1787, at the State House in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence had been signed 11 years earlier, 55 delegates from several states met for four months to produce a Constitution for a nation of 13 colonies that had become 13 states of the United States of America. The meeting was called the Constitutional Convention. The youngest signer was Edward Rutledge, age 26 and the oldest signer was Benjamin Franklin, age 70.
At the close of the convention and all the notes had been recorded by James Madison, the meeting was adjourned having successfully produced the “law of the land” and decision made as to what form of government was to be adopted. A lady passing by saw Benjamin Franklin ad asked:
What have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?
To which Benjamin Franklin replied:
While one of the most perfect documents in human history had been completed and signed on that day, meant to last and adapt to changing conditions, it remains as a document that supports limited government – and when the amendments (the first ten) were included, it solidified in writing the rights and liberties of American citizens as well as the rights of the state governments that had united into a Union that has never been successfully duplicated. iii
The infiltration of socialist and communist political organizations from the 1930s, when labor unions sponsored by those organizations were established and on into the 1960s, when America was experiencing a cultural change – the Constitution had remained a solid foundation up to that point to ensure that rights and liberties are guaranteed. During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, has temporarily discontinued Habeas Corpus in the name of “national security” of the Union, which had been split by the succession of states that had formed the Confederate States of America. After the Civil War, those rights were reinstated. The American Civil War had caused a temporary subtraction of a right provided by the Constitution and its amendments, but it was also a time when it was declared that slavery was no longer legal and slaves were emancipated, while being officially freed by adding the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
In the 1960s, America's colleges and universities were infiltrated by socialist and communist organizations, and although during this period the 13th Amendment was further enhanced by the Civil Rights Act, it was a period when it seemed students spent more time demonstrating against the government rather than studying. It too was a revolution, but one of ideas.
While ideas are not dangerous in itself, the concepts of socialism and communism is not conducive to the Constitution of the United States of America in the check-and-balance (separation of powers) system of government or the written guarantee of the rights and liberties of the American citizen. Those separation of powers is what created a republic instead of a democratic monarchy from the beginning and what kept America great – freedom of enterprise, property rights, et cetera. Yet, during the 1960s, those same radicals who didn't just want to change the ideology of society towards issues of racism and true equality – but also wanted its government to change its ideology.
Those “radicals” used the articles of the Constitution and, specifically, the amendments of the Constitution to reinforce their political posture. One of those most frequently cited was the First Amendment, transcribed at the heading of this article.
During the presidency of Barack H. Obama, who is still being legally questioned over the possible falseness of his birth certificate that states he was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born in Kenya; as well as his disregard towards the Constitution of the United States – only complying when it suits his and his supporter's agenda. Indeed, a Supreme Court Justice, appointed by Bill Clinton, during a foreign TV interview dismissed the Constitution of the United States and suggested that it be revised and/or rescinded as a “modern document”.
Such is the case of the infamous Jane Fonda, a person who cheered the likes of communist Mao in the 1960s and 1970s, was part of communist-backed demonstrations and organizations, and who literally committed treason against members of the US Armed Forces serving in Vietnam and the interests of the United States of America – has proven that she has never changed. Jane Fonda boycotted and demonstrated against the “establishment” in the 1970s, taking on the political propaganda tool of anti-capitalism, and then married Ted Turner, one of the wealthiest men (and anti-Christian) in America, who has since sought to change his attitude toward Christians. Jane Fonda has been a consistent anti-American iv and a model of the hypocrisy of those who identified themselves as “progressive” - the “new liberal democrats”.
In a CNN opinion website, Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Stein v submitted a complaint against Rush Limbaugh for his “hate speech” and requested that the FCC not renew his license and remove him from the airwaves.
I warned folks that those whoever supported hate crime laws would eventually attempt to establish hate speech laws – and this is a “told ya so” statement. Briefly retrospective, hate crime laws make no sense because violent acts are against the law already – and adding to the punishment of a violent crime for something someone “thinks about” or “though of” or “possibly thought of” is not within the framework of what America and its Constitution is all about. It is a political tool established by Marxism and used by tyrants since.
It is all over the incident between Rush Limbaugh and a Georgetown law student over her insistence that she is “entitled” to free contraceptives provided by the university (government taxpayers). Mr. Limbaugh had used derogatory language and made a public apology – which cost him some sponsors for his show and now three “Femi-Nazi” women are calling for the FCC to put him off the air.
Meanwhile, nothing is said, as is the usual case with progressive democrat-socialists, about Bill Maher, Chris Matthews and other leftist talking heads who have performed the same detrimental “hate speech” against women like Sarah Palin. Being a woman, does not Sarah Palin count with the Women's Liberation Movement's protection? She's a woman, right?
If the FCC is to revoke the license to operate on the airwaves of Rush Limbaugh, than so must Bill Maher, Chris Matthews and other “hate speech” pundits and talking heads. Even the popular Steven Cobert whose televised Cobert Report of Comedy Central is a big hit would have to be involved, along with comedy performers and whistle blowers sarcasm like NewsBusted and maybe this website.
Hate Crime Laws are wrong because they punish criminals for what they think, not what they do – there are already laws on the books for crimes of violence, which a normal person would conclude that a person certainly must hate that person or persons they commit a violent act against. Such laws must be stricken from the books and all legislation by the federal government push the delete button.
That makes this a fitting time to inquire of his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech. Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc., which hosts Limbaugh's program, has defended his recent comments. If Clear Channel won't clean up its airways, then surely it's time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh's show in fact using their licenses "in the public interest?" … This isn't political. While we disagree with Limbaugh's politics, what's at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he's really "doing humor" or "entertainment." He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people's airways.
Fonda/Steinem wrote “This isn't political” - a definite contradiction to their actions in the past and present.
Hate Crime Laws lead to Hate Speech Laws – and that is what we have here, at least in the progressive stage. Other nations have established such laws already in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chili and the Council of Europe (European Union). In the past two decades, at least, there has been a movement that America change itself – both politically and socially towards the political ideology of Europe, when it has proven not to be in favor of individual freedom and dismisses several rights that have been established by our Constitution. It is because there has been an infiltration of what is called the political left whose agenda is to turn America into a democratic-socialist state who favors nannyism, the Marxist collectivism, and altering the Constitution and its amendments – policies and laws that made America a free and great nation. There are Americans who would change the concept of America being the model to follow to an America that follows the road to financial ruin, like what happened to the Soviet Union and what is going on with the European Union at the present time.
A reformation revolution is in order – and it is the type that is a social revolution and a political one: (1) socially, America must reform itself. People must bring back important values that must be taught to their children (not by the government, run by progressives) and return the sanctity of marriage and the responsibilities of being a parent – two parents, for each have an important role in parenting; (2) politically, we need to revert back to a constitutional republic, a Jeffersonian republic, that protects not dissects, and enforces laws because they were legislated, not because it fits a particular political agenda. The Rule of Law must override the Rule of Men.
It is not up to the FCC to decide or perform any action; however, there are still defamation laws on the books that the Georgetown law student that instigated the Fonda/Steinem demand that the FCC take Limbaugh off the air. So, file a complaint with a hired lawyer, or the Georgia law student can file it, and take Limbaugh to court – and let the judge/jury decide.
Rush, like myself, have stated in the past that along with freedom of choice, there is the responsibility to accept the consequences. I understand that Limbaugh let his emotion override his senses – frustrated at the audacity of an American citizen thinking that Americans have the right under constitutional law of entitlements.
Yes, American citizens have the First Amendment to guarantee freedom of speech; however, it does not guarantee that what one says is either correct or socially acceptable in terms of defamation or wrongfully accusing someone of something. It also does not demand that everyone must agree with someone who declares freedom of speech.
In an troubling time when an American Supreme Court Justice disavows her sworn allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and others demand that it be rewritten vi – their underlying reasons not being conducive toward individual liberty, a limited government, or a free nation.
When GW Bush was president, he was depicted and called a Nazi; yet these women and others who have pushed their way into the framework of our educational and government system – are asking our government to act like the Gestapo (IRS and Department of Treasury already has that role) and develop government control of the media via FCC. The mainstream media is already bias and only provides what they want the people to know and insist upon the public thinking in their lines of thought – it is another factor in the progressive degradation of the American republic and what it originally stood for.
Yes, Mr. Franklin, you were not being pessimistic when you said - “It's a republic, if you can keep it.” But it was right on the money.
It is up to “We the People” to demand the proper reformation of our government. It is also up to them as to who operates it on our behalf. Blame can certainly be placed upon those in Washington, DC and our state capitols for the woes brought upon America, as well as the state of the Union; however, the gist of the issue falls upon American citizens – you and I – We the People.
So, what are you going to do about it?
Put more time and effort and don't be apathetic. There are those you have elected (or didn't elect) that are legislating your liberties away and governing your personal lives in one form or another; as well as elected officials who seem to think that Constitution should only be obeyed or thought of as an authority when it suits their political and ideological agenda.
Wake up America – the clock is ticking and one day you might wake up when it is too late to reform anything.
The Rules of Law are for everyone – not just the established elite.
Shock the establishment within the two traditional parties – ensure that Ron Paul is on the national political ticket to run against Obama. Otherwise, I am afraid he has stacked the cards in his favor, and will win another four years. And the way he acts against the Constitution, it may be very well a LONG term – beyond the required two terms. All it takes is for the government to either disregard or change the rules. The rules have already been changed because evidence points strongly that Obama's birth certificate was indeed a forgery or doctored document, and other facts indicate he was not born in the United States.
I said it before and will say it again – all candidates who register to run for the office of senator, representative and especially the President of the United States (and his cabinet members) should undergo the same full background check I had to undergo when I applied for a Top Secret clearance in the military. After all, those individuals probably see more sensitive material than I did – especially the President of the United States and his cabinet.
Food for thought here.
Enuff said, for now. vii


i Initially the committee thought that John Adams should write the draft, but John Adams persuaded them to choose Jefferson and promised to consult with Jefferson to prepare the draft of the declaration.
ii Maier, Pauline; American Scripture, pp. 146-150.
iii The European Union is a geo-political entity that began as six state members and grew to 27 European states. While its principles mirror that of the uniting of the thirteen colonies into thirteen separate states under a federal authority, its ideology is distinct from ideas of federation, confederation, or customs union and whose foundation was principally to make war unthinkable and materially impossible – originally conceived by treaties passed in 1951 and committees formed between 1958 and 1972. The European Union Constitution was not signed until 2004, two years after the “euro” replaced twelve national currencies of member states of the EU. Most difficulties with the union of the European states has been economically.
iv “anti-American” in the sense that she, like other Democratic Progressives, Socialists, and Communists in America have sided with enemies of freedom and liberty, going beyond any legitimate complaint concerning policies of the United States government as well as promoting social engineering through legislation that conform to ideology and political policies that would alter or even rescind the Constitution of the United States.
v All three women are part of the Women’s Liberation Movement.
vi Amendments were added for a reason, as well as future amendments be allowed if a two-thirds majority agrees and a majority of states ratify that amendment. Therefore, the Constitution can be amended as periods in history or situations call for it – bu t it cannot be changed just because of a social issue or a political ideology that has an agenda to change America from a constitutional republic to a nanny-socialist state.
vii “Enuff” is not misspelled or a “typo” – it's the way I feel it should be spelled – I am also in rebellion against the manner in which we speak and write the English language. Also, it is just an insert of humor --- so please don't write to me and correct this use of the word and its spelling.

1 comment:

  1. I’m not certain if you are aware that certain "communist" activities are prohibited by the following U.S. Codes…………

    50 USC Chapter 23, Subchapter IV - COMMUNIST CONTROL
    § 841. Findings and declarations of fact§ 842. Proscription of Communist Party, its successors, and subsidiary organizations§ 843. Application of Internal Security Act of 1950 to members of Communist Party and other subversive organizations; "Communist Party" defined§ 844. Determination by jury of membership in Communist Party, participation, or knowledge of purpose
    If you take the time to read through the provisions of these LAWS realize that actions taken under the "color" of the authority of Guv’mnt Offices constitute the "use of force".