Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

-Arguing With Idiots by Glenn Beck

One of the main beliefs of progressives in government is that they know what’s best for you, even when you disagree and this has been true from the beginning of the progressive movement in America in the early 1900’s. Case in point: prohibition. However, that’s not the only attempt on the part of progressive ideology to protect people from their own stupidity. Laws that require you to wear a seat belt, trying to outlaw smoking, war on trans-fats and other unhealthy foods, etc. are excellent examples of well-intentioned progressives telling you how to live your lives for the ‘greater good.’ The main problem with this can be stated very simply: Government is not meant to protect you from yourself. There is no mandate found within the Constitution or the writings of our founders for this responsibility to fall on government, but that holds little importance with progressives. Obama’s statement on the Constitution eloquently and plainly states how they wish to change the very nature of our Constitution and thereby the responsibilities of government:

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society…. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution … that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change…. I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through courts… The Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day … The Framers had that same blind spot … the fundamental flaw of this country.”

-Barack Obama 2001

So according to Obama the fundamental flaw of this country is that our founders did not incorporate a charter of positive liberties that enumerate what the government must do on your behalf. Maybe Mr. Obama needs to take a closer look at our founder’s attitude towards government:

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” Thomas Paine

“Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” William Pitt, 1783

“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson

I could go on and on with scores of quotes showing that the overall attitude held by our founders towards government was not a very positive one. The fact that the founders did not enumerate what the “government must do on your behalf” was not a “blind spot,” they intentionally enumerated only what government cannot do to the people because the government does not create freedom or liberty, it only destroys it. That’s why Thomas Jefferson didn’t say that all men are endowed by their government; he said “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Our rights do not come from government, they come from God, but this is not what our current government would have you believe. They wish to create a public that is dependent on government because it increases their power. In fact, our founders did give government a charter of positive liberties enumerating what government must do on our behalf:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Declaration of Independence

According to our founders, governments are instituted among men to secure and protect Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. But is our government doing that? Life has been so devalued in this country, that it is not only acceptable for a mother to murder her child before birth, but that she can receive funds from the government to do it! Liberty has been persecuted and chipped away at for the majority of our country’s existence. You can hardly do anything without Uncle Sam’s permission now. Our founders took these three rights (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) from John Locke except he used Life, Liberty and Property. Our founders changed it from property so that slavery wouldn’t have as strong of a foothold in our founding documents. So how well is government protecting your property? After the 78,000 page tax code, eminent domain, welfare, and other redistributive programs, your property can hardly even be considered solely yours. Ok so our government has failed on all three accounts. What did Mr. Jefferson say would be necessary in this situation?

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It is not only the responsibility of We the People to alter or abolish this government to secure these inalienable rights, but it is our Right! So as the Nanny State continues to grow and infringe on more and more of our rights, we must halt its progress and begin to lay the foundation of a government that would secure Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Not only would they take over GM and fire the first guy, the president would fire a CEO but then the second individual that they put in place of the first guy, he would be fired and the guy they replaced, this is the third now person under Barack Obama’s term, the third CEO of General Motors. No one in the media would report that that guy is the man who helped Rahm Emanuel make $16 million in one deal.

If I told you that there would be a 9/11 Truther, a guy who said the United States government blew up those buildings, a self avowed communist, a guy who is speaking in prison anti-cop, who defended a guy who point blank shot a cop in the head, if I said he would be a high level advisor to the president of the United States, would you believe it?

If I said the president would come out in a speech and say I have absolutely no information but the cops acted stupidly because they caught a friend of the president appearing to break into his own home.  The cops didn’t act stupidly, they just did their job and the president would never apologize.  Instead he would invite them all for a beer summit and use it as a learning experience about diversity, would you believe it?

If I would have told you instead of saying you won’t recognize this country a year from now, if I instead told you that Glenn Beck is going to be on the cover of Time magazine, would you have believed it?  That he’s going to be one of the ten most fascinating people in 2009, you’ve got to ask yourself what the hell happened to this country.

If I would have told you instead that the most frequent visitor of the White House, over the Secretary of State and everybody else, is a labor union president who has repeatedly said “workers of the world unite;” and “we know we’ve got a lot of illegal members, illegal aliens in our membership, and who chief guy said, yeah, but we also represent American workers.”  That he would be the most frequent visitor at the White House, would you have believed it?

That the president of the EU would say that 2009 was the year of establishing a global government through the EU and that the climate change treaty would be the next step in one world government.  That there would be a call for the end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency by several massive countries and that the leader of Russia would hold up a coin in front of the cameras and say here’s a prototype of the new global currency.

That in government structured bailouts, bondholders would lose their legal status and their investments in favor of labor union payoffs and the courts would say, “Hmmm, yeah, okay.” That you could lose your home and property through eminent domain and eminent domain would expand in staggering ways.

That California would decide to levy a 10% tax on its people and insist it’s not a tax; it’s just a forced loan. That they would issue IOUs instead of tax refunds. That New York would say by the end of the year they would be broke. That New York would issue retroactive taxes that a tax fund for the poorest of Americans would not really be a tax refund. Instead those poorest of Americans would find out many months later that they had to pay income tax on that tax refund.

If I told you that the symbol of capitalism, the Empire State building, would be lit in colors of communist China, would you have believed me? That the hockey stick chart would be discredited as would its founder along with another leader of the global climate change movement who manipulated data, that they deleted e‑mails and information to avoid Freedom of Information Act, that these same scientists would do everything they could to discredit the peer review process to make sure it remained pure for their ideological purposes, and yet the media wouldn’t report on it and we’d still be headed to Copenhagen with a president the who was going to present a 17% reduction in carbon.

For our country, that our science czar, John Holdren, would be someone who called for forced abortions and sterilization through the drinking water, who said that the redistribution of wealth would be necessary and it would happen through the environmental movement. That the diversity czar at the FCC, if I just told you a year ago there would be a diversity czar at the FCC, would you have believed me? That the diversity czar at the FCC would say Americans have to decide soon which Americans would have to step down from their positions in order to give others a chance, that this same man said the revolution in Venezuela was incredible and that we should model our FCC and our programs after Venezuela and the revolution.

That the U.S. would have a two day summit to discuss the role of government in journalism and be discussing a government takeover of journalism and that no journalist would actually report on that. That they would hold a job summit and not invite the Chamber of Commerce, that two uninvited people could get into the White House state dinner, chat with the president, be near the prime minister of the largest democracy on the planet and that the response from the White House would be, yeah, we need to do a better job with security.

That a U.S. congressman would tell the American people that it’s unreasonable to expect people in congress to read bills, and he would say that because our congress would pass two bills over 1,000 pages, that no one in congress had read. One of them was over 2,000 pages.

That a job creating stimulus bill would be written, not only not read by congress but not even written by congress. It would be co-written by the Apollo Alliance, a special interest group whose New York chief was a co‑founder of the Weather Underground and no one would care! That people in congress would openly be praising Castro, Chavez, that the president would receive an ‑‑ if I said to you a year ago, “You know what’s going to happen next year: The president is going to receive an anti-American book and a photo op from Hugo Chavez and then he would have a one hour private meeting with Vladimir Putin where Vladimir Putin “would teach the president the history of the Cold War.”  Would you believe that our president would give an iPod of his speeches to the queen of England?  That he would send the bust of Winston Churchill, which was a gift from the people of England; when the prime minister came over that our president would say to him, hey, by the way thanks, but you can take this back to him now and the prime minister would say to him, no, no, no, that was a gift from the people of England to you and you can keep it in one of your museums; we gave it to you on September 11th.  And the president would respond no, no, that’s okay, and box it up and ship it back!

If I told you that there would be hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered in a true grassroots event in a National Mall in D.C. and the media would not only dismiss them but the government, the president and the media would deem them a danger to the United States, that healthcare would be at 36% approval rating, which is lower than Hillary Care but that those in congress and the White House would still be jamming it down your throats.  That the chief of the treasury who oversees the IRS cheated on his taxes as would almost everyone else in the cabinet. If I told you a year ago when gold was about $800 an ounce that it would be at $1200 an ounce, would you have believed it?

That Dubai which a year ago was bailing out our banks would be on the edge of bankruptcy. If I told you we’re going to lose 4 million jobs and the media would report that the White House has created or saved a million jobs even though in their evidence you have to find their evidence on a $20 million redesigned website where it would show that a good portion of these jobs were in about 400 districts that don’t even exist. If I told you that, would you have believed it?

Looking at that list, do you recognize the country that you live in? Is this the same country that you lived in a year ago today? I don’t think so. I don’t recognize it. If I would have told you that there would be a Muslim terrorist and that he would shoot and killed soldiers at Fort Hood, would you have believed it? If I told you then that, yes, the president will make a statement but he will spend two minutes prior to giving a shout-out and talking about the conference he had with the American Indian, would you have believed it? If I then told you after that two minutes he would then say then, oh, and also there’s been a shooting of our military but let’s not jump to conclusions. And then his Homeland Security director would be over in the Middle East and she would say, don’t worry, we’re working on things to stop the violence against Muslims in America, would you have believed it?

I can be wrong on an awful lot of things and I have been wrong on an awful lot of things, but when will people in this country, when will the media at least say, gosh, it looks like the direction of our country and the one this guy keeps laying out, gee, some of those things seem to be happening. When will anyone in the media even notice how far we have come?

Glenn Beck Program December 3rd, 2009

http://bit.ly/54Z9Lo

The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

“I gave the detainee a glance over and then left,” the SEAL wrote. “I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health.”

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that “Objective Amber” planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and “they had been tracking this guy for some time.”

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.”

Source: http://bit.ly/8y3119

I am sick and tired of political correctness.   These SEALs should be praised for capturing this monster that hung and burned 4 Americans, but instead they are punished for giving him a bloody lip?!?!?  This has gone too far.  I plead with you to call and/or write your Congressman and Senator to DEMAND that they support these men who put their lives on the line for you and me.  Ugh….I have no words…..

Those that distrust individual freedoms in favor of an all-powerful government often squabble over grammar and the definitions of the terms used in the Constitution and by our founders.  One popular argument is the idea that a “well-regulated militia” means that this right was intended for militias, not individuals.  There are a couple of problems with this point.  First, our founders couldn’t have been clearer on who and what a militia was.  George Mason was famously quoted as saying “I ask you, who are the militia?  We are the militia.  I say that they consist of the whole people, except a few public officers,” and that “to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them” in 1788.  This shows that by “militia” they were referring to the entire collection of private citizens.  The second problem of this argument is that the second clause proclaiming the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is not dependent upon the first clause explaining that a militia is necessary to the security of the state is.  The first clause is simply a preamble to this amendment.  For example, take the following sentence: Being a farmer, Bob needs a truck. This does not mean that Bob needs a truck only if he is a farmer, but that he needs a truck because he happens to be a farmer.  The same logic can be applied to this amendment.  Secondly, let’s just say (for the sake of argument) that the first clause is false and that a well-regulated militia is not necessary to secure the safety of a free state.  Does the right of the people to bear arms go away merely because a perceived benefit turns out to be incorrect?  Of course not, because our rights are not dependent upon the government’s actions.

Another argument that critics of the second amendment bring up is the phrase “well-regulated” as a precedent for government involvement and restriction of this “militia’s” actions.  However, they couldn’t be farther from the truth.  Anyone who thinks that the Bill of Rights (which was added to the Constitution for fear of encroaching governmental control over several years) was celebration of government restriction needs to seriously reevaluate their understanding of our history.  No, the term “well-regulated” was used synonymously with “well-functioning” as noted by the Oxford English Dictionary (found in the 1^st edition under the word ‘Regulated’).

What it really comes down to in this debate is whether you agree with the principles that were held by our founders or not.  Many of our current politicians are diametrically opposed in their ideology from our founding fathers on this issue.  Here are some famous quotes from our founders, followed by quotes from modern influential politicians:

“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
“What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
-George Mason, 1788

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

-Thomas Jefferson, 1776

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.”

-Noah Webster, 1787

“The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

-Samuel Adams, 1788

“The militia is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed.”
-Patrick Henry

“Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
-William Pitt, 1783

“Americans may own guns for the purpose of hunting and target shooting”
“There is an individual right to bear arms but it’s subject to…regulation.”
-Sen. Barack Obama, 2008

“I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban.”

-Sen. Hillary Clinton, 2008

“Assault weapons in the hands of civilians exist for no reason but to inspire fear and wreak deadly havoc on our streets”

-President Bill Clinton, 1997

“You want an assault rifle? Join the Army!”
-Rep. Carolyn McCarthy

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
-Senator Dianne Feinstein, 1993

“We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!”
-Senator Charles Schumer, 1993

“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.”
-Rep. Henry Waxman

Those that believe that our founders were wrong and that our civilization has progressed beyond our forefather’s capacity of foresight when it comes to weapons, but are more than happy to avail themselves of the restrictions put in place with other amendments.  They often say that the argument has changed due to the fact that they only had muskets and today we have technologically advanced assault rifles, however if the second amendment only protected weapons of the late 1700’s, does the first amendment protect only speech used in the late 1700’s?  They did not have telephones, computers, the internet, etc. but under the fourth amendment’s restrictions of unreasonable searches, law enforcement is required to get warrants before conducting surveillance.  This argument is a red herring used to get you to look at how technology has changed instead of seeing how human nature and more importantly, the nature of government to continually expand and increase in power has not changed.

In the end, the continuing debate over the second amendment comes down to whether you agree with the supreme law of the land by looking at the language used in the Constitution and the clear, plain explanation of that language documented from our founders or that you believe government should be able to disarm the people because it knows better than you.  For those that choose the latter, I rely on the words of Samuel Adams to express my sentiment: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

At the end of September this year, there was a young honors student in Chicago that got caught in a fight between two gangs.  This young man was beat to death with railroad ties while on-lookers laughed, watched or recorded this happening.  The video was very graphic and I was listening to Glenn Beck’s radio program after the video hit the viral media.  Here is a transcript from a part of his show on 29^th September (yes it’s long, but I believe that it’s relevant to the aforementioned topic):

“I find the video of these kids beating people to death with railroad ties incomprehensible… I don’t even begin to understand a world where that is going on, in America.  Is that capitalism that’s done that to you? What is our society turning into…We are blaming our country’s ills on capitalism.  We have replaced God with stuff.  That’s the problem. There is no right or wrong anymore.  I don’t even know what anything means anymore… How do you expect a society to know what the difference between right and wrong is when you have people running ACORN that have people walk in and say, I want to have 13 year old slaves, El Salvadoran slaves, 13 years old.  I’m going to sell them into the sex slave trade.  And they’re okay with it.  Who am I to judge?  Who are you to judge?  How about a human being?  How do you expect a people to prosper?  See, the thing that our founders knew, that everybody wants to deny, is that freedom only works when you have self restraint.

You watch this video and there was no one seemingly trying to stop this.  You’re picking up a railroad tie and beating someone to death.  There was no one that thought this was wrong?  You know the worst part of the video is you’ll see at the end of the video…you see a girl walking in as they carry the dead boy.  They drag his dead body into this building.  They’re all just casually walking in.  Now, watch her as she walks back out…She’s not crying. She’s not upset.  This isn’t something that is crazy in her world.  If my daughters would have seen somebody beaten to death with a railroad tie, they wouldn’t casually walk out!  Is this capitalism that has done this?  Or is this corruption?  Is it corruption of the political system, corruption of the judicial system, corruption of the educational system, corruption of the very soul?  …Or is this just that we don’t have enough social justice?  Or is this that we’re just using all of the Earth’s resources?  Or is this that we don’t have cap and trade?  Or is this just because they don’t have frickin’ healthcare?  Which is it?  You tell me.  Don’t you see?  Our country is sick.  And the medicine that they are trying to give us is going to kill the patient.  This country is a good country.  The people are good…We have just gone astray…Don’t you see?  If we don’t stand up from after being on our knees, if we don’t stand up and do the right thing, our country’s going to disappear.  It is going to become a powerful force for bad, a powerful force for evil.”  -Glenn Beck Radio Program September 29^th, 2009

I think that he really hit the nail on the head with regards to our country replacing God with materialism and humanism.  While I have been entrenched in the public education system, I have been a first-hand witness to the humanistic approach that our educators take today.  There is a massive effort to change our moral standard from God to man.  To witness this all you have to do is look into the revisionist history books and slanted English books to see humanism being elevated and religion (primarily Christianity) being either removed from or ignored in our history or being completely discredited and replaced with the secular agenda.

Am I arguing for public schools to be run by theologians and Creationism to be the only thing in the science classes?  I respond with a blunt and emphatic no.  However, I do take issue with the public sector taking advantage of every opportunity to levy unconstitutional judgments in the courts and perverting the words of our founders to eliminate theism from our society.  If there are people that wish to have the debate of theism in the, what George Washington affectionately called, the “Battlefield of Ideas,” then fine.  However, that’s not what is taking place.  Those with theistic beliefs are barred and prohibited from even bringing a Bible to school, much less voicing their opinions freely and openly in the public setting.  This attempt to remove God from our society has eaten our country’s moral fiber to the core.  Additionally, when you remove God, you leave a void and something must fill that void.  In our situation what has filled that space is moral relativism.  This is the view that there is no right, no wrong, no good, and no evil – only a wash of gray.  It removes any and all objectivity in law, societal standards of morals and most importantly destroys the family unit.  Sticking with the void theory, when you remove the moral standard (God or Natural Law) then something must take its place.

When you no longer have God as your standard, that only leaves man; this allows for a slippery-slope of degenerative logic to take root in policies, beliefs and values in our country.  When there is nothing higher or purer for man to model himself, then there is no striving to be better, because what does ‘better’ mean in a world with no good or evil.  Nothing can ever be the fault of the moral agent committing the act because there is no ‘wrong’ act.  If man is the moral standard, when a criminal goes into a convenience store, shoots the clerk and steals the money, it can’t be his fault because he is the moral standard, he is the embodiment of goodness (not God), and therefore it must be that gun’s fault.

This wave of moral relativism is merely a means of moving the guilt and conviction of sin onto inanimate objects, concepts, cultures, etc. that are neither intrinsically good nor evil.  When you remove God as the moral standard for man to model you remove the ability for man to properly address sin, unrighteousness, and unholy, evil strongholds in our hearts and culture.

George Washington, along with many of our other founders, knew that subverting religion and God in our society would inevitably lead to the crumbling of our moral fiber and country from the inside-out:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

-George Washington Farewell Address 1796

“I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leaves it to chance, war, and conquest.”

-Ben Franklin

“He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.  But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.  I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it.”

-Ben Franklin in a letter to Thomas Paine advising him to advise his manuscript Age of Reason

Our founders had a clear understanding of the importance of firm moral standards, divine perspective, and open discussion for a Republic (notice we are a Republic, not a Democracy as so many liberals I know prefer to call us) to survive.  This brings us to two questions, who is to blame and what do we do?  We the People are free and freedom infers a responsibility to regulate yourself, that way the government won’t have to do it for you.  As soon as We the People stop looking to ourselves for personal responsibility and looking to the government for dependency, we lose our freedom.  Therefore, when we see the moral fiber rotting and corruption running rampant in Washington D.C. we have no one to blame other than We the People.  The responsibility was on us to safeguard our liberty through personal responsibility and therefore, the responsibility lies with us to repair the damage that has been done.

This cannot be done through government or the public sector because that will only cause us to delve even further into dependency.  No, the solution must come from the bottom up at the local levels starting with the family and the church.  Only once we reestablish responsibility in our own lives and families can we expect society and especially government to follow suit.

Well, he has already levied new taxes in various areas (increased taxes on civilian ammunition sales, a tax increase on tobacco larger than ALL previous tax increases on tobacco products in history combined, etc.), but this new health care bill really throws that promise in the trash:

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/111809pr-comptaxreid%282%29.pdf

A slew of new taxes are just being uncovered in that 2,000 page monstrosity further reveal the deceptive and manipulative nature of our president.

“History repeats itself because no one was listening the first time.” -Anonymous

With everything happening in the world today, it can be easy to fall into a pit of worry, anxiety and restlessness.  You can continue along a downward spiral when you view the world through worldly eyes, but when you have a biblical perspective, you can look at these unnerving events with peace and tranquility which allows you to take a look and appreciate what’s really important.

I spent this last weekend with family, unplugged from media.  A breath of fresh air, people who love and adore each other unconditionally and spiritual fellowship can bring peace, clarity and confidence that no amount of talk radio, newspapers and cable news can bring.  Perspective is a very important thing to keep in mind when living in troubled times.  The Lord knows what’s going on, and it does not shake Him.  When we have this same mindset and worldview we can keep an eye on the world crumbling around us and have the peace and tranquility that allows us to continue to keep the other eye on what’s really important: family, friends, and more importantly, our growing and continuous relationship with Jesus Christ.

So….go spend some time with your family today and make sure they know how much you really appreciate them.