A Few Words On Good And Evil…

shutterstock.com

We all have been subjected to examples of evil. Just look at your daily dose of news, from the international scene to the local deviants that are paraded before our eyes on a daily basis.   Where are the morals that at one time prevailed worldwide?

People do not open their eyes or use their minds; rather, people have once again done what is natural–and that is to conform to the lowest common denominator. And then we have the news clips of victims saying: “How could God allow this to happen?”

Let’s take a look at part of a letter that was sent to King George III in 1776. This phrase is something we should all know; yet most in America have no idea where it is from or the significance of the words.

“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…” This is from the Declaration of Independence, that letter to King George III that officially started the war for independence. One part of this is the word “Creator.” Our creator put us on this earth to determine our own destiny, to succeed or fail of our own volition. To help us and to create a fair playing field, our Creator gave us a set of rules. We know these as the 10 Commandments.

Those people who are evil see evil used by them as good– “the end justifies the means.” Those who see evil as evil and a detriment to the overall good of society reject any lawbreaking and try to remove those evildoers from the playing field.  Some seek to reform over a minor infraction, or they want to throw away the key for major damages of societal evolution.

To answer the question “How could God let this happen?”, we could go to Einstein’s rebuke of a professor using temperature. Cold does not exist; it is a lack of heat. We do not measure how cold something is; we measure how hot something is. It is not that God allowed it to happen; God has been uninvited from our schools, trains, and public places.  The basic laws of society have been banned. God has not allowed anything to happen. We as a world have ignored our Creator’s guidelines and are playing God. Looks like we are not very good at playing God, are we?

So what are the political implications of this world of excrement? Recently, CNN reporter Chris Cuomo stated that “our rights do not come from God.” That is the end game. Ultimately, he is saying that our rights do not exist unless some organization with lots of guns will give us rights–maybe. What the organization disapproves of will be outlawed, and what they sanction will be mandatory. Anyone who disagrees with the organization will be declared an enemy of the state and will be hunted down like a dog–and silenced in the most cost-effective way possible.

For a long time, the institutions of “higher” learning have taught that our constitution is nothing except a series of guidelines that really don’t need to be followed. Now, we are seeing the true nature of evil in action. If you have not seen “The Hunger Games”, take a look at the people in the districts and the people in the capital and make a comparison. We are living in “The Hunger Games” now. Who will volunteer to be a tribute?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Globalization Of Conservatism

Photo Credit: Kianoosh Raika (Flickr)

In our American society that is divided into the supposedly opposing ideologies of conservatism and liberalism, we cannot benefit from either ideology unless we understand what they really are, not just what they are asserted to be. The American brands of conservatism and liberalism are very different from their traditional, historical forms. Throughout most of the world, conservatism has historically sought to conserve the existing political and social order. What that traditionally meant was to protect the existing autocratic rulers such as monarchs, despots, and religious hierarchies. This is the historical context of Europe and most of the world. Liberalism, on the other hand, traditionally has sought to elevate the rights of individuals above the powers of rulers and is thus generally opposed to conservatism. In modern, international news stories, conservatives might be ayatollahs or dictators, while liberals might be professors or journalists. In that non-American landscape where the word ‘republic’ is often a euphemism, the ancient struggle in which liberalism is good and conservatism is evil still prevails.

Traditional liberal ideas created the rights and liberties of the Enlightenment that the founders of the United States embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Thus, traditional liberalism honored the rights of individuals, while traditional conservatism honored the power and stability of strong government.

At the time of the American Revolution, Americans were divided into revolutionaries, being traditional liberal, and loyalists, being traditional conservative. After the Revolutionary War, the remaining conservative loyalists melded with the liberal winners. Thus, post-Revolutionary War America was traditional liberal. The modern division between American conservatives and American liberals grew out of the politics that followed.

In the early 1800s, an element of that traditional liberal society sought to preserve the strict constitutional rights of individuals and enforce the strict constitutional limitations on the Federal Government. They came to be known as conservatives. They sought to preserve the existing American political structure of minimum government and maximum freedom. Thus, a segment of traditional liberals evolved into American conservatives, who were actually more liberal than the remaining traditional liberals. Those remaining liberals had opted for a stronger government, a traditional conservative position. Such expansion of powers was, however, clearly beyond the intent of the ratifiers of the Constitution as documented in detail by writings of the ratification period.

American conservatism hearkens back to American founding principles. Unlike traditional conservatism, its heroes are not kings, emperors, and popes. They are Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and Madison. These were all liberals in their era because they rose up against the monarchists of Europe who tried to transfer their monarchies to the Americas.

They forged their liberal principles into the United States of America, the only nation rising out of the colonies of the Americas that rejected the traditional roles of ruler and ruled. In the process, they upended the definitions of liberals and conservatives. Those revolutionary liberals, whom American conservatism honors today, believed in personal freedom protected by a strong—but tightly limited—government.

Modern America is immersed in globalism to a degree that early Americans could never have imagined. Part of that global culture is to see conservatives as the evil past and liberals as the hope for the future. As the view of American conservatism has been globalized, the evil features of global, traditional conservatism have fouled the image of American conservatism.

Now here is the irony of the conservative/liberal divide in America. Liberalism hearkens back to those same heroes and those same principles of the conservatives, but with one important difference: personal freedom is not protected by a strong but tightly limited government, but simply by a strong government—strong enough to achieve the perceived goals of liberalism—in a perfect world where we need not fear government. But the world is not perfect, and this less-limited government is destroying the “deal” that We The People had with government leading up to the ratification of the Constitution.

As strong as our Constitution is—including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments—the very concept of a tightly limited, “federal” government has been lost in the two-century struggle for control of the unprecedented, American wealth-generating machine. The concept of limited powers was not just an issue of the Constitution; it was the issue. It was, in fact, the issue of the entire American Revolution.

Since the 1770s, American conservatives and liberals have swapped their core principles. American conservatism today stands for the traditional liberal values of personal freedom with a minimal, decentralized federal government. American liberalism stands for the same values but with a stronger, far-reaching national government. This evolution has taken place slowly without many people, especially the younger generations, being aware of the shift.

The transfer of the limited-government principle from the liberals to the conservatives, plus the maligned image of those conservatives promoted by modern liberal institutions, have led to our present condition of an out-of-control national government.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Watch: What Defiant Rick Perry Just Said About His Indictment Shows Why He’s Texas Tough

Perry

Rick Perry may no longer be the governor of Texas, but he’s still very much in the legal spotlight in the Lone Star State…and still moving ahead with plans for a possible 2016 presidential run.

That bright legal spotlight following Perry has to do with his felony indictment that a judge has once again refused to dismiss. That indictment, which Perry claims amounts to the “criminalization of politics,” was filed after the then-governor pulled state funding from a county district attorney after her refusal to leave office following a drunk-driving conviction.

In an appearance on “Hannity” Wednesday night, Perry told the Fox News host that he’s not worried about the indictment and wears it as a “badge of honor,” saying the Constitution will ultimately protect him.

You can see why Rick Perry said that — and what else the former governor told Sean Hannity about his legal troubles — by clicking on the video above.

h/t: Fox News

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Is Government Ever Faithful To The Constitution?

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

When the government is waving at us with its right hand, so to speak, it is the government’s left hand that we should be watching. Just as a magician draws your attention to what he wants you to see so you will not observe how his trick is performed, last week presented a textbook example of public disputes masking hidden deceptions. Here is what happened.

Last week was dominated by two huge news stories. One was the revelation by the Senate Intelligence Committee of torture committed by CIA agents and contractors on 119 detainees in the post-9/11 era — 26 of whom were tortured for months by mistake. In that revelation of anguish and error were the conclusions by CIA agents themselves that their torture had not produced helpful information. President Barack Obama acknowledged that the CIA had tortured; yet he directed the Department of Justice not to prosecute those who tortured and those who authorized it.

The other substantial news story was the compromise achieved by Congress and the White House to fund the government through the end of September 2015. That legislation, which is 2,000 pages in length, was not read by anyone who voted for it. It spends a few hundred billion dollars more than the government will collect in tax revenue. The compromise was achieved through bribery; members of Congress bought and sold votes by adding goodies (in the form of local expenditures of money borrowed by the federal government) to the bill that were never debated or independently voted upon and were added solely to achieve the votes needed for passage. This is how the federal government operates today. Both parties participate in it. They have turned the public treasury into a public trough.

Hidden in the law that authorized the government to spend more than it will collect was a part about funding for the 16 federal civilian intelligence agencies. And hidden in that was a clause, inserted by the same Senate Intelligence Committee that revealed the CIA torture, authorizing the National Security Agency to gather and retain nonpublic data for five years and to share it with law enforcement and with foreign governments. “Nonpublic data” is the government’s language referring to the content of the emails, text messages, telephone calls, bank statements, utility bills, and credit card bills of nearly every innocent person in America — including members of Congress, federal judges, public officials, and law enforcement officials. I say “innocent” because the language of this legislation — which purports to make lawful the NSA spying we now all know about — makes clear that those who spy upon us needn’t have any articulable suspicion or probable cause for spying.

The need for articulable suspicion and probable cause has its origins in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which was written to prohibit what Congress just authorized. That amendment was a reaction to the brutish British practice of rummaging through the homes of American colonists, looking for anything that might be illegal. It is also a codification of our natural right to privacy. It requires that if the government wants nonpublic data from our persons, houses, papers or effects, it must first present evidence of probable cause to a judge and then ask the judge for a search warrant.

Probable cause is a level of evidence that is sufficient to induce a judge into concluding that it is more likely than not that the place to be examined contains evidence of crimes. In order to seek probable cause, the government must first have an articulable suspicion about the person or place it has targeted. Were this not in the law, then nothing would stop the government from fishing expeditions in pursuit of anyone it wants to pursue. And fishing expeditions turn the presumption of liberty on its head. The presumption of liberty is based on the belief that our rights are natural to us and that we may exercise them without a permission slip from the government and without its surveillance.

Until last week, that is. Last week, Congress, by authorizing the massive NSA spying to continue and by authorizing the spies to share what they have seized with law enforcement, basically permitted the fishing expeditions that the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent.

How can the president and Congress defy the Constitution, you might ask? Hasn’t every member of the government taken an oath to uphold the Constitution? Doesn’t the Constitution create the presidency and the Congress? How can politicians purport to change it?

The answers to these questions are obvious, as is the belief of most of those in government that they can write any law and regulate any behavior and ignore the Constitution they have sworn to uphold whenever they want, so long as they can get away with it.

 
COPYRIGHT 2014 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Is Barack Obama Melting Down?

obamathinking

Barack Obama is melting down. Desperate to leave a positive legacy, he is beside himself and grasping at straws. With popularity polls at an all time low and virtually no one approving of how he is doing his job, he is doing an end run around the U.S. Constitution by ramrodding through executive orders and executive actions to implement his policies.

But even this is failing as the courts are blocking his attempt at slam-dunking an amnesty of illegal immigrants.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom