The Sixties Radical- Our Nation’s Life and Death is on The Line November 6

To quote Toby Keith” the more things change they more they stay the same.”  And this is what we got Thursday night in the debate between Romney and Obama. Nothing really changes except the lies and the cover-ups.

The Media is no longer interested in the truth. Their main purpose is to keep Obama and the Democrat Socialist Party in power. I will include Fox News in this mix as well. This is what disturbs me more now than ever. For we as a country are headed in either one or two directions after the final vote count happens November 6th.

This is the deal we are either going to live a free nation or we will choose the path of tyranny. Our nation will either live or die. That’s it folks. We will have a real chance to change the direction of the country if Mitt Romney is elected. We as a nation will be able to keep our freedom of choice, private property rights, freedom of religion and free enterprise or better yet the capitalist system that keeps the engine of our private sector economy running.

We will have what’s left of The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and our founding principles of our unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This will give us a fighting chance to return to what made this country great.

The election of Romney will bring a man of God into the White House. Yet, this election to quote Mark Levin “ is not about Romney but about Obama verses us-We The People.”

If Obama is elected we will see our freedom of choice done away with. The state will tell us what we can or can’t buy. What kind of car we must drive. How much electricity we can use. The state will tell us how much gas we can put in our cars or trucks. We will be told how we must worship God. If you think the attack on the Catholic Church is bad just wait and see what happens to rest of the Christian Churches. My people the Jews will be told what can and can’t be said in the Synagogue. The Ten Commandments will be banned forever. The Bible will be banned. Sharing and preaching about Jesus Christ will be a punishable offense and the perpetrators will be put in jail. If you think I am kidding I am not. Look at what happened to the Coptic Christian and where he ended up-in jail on a bogus charge of a parole violation.

Food prices will triple. Gas prices will rise to well over ten dollars a gallon. The will be rolling blackouts. Electrical rates will triple. This is real folks. All one has to do is look at what is happening in California.

This what happens when a nation turns it back on the God of The Bible, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus Christ?

The seeds of our turning our backs on our founding principles began in 1890. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams believe that all rights came from God not the government. These men believed that sovereignty rested with the people. They believed that all men were created equal in the eyes of God. God gave is unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Our government   was supposed insure this for its people. Our founding father knew it was up to us to make use of our God given talents. All freedom comes from The God of Bible.  The basic premise is this God gives us our freedom. It is the purpose of government to insure we have a chance to succeed or fail.

Government is to insure that we have a civil society so that our God given rights is protected.

This is where it gets really sticky. Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Dewey, and Franklin Roosevelt believed that the ideas that founded our country were out of date. These men thought they could create heaven on earth. Instead of the pursuit of happiness if man could create the right environment so that government could ensure the happiness of all people and thus the Progressive movement was born. Wilson etal knew that if the right laws were enacted and if  the right circumstances  were in put place the government could ensure that all people would have the same outcome thus heaven on earth or utopia could be achieved.

This dream of creating utopia is as old as the ages. Sir Thomas More wrote Utopia in 1516. He reasoned that a few select people could put together the perfect society a perfect government could be created. This society would take care of everyone’s needs, wants, and desires. The deadly flaw in this thinking is two fold. The first fatal flaw is that one man or a few elites would have the power and sovereignty to force others to obey the rules put in place by the elites or the enlightened few. This idea flies in the face of the laws of nature created by God.

Man yearns to be free. This means that man would have to willingly give up their sovereignty to some King or ruler in exchange for security. This never happens and thus tyranny or a dictatorship is set up to rule with an iron hand over the people.

The laws that are set for the people are not the laws that the elites of society will by. These select few will live like Kings while the rest of us live in squalor.

The second major flaw is this. The God of The Bible created The Garden of Eden. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob gave man free will or the right to chose. God doesn’t force man to bow down to HIM.

This is the difference between the God of the Bible and a King.

If one is looking for Utopia all one has to do is look at North Korea or present day California. This is man made utopia.

Many will argue that our founding fathers were for slavery. Thomas Jefferson is the one the Left holds up all the time to support their notion that these men were a bunch of middle aged white cats who never really cared about the slaves.

Nothing was done at the time but the seeds to take care of this problem were set in motion. Just like the seeds of our nations destruction were set in motion by the Progressives in 1890 and were later unleashed upon this great nation of ours in 1963-64 by Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society.

Thomas Jefferson wrote this about the slave trade in 1776.

These words were included in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence but were taken out of the final draft.  “ He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another..”.

Thomas Jefferson, “Original Rough Draught,” in Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 1 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950-1992), 426.

Thomas Jefferson also wrote these words in A Summary View of The Rights of British America July 1774.

“That we next proceed to consider the conduct of his majesty, as holding the executive powers of the laws of these states, and mark out his deviations from the line of duty. By the constitution of Great Britain as well as of the several American states, his majesty possesses the power of refusing to pass into a law any bill which has already passed the other two branches of legislature. His majesty however and his ancestors, conscious of the impropriety of opposing their single opinion to the united wisdom of two houses of parliament, while their proceedings were unbiased by interested principles, for several ages past have modestly declined the exercise of this power in that part of his empire called Great Britain. But by change of circumstances, other principles than those of justice simply have obtained an influence on their determinations. The addition of new states to the British empire has produced an addition of new, and sometimes opposite interests. It is now therefore the great office of his majesty to resume the exercise of his negative power, and to prevent the passage of laws by any one legislature of the empire which might bear injuriously on the rights and interests of another. Yet this will not excuse the wanton exercise of this power which we have seen his majesty practice on the laws of the American legislatures. For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the infranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty’s negative: thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few British corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was scarcely ever known to fail of success, tho’ in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed would call for some legal restrictions.

Thomas Jefferson, “Draft of Instructions to the Virginia Delegates in the Continental Congress,” July 1774, in Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 1 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950-1992), 121-23, 125-35

John Jay had similar ideas as well. That our creator The God of The Bible created all men equal.

John Jay wrote A Letter To The English Anti-Slavery Society June 1778.

“Our society has been favored with your letter of the 1st of May last, and are happy that efforts so honorable to the nation are making in your country to promote the cause of justice and humanity relative to the Africans. That they who know the value of liberty, and are blessed with the enjoyment of it, ought not to subject others to slavery, is, like most other moral precepts, more generally admitted in theory than observed in practice. This will continue to be too much the case while men are impelled to action by their passions rather than their reason, and while they are more solicitous to acquire wealth than to do as they would be done by. Hence it is that India and Africa experience unmerited oppression from nations which have been long distinguished by their attachment to their civil and religious liberties, but who have expended not much less blood and treasure in violating the rights of others than in defending their own. The United States are far from being irreproachable in this respect. It undoubtedly is very inconsistent with their declarations on the subject of human rights to permit a single slave to be found within their jurisdiction, and we confess the justice of your strictures on that head.

Permit us, however, to observe, that although consequences ought not to deter us from doing what is right, yet that it is not easy to persuade men in general to act on that magnanimous and disinterested principle. It is well known that errors, either in opinion or practice, long entertained or indulged, are difficult to eradicate, and particularly so when they have become, as it were, incorporated in the civil institutions and domestic economy of a whole people.

Prior to the great revolution, the great majority or rather the great body of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves, that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it. Some liberal and conscientious men had, indeed, by their conduct and writings, drawn the lawfulness of slavery into question, and they made converts to that opinion; but the number of those converts compared with the people at large was then very inconsiderable. Their doctrines prevailed by almost insensible degrees, and was like the little lump of leaven which was put into three measures of meal: even at this day, the whole mass is far from being leavened, though we have good reason to hope and to believe that if the natural operations of truth are constantly watched and assisted, but not forced and precipitated, that end we all aim at will finally be attained in this country.

The Convention which formed and recommended the new Constitution had an arduous task to perform, especially as local interests, and in some measure local prejudices, were to be accommodated. Several of the States conceived that restraints on slavery might be too rapid to consist with their particular circumstances; and the importance of union rendered it necessary that their wishes on that head should, in some degree, be gratified.

It gives us pleasure to inform you, that a disposition favorable to our views and wishes prevails more and more, and that it has already had an influence on our laws. When it is considered how many of the legislators in the different States are proprietors of slaves, and what opinions and prejudices they have imbibed on the subject from their infancy, a sudden and total stop to this species of oppression is not to be expected.

We will cheerfully cooperate with you in endeavoring to procure advocates for the same cause in other countries, and perfectly approve and commend your establishing a correspondence in France. It appears to have produced the desired effect; for Mons. De Varville, the secretary of a society for the like benevolent purpose at Paris, is now here, and comes instructed to establish a correspondence with us, and to collect such information as may promote our common views. He delivered to our society an extract from the minutes of your proceedings, dated 8th of April last, recommending him to our attention, and upon that occasion they passed the resolutions of which the enclosed are copies.

We are much obliged by the pamphlets enclosed with your letter, and shall constantly make such communications to you as may appear to us interesting.

By a report of the committee for superintending the school we have established in this city for the education of negro children, we find that proper attention is paid to it, and that scholars are now taught in it. By the laws of this State, masters may now liberate healthy slaves of a proper age without giving security that they shall not become a parish charge; and the exportation as well as importation of them is prohibited. The State has also manumitted such as became its property by confiscation; and we have reason to expect that the maxim, that every man, of whatever color, is to be presumed to be free until the contrary be shown, will prevail in our courts of justice. Manumissions daily become more common among us; and the treatment which slaves in general meet with in this State is very little different from that of other servants….

John Jay, “Jay to the English Anti-Slavery Society,” June 21, 1788, in Henry Phelps Johnston, ed., The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Vol. 3 (New York: Da Capo Press, 1971), 340–44.

Our Founding Fathers were honorable men. They were all men of God. These brave souls put aside their own personal ambitions to set up a country that insured that the rights they fought for would be passed down from generation to generation. Jefferson etal could have carved up this great land of ours into their own little theifdom’s  but they didn’t   And this what separates them from the men who run this country now.

Yet, many will scoff at the Biblical principles these men used to draw up the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Here are some reference points. Mathew 13-33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Luke 1 21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

These Bible references refer to Jays letter to the British anti slavery society and directly to these quotes take from the letter. See above reference . “Their doctrines prevailed by almost insensible degrees, and was like the little lump of leaven which was put into three measures of meal: even at this day, the whole mass is far from being leavened, though we have good reason to hope and to believe that if the natural operations of truth are constantly watched and assisted, but not forced and precipitated, that end we all aim at will finally be attained in this country.”

To quote Mark Levin Liberalism the philosophy of the stupid.

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “The Sixties Radical- Our Nation’s Life and Death is on The Line November 6”

  1. Pingback: URL
  2. Pingback: serotonin
  3. Pingback: Home Page
  4. Pingback: human rights watch
  5. Pingback: equality
  6. Pingback: civil rights
  7. Pingback: codes promos
  8. Pingback: click here
  9. Pingback: jewish quotes
  10. Pingback: backlink
  11. Pingback: free antivirus

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s