Principles of Liberty (Thirteen)
By William Pressgrove
“A constitution should be structured to permanently protect the people from the human frailties of their rulers.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 163)
There are many who say that the Constitution needs to be “updated” because the times have changed. Times have changed, but the issues the Constitution was constructed to address have not. Yes the economy has changed, the world situation has changed, and the perceptions of what the Constitution should do have changed, but HUMAN NATURE hasn’t changed and that is what the Constitutions was written to address.
Many of the Founding Fathers expressed their fears that if the people were not vigilant, then the malevolent character of human nature would wear away the rights that the Constitution was to protect. Alexander Hamilton wrote: “For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights were in the possession of those [toward] whom they entertain the least suspicion.” (Federalist Papers, No. 25, p. 164) He was concerned that people would lower their guard when those they trust the most were in office.
The following is from a scripture that is in the cannon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but the source should be irrelevant because the truthfulness of it transcends religion, “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” (D&C 121:39) This expresses the very sentiment of the Founding Fathers. Lord Acton (1834-1902) said, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He understood the same thing that the Founding Fathers understood, that is, if we are not vigilant we will be at the mercy of those we have elected.
The reason that the country is in the position it is in today is because those to whom “we the people” have entrusted to govern have taken two words from the Constitution and re-interpreted them to allow them to do virtually anything they want to do. Those two words—general welfare. These two words have become synonymous with the word charity. The Founding Fathers deliberately did not address charity in the Constitution because they knew how corrupting and how quickly the definition of charity could be expanded to cover anything those in “power” wanted it to cover.
Just think about it. Politicians retain their power and position by getting reelected. They get reelected based on “how well they serve their constituents.” How well they serve their constituents is judged by how much money they can bring into their district in the form of pet projects (earmarks or pork barrel projects). What the people don’t realize is that the politicians have been using the people’s own money to fund the projects that are used to promote their ability to “do” for the people. So the people are being bribed to vote for representatives and senators with their own money. Well actually they have spent their constituent’s money a long time ago and so now with the deficit spending they are working on spending their constituent’s children, grand children and great grandchildren’s inheritance.
The Founding Fathers did everything they could do to ensure that we didn’t succumb to the enticing voices of the politicians that have brought this country to the current crisis. The only way to reverse this process is for the people to stand up and say enough is enough. The programs that are being rammed down the throat of Americans today in the form of national health care, expanded benefits for the elderly and unemployment, bailouts for various private businesses, nationalization of banks, and most environmental initiatives are the very things that the Founding Fathers warned us against.
One thing that we must remember is that for every program that the government comes up with to relieve us of the burden of being responsible for ourselves, is another program that takes away the freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are guaranteed us by strictly following the Constitution. It’s time to wake up and realize the horrifying predicament we are in right now. We all need to let our elected officials know we are not happy with what is happening and we will not tolerate the continuation of these usurpations of authority from them.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Principles of Liberty (Twelve)
Principles of Liberty (Twelve)
By William Pressgrove
“The United States of America shall be a Republic." (The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen)
With the things that are happening in this country right now, I can’t think of a more timely discussion than one about how this country is governed, especially concerning the form of government we have. Most of my life, even though I said the pledge of allegiance every day of my elementary school life, I found myself referring to America as a democracy as I was conditioned to do by radio, TV, teachers and politicians as I was growing up. Well I have been set straight thanks to those who are more well read and studied than myself, in particular W. Cleon Skousen and a friend in the cause Earl Taylor. “At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a passerby asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?’ Franklin replied, ‘A republic—if you can keep it.’” (Quoted in a speech by Chuck Baldwin July 30, 2008) That is what this discussion is all about, keeping it.
James Madison made it perfectly clear that a democracy as the Greeks attempted to use would not be a viable form of government in a county that was anticipated to grow as ours has. That is the reason that a republican (a representative government in which those who are elected to govern are representatives of the people) form of government was instituted in the Constitution. Madison said, “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it...” (Federalist Papers, No. 39, p. 241) (Italics added for emphasis) He thought, with just cause, that if the rich and powerful could figure out a way to influence the selection of these representatives then even though this government was a republic, it could and would become tyrannical. The real problem here is that even though it was tyrannical, it would have the guise of being legitimate because it is a republican form of government by name.
It appears that Madison’s worst fears have been realized. Even though our representatives and now Senators (reference to the 17th Amendment) are elected by the people, it is the influence of special interest groups and those with the monetary influence who 1) influence elections in their favor, and 2) influence the decisions of those elected in their favor to get gain. This has become quite apparent with the passing of this stimulus bill, with 70+ % of the general population expressing their view that it was not a good idea, that those who have been elected are 1) not listening to their constituents, and 2) have their self-serving interests at heart as demonstrated by all the ineffective spending that it contains.
A serious look at the differences in the reasons for government spending money from the days of the Founding Fathers to today should be sufficient to convince any that this government has moved significantly toward Socialism. Government has grown to where it is more concerned with taking care of every problem for every individual than it is about taking care of the concerns that would require a collective action to accomplish like “pay the Debts, and provide for the common defense, and general welfare of the United States...” (US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 delegation of powers). (Italics added for emphasis) The expansion of the term general welfare to mean every object of concern for each citizen is the ideology that drives my concern for what is being done for two reasons, 1) each individual’s welfare is not the express concern of the government, unless the government feels that each individual is property of the state, and 2) NEVER has the government given any benefit to any citizen, or lesser body of government without strings attached which means if you get something from the government, they control you. If they control you, what happens to your unalienable right to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” then?
One of the sad conclusions I have come to by watching the political process over the past several years is that it doesn’t matter what political party is in control of the government, the end result of usurpation of individual responsibility and thus individual rights has been universal throughout. Some take more advantage of their position to alleviate the citizens of their rights and responsibilities than others have, but the end result has been the same. Each regime has taken more responsibility for our “well-being” than the previous one did, or maybe it is that we have become so weak and dependent as individuals that we have abdicated our responsibility for taking care of ourselves voluntarily. Either way the end result is the same, we lose our unalienable rights. However, I feel that the latter is the most destructive because it leaves us without any hope of ever getting them back because we gave them up freely.
A republic is still the best form of government, but even a republic is insufficient to govern a people who have become complacent and sheep-like regarding their responsibility for their own well-being and care. My hope is that it isn’t too late and that people will wake up to the awful situation we have gotten ourselves into by not being vigilant concerning our responsibility for self and for electing responsible representatives and Senators. That is where it has become difficult to keep a republic. Not that the name has changed, but that we have abdicated our responsibility toward it to the point where it no longer is a republic, but a representative socialism.
By William Pressgrove
“The United States of America shall be a Republic." (The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen)
With the things that are happening in this country right now, I can’t think of a more timely discussion than one about how this country is governed, especially concerning the form of government we have. Most of my life, even though I said the pledge of allegiance every day of my elementary school life, I found myself referring to America as a democracy as I was conditioned to do by radio, TV, teachers and politicians as I was growing up. Well I have been set straight thanks to those who are more well read and studied than myself, in particular W. Cleon Skousen and a friend in the cause Earl Taylor. “At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a passerby asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?’ Franklin replied, ‘A republic—if you can keep it.’” (Quoted in a speech by Chuck Baldwin July 30, 2008) That is what this discussion is all about, keeping it.
James Madison made it perfectly clear that a democracy as the Greeks attempted to use would not be a viable form of government in a county that was anticipated to grow as ours has. That is the reason that a republican (a representative government in which those who are elected to govern are representatives of the people) form of government was instituted in the Constitution. Madison said, “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it...” (Federalist Papers, No. 39, p. 241) (Italics added for emphasis) He thought, with just cause, that if the rich and powerful could figure out a way to influence the selection of these representatives then even though this government was a republic, it could and would become tyrannical. The real problem here is that even though it was tyrannical, it would have the guise of being legitimate because it is a republican form of government by name.
It appears that Madison’s worst fears have been realized. Even though our representatives and now Senators (reference to the 17th Amendment) are elected by the people, it is the influence of special interest groups and those with the monetary influence who 1) influence elections in their favor, and 2) influence the decisions of those elected in their favor to get gain. This has become quite apparent with the passing of this stimulus bill, with 70+ % of the general population expressing their view that it was not a good idea, that those who have been elected are 1) not listening to their constituents, and 2) have their self-serving interests at heart as demonstrated by all the ineffective spending that it contains.
A serious look at the differences in the reasons for government spending money from the days of the Founding Fathers to today should be sufficient to convince any that this government has moved significantly toward Socialism. Government has grown to where it is more concerned with taking care of every problem for every individual than it is about taking care of the concerns that would require a collective action to accomplish like “pay the Debts, and provide for the common defense, and general welfare of the United States...” (US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 delegation of powers). (Italics added for emphasis) The expansion of the term general welfare to mean every object of concern for each citizen is the ideology that drives my concern for what is being done for two reasons, 1) each individual’s welfare is not the express concern of the government, unless the government feels that each individual is property of the state, and 2) NEVER has the government given any benefit to any citizen, or lesser body of government without strings attached which means if you get something from the government, they control you. If they control you, what happens to your unalienable right to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” then?
One of the sad conclusions I have come to by watching the political process over the past several years is that it doesn’t matter what political party is in control of the government, the end result of usurpation of individual responsibility and thus individual rights has been universal throughout. Some take more advantage of their position to alleviate the citizens of their rights and responsibilities than others have, but the end result has been the same. Each regime has taken more responsibility for our “well-being” than the previous one did, or maybe it is that we have become so weak and dependent as individuals that we have abdicated our responsibility for taking care of ourselves voluntarily. Either way the end result is the same, we lose our unalienable rights. However, I feel that the latter is the most destructive because it leaves us without any hope of ever getting them back because we gave them up freely.
A republic is still the best form of government, but even a republic is insufficient to govern a people who have become complacent and sheep-like regarding their responsibility for their own well-being and care. My hope is that it isn’t too late and that people will wake up to the awful situation we have gotten ourselves into by not being vigilant concerning our responsibility for self and for electing responsible representatives and Senators. That is where it has become difficult to keep a republic. Not that the name has changed, but that we have abdicated our responsibility toward it to the point where it no longer is a republic, but a representative socialism.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Principles of Liberty (Ten and Eleven)
Principles of Liberty (Ten and Eleven)
By William Pressgrove
“The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.” (Ten) “The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.” (Eleven) (The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen)
Now before the conclusion is reached that this article advocates a revolution to take back the reins of government from the current administration an understanding of the fact that the Founding Fathers did that very thing when they broke away from British rule when this country came into existence. This article in no way is an incitement to riot or rebellion, but an attempt to open eyes to the lessons from history and not just a history lesson.
In light of the recent events in which the country’s leaders have passed the largest spending bill in the history of the country and that all of the money appropriated for this spending bill will have to be added to the national debt because there isn’t anything in the national treasury to offset these expenditure, it seems to be an important time to review who the sovereign is and what rights the sovereign has in regard to changing leadership. This statement isn’t made in an of hand manner with no evidence that the sovereign isn’t happy with the leadership for the way this particular bill was handled. From statistics gathered by Family Research Center, only 37 percent of the sovereign of this country approved of the spending bill. That seems a far cry from a majority.
Another issue worth mentioning, although not totally related to this topic is that fact that the current administration has promised greater transparency in government and that the sovereign will have a chance to use technology to review legislation and make their voice heard on these issues; however, this spending bill was not only rushed through before the sovereign had a chance to look at and comment on it but it was done so fast and was so large that even the legislature that was required to vote on it on behalf of the sovereign didn’t even have time to read and digest it before being required to vote on it.
Now to return to the principles we are discussing. The Founding Fathers followed the philosophies of John Locke regarding who the sovereign was and what rights that sovereign had with regard to setting up and disposing of leadership. The underlying ideology of the whole people being the sovereign comes from the fact that each individual has the unalienable rights that Thomas Jefferson enumerated and implied exist in the Declaration of Independence, i.e. among others, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). If each individual has the same rights, then collectively they have the same rights. Those individuals can then unite themselves into a group and organize themselves in such a manner as to delegate to individuals, they deem trustworthy, the responsibility to safeguard those rights to and for each individual.
The Founding Fathers; therefore, followed the lead of John Locke who said, “...persons who are to bear rule being as natural and necessary a part of the form of the government itself, and that which has its establishment ORIGINALLY FROM THE PEOPLE...all commonwealths, therefore, with the form of government established, have rules also of appointing and conveying the right to those who are to have any share in the public authority...” (Locke, Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, pp. 70-71) and ensured that the authority of the rulers came from the consent of those governed and not the other way around. This sentiment is reflected by Alexander Hamilton as he declared: “The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” (Federalist Papers, no.22, p. 152) If we abdicate our right as the sovereign body by allowing those to stay in power who have so blatantly usurped and abused our trust in them, we will not only find ourselves disenfranchised, but we will deserve everything that is coming because of the abuses of power by those we have placed in power.
As for the Eleventh principle concerning altering or abolishing a tyrannical government, events of the first month of the current presidency has already laid the foundation for unrest in this country that could lead to the alteration or abolition of the government that is leading us down a path that makes slaves of our posterity to the debt we have laid upon them. One of the most important ideologies behind the eleventh principle is that of majority. As pointed out earlier, only 37 percent of the sovereign approve of the spending bill just passed. This is a great gamble on the part of the leadership of the country!
If this government doesn’t deliver the relief promised, then what is going to happen? What happens when the cry of outrage about the current generation maintaining a standard of living at the expense of those yet unborn reaches the hearts of the majority of the people? This thought is being expressed by several thinking commentators in the country already. What happens when those of the world decide that this country’s securities have become a risk and stop buying our treasury notes as securities? Where will the money to support this gross expenditure to maintain a standard of living and governmental programs to appease the masses going to come from? As this is being written the discussion on the TV is about the over extension of credit that exists in this country from the individual all the way up to the central government.
There will come a point where the majority in this country will say that they have had enough of this type of extravagance at the expense of the rich and the unborn. There will be a revolt whether it will be an economic or violent revolt is yet to be seen, but it will come if fiscal responsibility doesn’t return to those who have been placed in positions of power over us. We as a people have to return to sound principles of self reliance and responsibility and expect the same from our leaders in order to salvage the reputation of America as the greatest country of the world.
By William Pressgrove
“The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.” (Ten) “The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.” (Eleven) (The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen)
Now before the conclusion is reached that this article advocates a revolution to take back the reins of government from the current administration an understanding of the fact that the Founding Fathers did that very thing when they broke away from British rule when this country came into existence. This article in no way is an incitement to riot or rebellion, but an attempt to open eyes to the lessons from history and not just a history lesson.
In light of the recent events in which the country’s leaders have passed the largest spending bill in the history of the country and that all of the money appropriated for this spending bill will have to be added to the national debt because there isn’t anything in the national treasury to offset these expenditure, it seems to be an important time to review who the sovereign is and what rights the sovereign has in regard to changing leadership. This statement isn’t made in an of hand manner with no evidence that the sovereign isn’t happy with the leadership for the way this particular bill was handled. From statistics gathered by Family Research Center, only 37 percent of the sovereign of this country approved of the spending bill. That seems a far cry from a majority.
Another issue worth mentioning, although not totally related to this topic is that fact that the current administration has promised greater transparency in government and that the sovereign will have a chance to use technology to review legislation and make their voice heard on these issues; however, this spending bill was not only rushed through before the sovereign had a chance to look at and comment on it but it was done so fast and was so large that even the legislature that was required to vote on it on behalf of the sovereign didn’t even have time to read and digest it before being required to vote on it.
Now to return to the principles we are discussing. The Founding Fathers followed the philosophies of John Locke regarding who the sovereign was and what rights that sovereign had with regard to setting up and disposing of leadership. The underlying ideology of the whole people being the sovereign comes from the fact that each individual has the unalienable rights that Thomas Jefferson enumerated and implied exist in the Declaration of Independence, i.e. among others, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). If each individual has the same rights, then collectively they have the same rights. Those individuals can then unite themselves into a group and organize themselves in such a manner as to delegate to individuals, they deem trustworthy, the responsibility to safeguard those rights to and for each individual.
The Founding Fathers; therefore, followed the lead of John Locke who said, “...persons who are to bear rule being as natural and necessary a part of the form of the government itself, and that which has its establishment ORIGINALLY FROM THE PEOPLE...all commonwealths, therefore, with the form of government established, have rules also of appointing and conveying the right to those who are to have any share in the public authority...” (Locke, Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, pp. 70-71) and ensured that the authority of the rulers came from the consent of those governed and not the other way around. This sentiment is reflected by Alexander Hamilton as he declared: “The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” (Federalist Papers, no.22, p. 152) If we abdicate our right as the sovereign body by allowing those to stay in power who have so blatantly usurped and abused our trust in them, we will not only find ourselves disenfranchised, but we will deserve everything that is coming because of the abuses of power by those we have placed in power.
As for the Eleventh principle concerning altering or abolishing a tyrannical government, events of the first month of the current presidency has already laid the foundation for unrest in this country that could lead to the alteration or abolition of the government that is leading us down a path that makes slaves of our posterity to the debt we have laid upon them. One of the most important ideologies behind the eleventh principle is that of majority. As pointed out earlier, only 37 percent of the sovereign approve of the spending bill just passed. This is a great gamble on the part of the leadership of the country!
If this government doesn’t deliver the relief promised, then what is going to happen? What happens when the cry of outrage about the current generation maintaining a standard of living at the expense of those yet unborn reaches the hearts of the majority of the people? This thought is being expressed by several thinking commentators in the country already. What happens when those of the world decide that this country’s securities have become a risk and stop buying our treasury notes as securities? Where will the money to support this gross expenditure to maintain a standard of living and governmental programs to appease the masses going to come from? As this is being written the discussion on the TV is about the over extension of credit that exists in this country from the individual all the way up to the central government.
There will come a point where the majority in this country will say that they have had enough of this type of extravagance at the expense of the rich and the unborn. There will be a revolt whether it will be an economic or violent revolt is yet to be seen, but it will come if fiscal responsibility doesn’t return to those who have been placed in positions of power over us. We as a people have to return to sound principles of self reliance and responsibility and expect the same from our leaders in order to salvage the reputation of America as the greatest country of the world.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Principles of Liberty (Nine)
Principles of Liberty (Nine)
By William Pressgrove
"To protect man’s rights, God has revealed certain principles of divine law." (The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen)
The principles of divine law are more commonly known as “laws of nature.” If we are to understand the significance of these laws, we must concede that the unalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence are rights given by the Creator, and that the ultimate ruler of mankind is the Creator. All laws of man, in order to be just and valid, must conform to these laws of nature. The most quoted contemporary of the Founding Fathers was Sir William Blackstone. The Founding Fathers relied heavily on his commentary on the laws of England for an understanding of rights.
Sir William Blackstone wrote:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.... This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature, being coeval [having the same age or date of origin] with mankind, and dictated by God, Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. (Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:54, 56, 63.)
This being the case, and this country being founded on principles taken from natural law, it doesn’t matter what the country of origin, political, or religious philosophy of an immigrant is when they come to this country they are subject to the laws of this country. Even if they don’t believe that there is such a thing as a creator or if they have a religious belief that doesn’t resemble Christianity, they are still subject to the laws of this country that were founded on natural law. They may practice their beliefs in private without any interference from those around them, but when they try to introduce laws into the public system that go contrary to the natural laws upon which our Constitution is founded then it is our duty to arrest this attempt before it defiles the system of laws that were instituted to protect our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
The only way we can protect our unalienable rights from encroachment, governmental or otherwise, is to be aware of what is going on in government and around us and have a working understanding of the principles upon which our unalienable rights are founded. Otherwise we become victims of the injustices which erode our rights and subject us to “unrighteous dominion” by those who seek to make themselves the ultimate authority of the laws and statutes of our land. This vigilance also includes knowing what is going on in the government. To keep an eye on the laws and statutes that are being entered into the Federal Registry, you can request to be put on an e-mail list from the Federal Registry at the following web address: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/. Under “other services” click on the words “Sign up” at the beginning of the first bullet. The next screen you want to click on the words “Online mailing list archives” in the first bullet. On the next screen go down and click on the third option which is called, “FEDREGTOC-L” (the Federal Register Table of Contents list) click on the third option “Join or leave the list (or change settings)”. Read the information given and fill out the requested information to be placed on the list.
One of the areas I keep an eye on is the area of Executive Documents which has an index of all the documents filed in the Federal Register by the President or the Office of the President, including all administrative and Executive orders. I am concerned about these in particular because I don’t believe that the Executive Orders that make or change law are Constitutional although each says that it is.
Being vigilant about these things can keep us from entering into submission without our knowledge of things that will infringe on our unalienable rights. We can make people aware, our Congressmen/women and Representatives in particular, about the things we disagree with that are being done more or less covertly (because of the lack of coverage by media complicit in the governmental agenda) by those who are in power.
Become involved. The future of this country depends on our involvement in the political affairs. We are the sovereign and our servants on Capitol Hill need to know how we feel about their dealings on our behalf.
By William Pressgrove
"To protect man’s rights, God has revealed certain principles of divine law." (The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen)
The principles of divine law are more commonly known as “laws of nature.” If we are to understand the significance of these laws, we must concede that the unalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence are rights given by the Creator, and that the ultimate ruler of mankind is the Creator. All laws of man, in order to be just and valid, must conform to these laws of nature. The most quoted contemporary of the Founding Fathers was Sir William Blackstone. The Founding Fathers relied heavily on his commentary on the laws of England for an understanding of rights.
Sir William Blackstone wrote:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.... This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature, being coeval [having the same age or date of origin] with mankind, and dictated by God, Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. (Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:54, 56, 63.)
This being the case, and this country being founded on principles taken from natural law, it doesn’t matter what the country of origin, political, or religious philosophy of an immigrant is when they come to this country they are subject to the laws of this country. Even if they don’t believe that there is such a thing as a creator or if they have a religious belief that doesn’t resemble Christianity, they are still subject to the laws of this country that were founded on natural law. They may practice their beliefs in private without any interference from those around them, but when they try to introduce laws into the public system that go contrary to the natural laws upon which our Constitution is founded then it is our duty to arrest this attempt before it defiles the system of laws that were instituted to protect our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
The only way we can protect our unalienable rights from encroachment, governmental or otherwise, is to be aware of what is going on in government and around us and have a working understanding of the principles upon which our unalienable rights are founded. Otherwise we become victims of the injustices which erode our rights and subject us to “unrighteous dominion” by those who seek to make themselves the ultimate authority of the laws and statutes of our land. This vigilance also includes knowing what is going on in the government. To keep an eye on the laws and statutes that are being entered into the Federal Registry, you can request to be put on an e-mail list from the Federal Registry at the following web address: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/. Under “other services” click on the words “Sign up” at the beginning of the first bullet. The next screen you want to click on the words “Online mailing list archives” in the first bullet. On the next screen go down and click on the third option which is called, “FEDREGTOC-L” (the Federal Register Table of Contents list) click on the third option “Join or leave the list (or change settings)”. Read the information given and fill out the requested information to be placed on the list.
One of the areas I keep an eye on is the area of Executive Documents which has an index of all the documents filed in the Federal Register by the President or the Office of the President, including all administrative and Executive orders. I am concerned about these in particular because I don’t believe that the Executive Orders that make or change law are Constitutional although each says that it is.
Being vigilant about these things can keep us from entering into submission without our knowledge of things that will infringe on our unalienable rights. We can make people aware, our Congressmen/women and Representatives in particular, about the things we disagree with that are being done more or less covertly (because of the lack of coverage by media complicit in the governmental agenda) by those who are in power.
Become involved. The future of this country depends on our involvement in the political affairs. We are the sovereign and our servants on Capitol Hill need to know how we feel about their dealings on our behalf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
