Political Correctness--The Downfall of American Society

Where I come from, there’s an adage that indicates an error in judgement, that says, “You’re barking up the wrong tree.”  Well, today people say that such and such speech is not “politically correct”.  The implication is that what is said is offensive and shouldn’t be said.

That is where things go awry.  Nothing can be said that is “offensive”.   It may be intended to be offensive, but the hearer has to choose to be offended, it is the hearer’s prerogative to choose his response.  Many times offense is not necessarily the speaker’s intention.

It was once said, “He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary.” (Brigham Young) This is a very true statement.  Think about it, if someone is offended by what the other person says, then the person offended is no longer in control.  His/her feelings are now in the hands of their opposition.

Here’s a prime example; members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) were first called “Mormons” as a derogatory term used to incite people to riot against the members of that church.  Many were persecuted, even with physical violence and death because they were "Mormons".  The President of the Church has admonished the members to use the proper name of the Church when referring to it, members choose not to  takes offense at being called a Mormon.  The difference is the way the hearer reacts to the word, not the intent of the speaker.

A college professor is reported to have posed something like the following question to his class, which is more hurtful, a white man hitting a black man in the face with his fist, or the white man calling the black man the “N” word (obviously I am being politically correct in not saying the word)?  The consensus was that the name calling was more hurtful. Not to defend the speaker who was obviously intending to be hurtful, but who was the person taking offense?

Society has turned anyone who says something contrary to what the hearer wants to hear into an offender.  Where is the responsibility of the hearer to choose whether to be offended or not?  A wise man once said, “And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other” (Jesus Christ).  If that advice were followed, then who could be offended?  Not taking offense at what others say disarms them.  They are no longer in control. The person they intend to injure with their offensive speech or epithet does not respond to their harangue with anger, but calmly responds or walks away.  Who then is the bigger person, he who harangues or he who walks away?

It is a shame that our society, that not too many years ago, would defuse volatile situations by either calmly responding or walking away, now chooses to burn down cities and kill people over things that someone else says or does wrongly.  Would there have been reason to riot in Ferguson Missouri had someone not spread the false rumor of “hands up don’t shoot”?  How many other instances have there been when individuals with the intent of inciting to riot have achieved their goal by making one group or the other an offender over something that was said or done?

I am not saying there have not been instances where things have happened that are offensive, or even inciting, but I am saying that the responsibility for the response to these instances lies squarely on the shoulders of the person who is offended, not the person who may or may not have intended to offend.  Our country used to be the bastion of rational thought and action.  How could we have allowed factions in among us who turn one against another for a word?  Where has the ideology of thinking before acting gone?  The only way to defuse a bad situation is for one or the other party to think about their actions, whether they are mindlessly inciting to riot, or mindlessly rioting over something someone else said or did.  To use another adage, the “ball is always in the court” of the hearer.  The choice is always in the hands of the one who receives the harangues and epithets of the other, whether to react in kind or be the bigger person and defuse the situation.  

Correlation between the Civil War and the Convention of States Project

I am a nostalgic person.  I enjoy watching things that relate to our history.  This past weekend, I watched Gettysburg just to remind myself of the pain and suffering our country went through to truly be free and united.

As I watched this time, having been heavily involved in the Convention of States Project for two and a half years, certain precepts and principles became abundantly clear.  We are entering a conflict that is similar ideologically to the Civil War.  It became clear to me that there were two principles in conflict during that war.  First, the conflict of Federalism versus Anti-Federalism (the perspective of the Southern States), and Second, the right of all men to enjoy their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, (the Northern States perspective).

At present, the Convention of States (COS) is working to perpetuate the position of the North, that is, that the Union should remain united with all men being free, while at the same time advocating the principles of state sovereignty espoused by the South.  The COS holds a position which allow the States to operate as sovereign entities with equal responsibility for their citizen’s rights to life, liberty, and property as declared inalienable by the Declaration of Independence, while allowing the Federal Government its responsibility for protecting the Nation from foreign subjugation and political influence, as well as dissolution of the Union by interstate rivalries.

As with the Civil War, there are two sides to this conflict.  Those who want to remain subjugated to the Federal Will and those who feel the burden of an overbearing Federal Government.  The dissimilarity comes from the fact that today, those who want one central government are largely those enslaved by indebtedness to a Federal Government that supports their lives, dictates their liberty and defines their happiness, while those supporting State’s rights are those seeking freedom from that overbearing Federal Government so that they can be free to choose their “lives, liberties and to pursue happiness by their own will.

This is where the old saying comes in, “they can’t see the forest for the trees”.  Those involved in national politics have come to feel that to do their duty, they must control more than the Constitution allows them to do.  They have become accustomed to maintaining their “careers” by perpetuating their control using the “carrot and stick” method of governance.  They first take money from all those who can pay taxes. Then they offer a federal program with funding attached “to improve the way of life at the local level”.  However, with that funding comes strings dictating how the program should be run putting the federal agencies in charge of the entity accepting the funding. 

In the name of “compassion” the Federal Government redistributes the wealth of the nation by taxing those that work and providing food, lodging, and many times, entertainment to those who don’t work.  An example of this is the “war on poverty” started by President Johnson.  When it was instituted, there were approximately 14% of the population that were considered below the poverty line in the United States.  The war on poverty was to decrease substantially the number of individuals that were below the poverty level.  Today, with the number of citizens in this country increased to over 300 million, the percentage of individuals living below the poverty line has remained virtually the same, around 14%.  To use a modern phrase, “How’s that working for us?” 

There are many other programs that have empowered the Federal Government while decreasing the responsibility and ability of the States to function as sovereigns over their own people.  COS is working to restore the balance between the State and Federal Governments.  By returning the responsibility and competition back to the states, each state will strive to do more for their citizens and attract more people to the state and increase their prosperity.  (As a side note, where there is no competition, there is no progress.)  States need to have control of their lands and resources to perpetuate their prosperity.  Any misuse of these commodities reduces the state’s ability to maintain their population.  People will migrate to those states where they have the best chance of prospering, (just look at the exodus from California to surrounding states and Texas).

Having a Convention of States wherein amendments will be proposed that will restore the balance between the State and Federal Governments is the only way to remedy this imbalance without civil unrest or Civil War.  My plea to all, is that we can open our eyes to the inevitability of such a conflict if we don’t use the remedy provided us by Article V of the Constitution and when 34 States have applied, call a Convention of States and propose the amendments equal to the task of restoring the required balance.

Parilous Times

The first amendment to the Constitution states; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  We have allowed the Federal Government to breach this amendment to the point where, in the eyes of many, this government has replaced God.

It begins with a lure of money in the form of grants and subsidies.  For example, schools districts were among the first to succumb to this tactic.  The government offered them grants (like Title I funds) that have strings attached.  The school districts has to use those funds as the government dictates they have to in order to keep the funds coming.

Then the Supreme Court ruled that if the school district was receiving funds of any kind from the Federal Government, then they were an extension of Congress and therefore were under the same rules, i.e. they could “make no laws respecting an establishment of religion”.  So, prayer and the ten commandments were removed from the schools because it was an “establishment of religion”.  However, the Supreme Court forgot that by the same logic they used to state that the schools were an extension of Congress, that they too were likewise an extension of Congress and could make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  By making it illegal for schools to have prayer or the Ten Commandments in their buildings, they were making laws respecting an establishment of religion, namely Secular Humanism.

Now consider the issue of marriage.  Marriage is a religious ordinance.  It has always been an ordinance of religious orders no matter which sect of religion it is performed in.  The Supreme Court is now about to rule on marriage for the homosexual factions of our society.  This is another violation of the first amendment.  They are deciding whether homosexual marriage is constitutional or not.

 Under their own definition of what is under the umbrella of “Congress” the Supreme Court cannot make any ruling regarding the establishment of religion, therefore, they cannot declare homosexual marriage constitutional.  They can establish that civil unions between homosexuals are constitutional because that is not a religious ordinance, but secular one.  It can say that any entitlement of a civil union also applies to those homosexuals that enter into that civil union, but it has no constitutional authority to declare that homosexuals are entitled to a religious union called “marriage”.

This makes it our responsibility to oppose any court decision that declares that homosexual “marriage” is valid under the Constitution.  If the court decides that homosexuals may be united, under civil law then so be it, they have the right to do so because that is not a religious ordinance, however, they cannot rule that religious organizations who refuse to perform homosexual marriages are in violation of the constitutional rights of homosexuals.  If they do, then the court itself is in violation of the first amendment because they are establishing a law respecting the establishment of religion.

On the other hand, are we no longer subject to the Constitution of the United States and all the actions of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President having the semblance of acts that abide by the Constitution and are a façade and a sham?  What say you?

What do we live under, People’s Law or Ruler’s Law?

           When this country was founded, the perspective of government was different from what is now claimed to be correct.  The Founding Fathers perceived that the political spectrum was lineal.  At one end was the total rule of a single sovereign, either a king or dictator, in other words tyranny.  On the other end was the total lack of a governing body or anarchy.  Today the political spectrum places communism at one end and fascism at the other.  The reality of today’s view is that communism and fascism are almost two peas in a pod.  The only distinction between the two is that under communism, there is no ownership of private property.  Fascism allows for private ownership but the government tells you what you can and can’t do with that property.  Both are bent on government control of all assets.

With the Founders perspective, tyranny may or may not allow private ownership of property, either way the ruler tells his subjects what to do with his land and theirs.  However, with anarchy there is no ruler or rules so the result is chaos.

The Founders sought to establish a government that was half way between tyranny and anarchy, which they called “People’s Law.  It established a government in which the people were the sovereign and the rules established applied equally to all.  There was to be neither royalty nor serfdom.  Each faired according to his efforts and ingenuity, however, each was also to allow others right to do the same.

To illustrate the difference between ruler’s law and people’s law, let’s look at the fundamental principles of each.  First, ruler’s law:

Ruler’s Law

1.      Authority nearly always established by force, violence, and conquest.

2.      All sovereign power is considered to be in the conqueror or his descendants.

3.      The people are not equal, but are divided into classes and are all looked upon as “subjects” of the king.

4.      The entire country is considered the property of the ruler.  He speaks of it as his “realm”.

5.      The thrust of governmental power is from the top down, not from the people upward.

6.      The people have no unalienable rights.  The “king giveth and the king taketh away”.

7.      Government is by the whims of men, not by the fixed rule of law that the people need in order to govern their affairs with confidence.

8.      The ruler issues edicts that are called “the law”.  He then interprets the law and enforces it, thus maintaining tyrannical control over the people.

9.      Under Ruler’s Law, problems are always solved by issuing more edicts or laws, setting up more bureaus, harassing the people with more regulators, and charging the people for these “services” by continually adding to their tax burden.

10.  Freedom is never looked upon as a viable solution to anything.

11.  The long history of Ruler’s Law is one of blood and terror, both anciently and in modern times.  Under it, the people are stratified into an aristocracy of the ruler’s retinue while the lot of the common people is one of perpetual poverty, excessive taxation, stringent regulations, and a continuous existence of misery.

People’s Law

1.      They considered themselves a commonwealth of freemen.

2.      All decisions and the selection of leaders had to be with the consent of the people, preferably by full consensus, not just a majority.

3.      The laws by which they were governed were considered natural laws given by divine dispensation, and were so well known by the people they did not have to be written down.

4.      Power was dispersed among the people and never allowed to concentrate in any one person or group.  Even in time of war, the authority granted to the leaders was temporary and the power of the people to remove them was direct and simple.

5.      Primary responsibility for resolving problems rested first with the individual, then the family, then the tribe or community, then the region, and finally the nation.

6.      They were organized into small, manageable groups where every adult had a voice and a vote.  They divided the people into units of ten families who elected a leader; then fifty families who elected a leader; then a hundred families who elected a leader; and then a thousand families who elected a leader.

7.      They believed the rights of the individual were considered unalienable and could not be violated without risking the wrath of Divine justice as well as civil retribution by the people’s judges.

8.      The system of justice structure was based on severe punishment unless there was complete reparation to the person who had been wronged.  There were only four “crimes” or offenses against the whole people.  These were treason, cowardice, desertion, and homosexuality.  These were considered capital offenses.

9.      They always attempted to solve problems on the level where the problem originated.  If this was impossible, they went no higher than was absolutely necessary to get a remedy.  Usually only the most complex problems involving the welfare of the whole people ever went to the leaders for solution.

(All of these points came from “The 5000 Year Leap” by Cleon Skousen.)

With some thought, we can easily see which set of rules this country was founded on and which ones we have migrated to over time.  Today, the power has been removed from those governed and placed on those that govern.  Even the checks and balances placed in the Constitution by the Founders have been undermined until they are practically non-existent.

Let me provide you with a scenario to demonstrate how this has happened.  We start with a community of several families of different sizes.  Ralph is single.  He owns a car that carries him to and from work.  John and Rachael have no children but have two cars, but they generally only use one of them because they ride to work together.  Daniel and Emily have two children but no car.  Either Daniel goes to work on a bicycle or on the bus and Emily does all her shopping by riding the bus to and from the stores.

Ralph doesn’t think it is right that John and Rachael have two cars, one of which is seldom used, and Daniel and Emily don’t have any but have children so they need transportation that is more independent.  So one night he decides that he will do Daniel and Emily a favor and get them a car.  He goes to John and Rachael’s house, takes their “spare” car, and delivers it to Daniel and Emily.

The next morning, John calls the police because he sees his car in Daniel’s driveway.  The police come and investigate.  They find out that Ralph had taken the car and arrest him.

Ralph spends the next three years in jail for grand theft auto.  He spends his time in jail learning how to manipulate the law.  He learns how to use it to accomplish his goal of getting Daniel and his family a car.

When he comes home, he starts a petition to get the law changed so that no family in the town can have two cars until every family in town has at least one.  He passes the petition around and gets enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot.  When it comes time to vote, no one pays very close attention to the initiative and votes for it because it has a very convincing title on the ballot. 

Now the law has to take effect.  John and Rachael have to give one of their cars up so it is given to Daniel and Emily.  Finally, Ralph has attained his desired goal.  He has obtained “social equality” and feels that “social justice” has been served.

This scenario more or less follows what has been happening in our society.  Originally, the laws the government followed prohibited it from doing anything an individual could not do for himself.  Now, the government has usurped, by deception in many cases, tasks that the individual is not authorized to do for himself.

The government should perform the following:

1.      Police the streets

2.      Provide infrastructure for the area governed, (streets, sewer, water, etc. for the city, county, state, federal).

3.      Collect taxes and disburse those funds to pay for the infrastructure.

4.      Provide Fire Protection

5.      Zoning and building codes

6.      In essence, to do those things that need to be done but it would be impractical for the individual to do for himself.

The question, now, is how do we return to the proper role of government?  How do we return the responsibility for self, back to the individual?  How do we rein in an out-of-control bureaucracy that controls the law-making process that was specifically delegated to Congress?  The only way given to us by the Founders is to use Article V of the Constitution to call for a Convention of States to amend it and clarify areas that have been interpreted in such a manner as to give more power to the Federal Government than was intended by the Founders.

Amending the Constitution won’t be an easy task.  Even if it is amended to return responsibility back to the citizens, it will be an uphill battle to get those who are used to being supported by the government to take responsibility for themselves and their families.  Those individuals will fight tooth and nail to keep receiving the “entitlements” that they have been receiving from the government.  They have become so used to taking from the “haves” that they will take to the streets to keep it coming.  Their desire for the “dole” to continue comes from the philosophy of those in government.  They have been teaching the poor that they ARE entitled to what they receive because the rich have stolen it from them.  They have been steeped in the ideology that they are entitled to government support.  Those who have worked hard to attain their wealth “owe” it to them because they have been less fortunate.  That is what “social equality” is all about.

So, if it were up to you, which would you prefer “social justice” or individual freedom?  Do you prefer “ruler’s law” or “people’s law”?

It's "Time" to Live by the Compass

It's "Time" to Live by the Compass

Ever since I started doing my own personal vetting of candidates for any political office, I look to see if they live by the clock or the compass.  Those who live by the clock are always interested in just how much time they have before the next election and how much money they have accrued in their "war chests" to defeat their opponent.  Those who live by the compass, don't worry about when the next election is or whether they will win, they are more concerned with the direction the country is headed.

Even though they don't agree on some things, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul agree on one major point, the Constitution is the law of the land and must be followed.  It seems to me that those who are aspiring to be either Representatives of the people or Senators, would do very well to look at the character of these individuals to see why they are so stalwart in maintaining principles that reflect a deep understanding of the intent of the Constitution.

Living by the compass, they have seen through the smoke screen of false ideology that seems to have permeated the philosophy espoused by both major political parties.  I have heard so many times that the Constitution was a "living" document, that it has to change to keep up with the times.  This is the same kind of philosophy that doomed ancient Rome and Greece.  

These individuals espouse the fact that the Constitution was written to address human nature.  The Founders were well aware, and often expressed their feelings about what they were seeing in the person of King George III.  They knew that, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  If you are a student of history, you will recognize this concept in both the secular leadership throughout history as well as ecclesiastical leadership during the times of the Inquisition and many other religious leaders, Christian and non-Christian alike.

As students of the Constitution; Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul recognize that the Founders were not all of the same religion nor were they all of the same political ideology.  Many were anti-federalists in opposition to the federalists.  However, all recognized that government was to be the servant and not the master.  The Constitution was written in such a way as to bridle government and rein it in when it became overbearing.  The Constitution loans the Federal Government enumerated powers so it could perform tasks that would be difficult for each state to perform independently.  Having said that, it is important to point out some of the powers that were not delegated to the Federal Government.  These three Senators have expressed concerns about these two areas of concern.

There is no provision in the Constitution to grant the Federal Government the power to regulate education.  The states and local governments were to be in charge of the education.  They would be in competition with each other to provide the best education for their citizens in order to attract people to their states.  Once the Federal Government took over the responsibility of educating all "citizens of the United States", this competition disappeared.  The Federal Government then bribed the states (with money that came from the states) to put in place programs like "No Child Left Behind" and "Common Core" which serve to indoctrinate and "entitle" students more than educate them.  (An aside, it is impossible to not leave those who don't want to learn behind without slowing those who want to learn down and bore them to death.)

General Welfare as used in the Preamble didn't mean that the Federal Government was responsible to respond to every natural disaster or calamity that happens throughout the country.  As a history teacher, I pointed out to the students that the Federal Government didn't step in to assist Chicago after the Great Fire in 1871. Neither did it step in to rebuild San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake and fire that left that town devastated.  In both cases the residents of the cities, citizens of the state, and volunteers from around the country came together to rebuild each without federal assistance.  

These three statesmen continually point out two things from the Progressive Era of President Wilson that  came together to extract more power from the states and place it on the shoulders of the Federal Government.  First, income tax was instituted by the 16th amendment to give the Federal Government power over each individual's purse strings, and second, the in-statement of Senators was changed from the legislative bodies of the various states to popular election by the people by the 17th amendment.  

You might ask how these two "progressive" ideas have served to undo the vertical checks and balances placed in the Constitution by the Founders.  In the first place, the Federal Government was to provide for its needs with impost and excise taxes.  For more than a century, this method of taxing kept the Federal Government from growing out of proportion to what was necessary to accomplish its purposes.  With the imposition of individual income tax by amendment, government could collect more than it needed.  That gave rise to the manufacturing of "needs" to which the excess money was to be applied.  

Secondly, no longer were the Senators responsible to the states they represented, but to the people of the states.  On the surface this seems fine, but the Founders knew that a popular vote for both houses would hamstring states because they would not be represented in Congress, that is why there was such a debate over the composition of the Senate and how they would be selected in the Constitutional Convention.  They were to represent the states, not the people, therefore they were selected by the state legislatures.

Now more than ever the political scene is one of competition to see who can promise more money from the non-existent coffers of the Federal Government than their competitor.  Both Senators and Representatives use the wholesale quid pro quo use of earmarks and pork barrel projects to buy votes and remain in office.  This is human nature at its worst.  Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul are the exceptions to this kind of politics and live by their moral compasses instead of the political clock of iron triangle.

Article V The Scary Alternative

Article V The Scary Alternative

1/19/14

We all have had our share of consternation about what the Federal Government has and is doing to our country.  I have heard many different options ranging from an attitude of “oh well” to civil war.  Neither of the extremes have much appeal to me.  I don’t want to succumb to the slavery that comes from a central government owning everything and telling me what I can and can’t do, nor do I want to see our land soaked in the blood of patriots and federalists either. 

One thing that has been tried unsuccessfully in the past, due to the lack of sufficient numbers of states supporting it, that can be pursued again is the only remedy that the Founders placed in the Constitution.  It is an Article V convention of states.  The reason people are scared of it is that opponents of this method of amending the Constitution have falsely insinuated that it would lead to another “Constitutional Convention” in which the Constitution would be totally discarded and a new form of government instituted.  Many say that the Progressives would turn it into a free-for-all to eliminate the freedoms that the original Constitution guarantees to the citizens of this country. 

It is time to look at the option realistically.  First, Congress shall call a convention of states only when 2/3 of the States apply for the convention using the same, or virtually the same, wording in the application.  Many think that Congress will find ways to discredit the applications if the exact same verbiage is not supplied in each.  The first hurdle that has to be crossed is getting 34 of the 50 States to apply using the identical wording in their applications.

Second, even though the convention of states is called I’m sure that Congress, who sets the date and place for the convention, will set it at the most inconvenient place and time they can.

You see, it isn’t to their advantage for amendments to be written that would limit their power and return it back to the States and the people.  The convention might do things like call for a balanced budget, term limits for both Representatives and Senators, revamp the tax system to make it equitable and fair for all citizens without Congressional interference, return the original intent of the Commerce Clause back to regulating interstate and international commerce only, and the list goes on.

Third, after the convention decides on the exact verbiage and proposal for each amendment, then the proposed amendments have to go to either the state legislatures or state conventions of all 50 States to be ratified by ¾ of the them before they become part of the Constitution.  It is very unlikely that 38 States would ratify amendments that would injure either their ability to function as states or to their citizens.  Therefore, if the worst fears of opponents to an Article V Convention of States were realized and that the convention became a runaway convention, they can still stop it by making their voice heard during the ratification process.

After having said all that, it becomes pretty clear to me that it would be nigh to impossible for an Article V Convention of States to produce anything that the people would not support and that would not be to their benefit.  I’m also thinking that, because of the progressive tendencies of the Media that they would be all over the proposed amendments like ugly on an ape (sorry PETA) and they would possibly be brought to the attention of more people than even a terrorist attack would be.  To those who have, as I have, come to the conclusion that this might be our only avenue for correcting a renegade government, without tearing this country apart in civil war, what I have presented probably sounds like an idea whose time has come.

An Article V Convention of States Project is already out there and working hard to produce the results I have described.  If you want to check it out and become a part of the solution instead of the problem, contact http://convention.movements.us/# .  It will take as much help as can be mustered to get 3,000 or the 4,000 legislative districts on the states to propose the application as discussed.  People need to become involved to ensure that the state legislators know that we have their backs and support them in their call for a convention.