This blog is about understanding the original intent of the United States Constitution and applying the principles extracted from its words and clauses to modern issues. Before anyone gets involved in public discourse, they should take the time to read and understand its original intent, because it is “the supreme Law of the Land,” to which all other laws within its jurisdiction must conform. It is vital every American citizen upholds the original intent or nothing that we hold sacred will be spared. This first post references a copy of the Constitution that has all the original spelling, punctuation, and clauses as they appear in the original document.
Following the Presidential election on November 6, 2012, citizens from each of the 50 States signed secession petitions on the White House website requesting to peacefully form their own government separate from the United States. In response to these petitions, other citizens signed petitions requesting the President “sign an executive order such that each American citizen who signed a petition from any state to secede from the USA shall have their citizenship stripped and be peacefully deported.” Obviously, this is an emotional issue, but emotions aside, it is the duty of every American citizen to uphold the supreme law of the Land, which is the US Constitution and secession is Constitutional.
Much of the world’s current instability in relation to the United States can be traced to a lack of a cohesive long term foreign policy and American interventionism. Although, America’s foreign policy changes with every incoming presidential administration in which each President decides, based on political expediency, in what countries he will interfere and what polices he will pursue, one thing remains constant from administration to administration, interventionism.
As a result of interventionism, neither America’s allies nor its enemies know what to expect out of America from one four year period to the next, except that America will interfere or not interfere with their sovereignty if it fits the political agenda of the elected President. Recent examples of this include involvement in the Contra War in the 1980s, the Kosovo War in the 1990s, and the Iraq War in the 2000s.
In addition to active involvement in the internal affairs of other governments, America’s foreign military bases, financial support for foreign governments, and membership in collective security agreements such as NATO, SEATO and the UN are symptomatic of our interventionist foreign policy.
Very few Americans understand how the Constitution defines “dollars” or the constitutionally delegated monetary powers and prohibitions to Congress and the States. As a result, Americans take many unlawful monetary policies for granted, because they have known nothing different and have not questioned the national government’s authority to do the things it has done.
Every American should question if the government has the authority to emit a legal-tender paper currency irredeemable in silver or gold coin. If they have the authority to seize the people’s gold like the FDR administration did in 1933. If they are authorized to make the notes of private banks obligations of the United States and legal tender or allow private banks, through an administrative agency exercising unlimited discretion, to draw money from the Treasury without specific appropriations made by law.
Today, millions of taxpayers hand over large portions of their income directly to the national government without considering the founders had never intended it to be this way. Instead, Americans are distracted by a debate waged between two political parties. One party is fighting to reduce taxes while the other wants to raise them to pay for social welfare spending in society. The essence of the debate is governmental distribution of income, which was never an intended purpose for taxation. But before entering into such a debate, everyone should ask, “Is there a better way to fund our national government?”
The youthful tidal wave plunging over America’s southern border has brought the immigration debate to a critical crescendo. While most Americans are struggling with what is the moral and ethical thing to do with the children, the two political parties are struggling with how they are going to out-maneuver the other in a political chess match that has the future control of America at stake. The debate centers on giving citizenship, with full voting privileges, to people who come to America illegally.
The case against secession was best made before 1861 by James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln, the 15th and 16th Presidents of the United States. Buchanan made his case during his December 3, 1860 State of the Union address and Lincoln made his case during his March 4, 1861 first inaugural address. Unfortunately for their cases against secession, their speeches were filled with a smorgasbord of logical fallacies and unsupported political rhetoric.
Their speeches also showcase how politicians mislead the public, wittingly or unwittingly, into policies that are destructive to the entire nation. The war that transpired as a result of the general acceptance of their rhetoric was completely unnecessary and avoidable. Its prevention required a President willing to act within constitutional bounds and only resort to war for a just cause and then only as the very last resort to restore justice under God’s Law.
Note: Some articles are in multiple Categories in the column to your right, but every article in the blog is listed and hyper linked under only one category below.
Immigration and Naturalization Policy
National Defense Policy
Every time a mass shooting happens in America, and before research or analysis for the actual cause can begin, many people and news outlets instantaneously clamor for national gun control as if they are following Rahm Emanuel’s dictum to “never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Such an approach speaks loudly that the issue is more about control than it is about guns.
As part of gun control advocates’ mantra and a cornerstone of their argument, they claim citizens don’t need assault weapons to hunt or to defend themselves in their homes. Although, it is true citizens can do both of these things without assault weapons, their claim misinterprets the intent of the Second Amendment and the right it was written to protect.
In a nation that appears to be doing everything possible to expunge the remnants of its Christian foundation and heritage, it is no wonder that John Calvin has been forgotten as the virtual founder of our nation. John Adams, America’s second President; Leopold von Ranke, a nineteenth century leading German historian; and George Bancroft, a Harvard educated historian known as the “father of American history”, all testified to the significant influence Calvin had upon the foundation of America.
Unlike Locke or Montesquieu, however, Calvin did not write a political treatise on how to organize civil government. Instead, he wrote Biblical expositions that completely changed how people in western culture thought about their relation to God and, subsequently, how they thought about their relation to their civil government.