Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The coming American dictatorship
Backwoods Home Magazine ^ | November/December 2000 | John Silveira

Posted on 09/20/2009 7:14:48 AM PDT by cc2k

<snip>

Mac thought again. “There are six things that I’d say are sure signs that we’re in trouble.

“First there’s the steady erosion of our basic rights, the ones a lot of people call our constitutional rights, though that’s not a good name for them. It’s better to think of them as natural rights, the way our Founding Fathers did—or think of them as God-given rights if you want. Thinking of them as constitutional rights is part of what is getting us in trouble. You have to realize that our Founding Fathers didn’t think of them as constitutional rights because they knew that if our rights are provided by either the Constitution or the government, what the government gives, it can also take away. As natural or God-given rights, they’re absolute. That’s the way they were intended.

“The next problem we have is related to this erosion of our rights, but I’d treat it as a whole separate category. It’s the unintended consequences of having created new rights—legal rights created by Congress and which Congress and bureaucrats have decided supercede or nullify our natural rights. These include the new rights that have come about as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Environmental Protection Act, and the American Disabilities Act. Unlike our natural rights, which come to us at the expense of no one else, the new rights have to be provided by someone else. ...

<snip>

“Last of all, but not least, our economy is no longer a true free market economy. It is now one of the socialist economies. We’re now a fascist economy. For all of our posturing about how bad fascism is, we have created a fascist economy as a compromise between capitalism and communism.

(Excerpt) Read more at backwoodshome.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS:
This is a short excerpt from a very long treatise. Please, click through and read the whole piece. It's worth the read as much today as it was when it was written. It has been posted on Free Republic before, but the threads have been either lost or scrubbed.

I’m taking a couple days off, so I thought I would leave some recommended reading for my FRiends (both old and new).

1 posted on 09/20/2009 7:14:48 AM PDT by cc2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cc2k
If the race card had "worked" as the liberals planned - and any time a person disagreed with them - they could be called "racist" and ruined... we'd have a dictator now.
2 posted on 09/20/2009 7:19:47 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cc2k

The famous 3rd way. It must be stopped. Resistance is the key.


3 posted on 09/20/2009 7:20:02 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
Don't leave Kenya without it.
4 posted on 09/20/2009 7:23:35 AM PDT by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cc2k

One of the things that really ticks me off is our politicians that try and determine what our Founders really, REALLY meant. Just read the Constitution as what it says. There is no way that they can determine what they really meant. I think they did a very good job with the Constitution. I am also interested in the Honduran Constitution. Did you know that they can NEVER change their Constitution. I hope they did a good job on it.


5 posted on 09/20/2009 7:25:48 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cc2k

Some of this reminds me of the central thesis of P. J. O’Rourke’s “Parliament of Whores”.


6 posted on 09/20/2009 7:28:48 AM PDT by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ; screaminsunshine; Vaquero
Please, people, click through and read the entire piece.

This has been building for decades, not months. This piece was actually written at the end of the Clinton administration, not this week. But the issues it raises are as valid today as they were back then, and even more critical.

And I’m less worried about Obama as the dictator (I don’t think he has the support of the people, nor the military) than I am about what is being set up for the leaders to come.

RC2 wrote:
One of the things that really ticks me off is our politicians that try and determine what our Founders really, REALLY meant. Just read the Constitution as what it says. There is no way that they can determine what they really meant. I think they did a very good job with the Constitution. I am also interested in the Honduran Constitution. Did you know that they can NEVER change their Constitution. I hope they did a good job on it.
Actually, the words of the Constitution mean what they say. I truly believe that as well. But I do think that context is important. Therefore, it is important to consult The Federalist Papers as well as The Anti-Federalist Papers to understand the thinking of the founders and the mood of the nation at the time the Constitution was written.
From the desk of
cc2k:

7 posted on 09/20/2009 7:30:46 AM PDT by cc2k (Are you better off today than you were $4,000,000,000,000 ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cc2k

The mood in 1776 and the mood in 2009...I think we have more reason to be angry at Washington than the Founders had against King George.


8 posted on 09/20/2009 7:37:22 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cc2k

Bump for home reading.


9 posted on 09/20/2009 7:49:56 AM PDT by Excellence (Meet your new mother-in-law, the United States Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine
In 1776 what the Americans revolted against was not the King but the abuse of their rights by a Parliament controlled by a corrupt oligarchy of moneyed interests. King George the 3rd was merely the figure head that represented this whole corrupt machine.

Fast forward to 2009 and you have the 0 who is merely the figure head for the corrupt moneyed interest's that run the Congress. GE writes the Cap and Tax bill, the Unions write the Health Care bill the Leftist pressure groups write the Stimulus bill etc etc etc

And in 2009 the news "Sons of Liberty" (aka the 09-12 Movement) are rising up to protest this abrogation of their rights.

10 posted on 09/20/2009 7:52:57 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The 0 regime: harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I am revolting against this revolting government. The revolt is going to be ..worse than expected..by the totalitarians.


11 posted on 09/20/2009 7:56:24 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cc2k
The author misses one of the signs. I would add a sixth:

The Marxists have nearly total control over our government K-12 schools and colleges and universities! Once they took hold of the schools those graduates then took over the culture.

In fact, from their very beginnings in the mid 1800s to finally being enacted nationwide in the early 1900s, government schools teach children to be comfortable with taking other people's money to pay for something their parents want for free! Do this for 13 or more years and the citizen is now fully ready to take money from his neighbor for retirement, disability, medicines, ICU care, food, clothing, shelter, university scholarships...etc.

It is my belief that FDR was elected and his New Deal approved because 1 to 3 generations of citizens had been programed to comfortable with socialism merely by attending government schools which are fundamentally middle class education welfare. It's been a downhill slide since.

But...If conservatives want to reverse this they maybe there is still time. They must dedicate themselves to getting children into building up a system of conservative, tuition-free, and private schools. ( Hopefully, it is too late.)

12 posted on 09/20/2009 8:05:53 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cc2k

I agree but, I read the Federalist Papers from time to time but only to see “why” they did what they did. Not to attempt to pick their minds as to what they really meant without saying it.


13 posted on 09/20/2009 8:06:33 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cc2k
You wouldn't happen to have links to the other parts of this would you?

I'm referring to this bit:

In the Jan./Feb., 2001 issue, Mac, John, and Dave discuss how the invention of new legal rights and collective rights, the results of the Civil Rights Act, the Environmental Protection Act, and the American Disabilities Act are being used to empower government and special interest groups and to abrogate our natural rights.

In later issues they discuss how Presidents unconstitutionally bypass the legislative process with Executive Orders, which include among them provisions to suspend the Constitution for indefinite periods; how bureaucrats are putting themselves beyond our reach with juryless trials; how the government now uses businesses including banks, airlines, and even manufacturers of paper to get around the Fifth Amendment and conduct warrantless searches; how the government will eventually control the Internet, how the conversion of the military from a “citizen army” to a professional army is a danger to us all; and how all the time we were fighting communism, fascism was put into place in this country.

Thank you for posting this.
14 posted on 09/20/2009 8:07:27 AM PDT by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine
“So, what happened?” Dave asked. “Where’d we go wrong? How’d we go from a country that was free to this erosion of our rights?”

“You can start with one simple premise: we all want to be free, but we want to dictate to our neighbors. There’s always something our neighbors do that we don’t like and that we think there should be a law against. I’m not talking about murder or robbery where there’s a victim and upon which we can get almost universal agreement that it’s wrong. I’m talking about gambling, prostitution, drug use, putting additions on your house, wearing seat belts, how children are educated, etc. I think there should be a law against something you’re doing or not doing and you, in turn, think someone should make a law against something I’m doing, and...”

Isn't THAT the truth!

15 posted on 09/20/2009 8:09:09 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather (OBAMANOCARE: No Privacy, No Choice, No Humanity, No Quality, No Health, No Life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

No doubt. When I was a kid there was a cartoon in the Sunday Funnies that was called.”There Oughta Be A Law” Well over the years too many Politicians with too much time on their hands have taken it to the EXTREME. There are more and more stupid laws and none are ever repealed. For every new law they should have to repeal ten.


16 posted on 09/20/2009 8:13:19 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RC2
I agree but, I read the Federalist Papers from time to time but only to see “why” they did what they did. Not to attempt to pick their minds as to what they really meant without saying it.

Have you also read the Anti Federalist Papers? If not, you should. It will give you a more complete picture of the mood of the people in 1776.

17 posted on 09/20/2009 8:25:52 AM PDT by Chuckster (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Chuckster

No I haven’t. Is there a good website for this?


18 posted on 09/20/2009 8:29:47 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Chuckster
Interesting comment from Patrick Henry against adopting the US Constitution.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/liberty_empire.htm

Shall Liberty or Empire be Sought?

Patrick Henry, 1788

[From a speech made on June 5, 1788, in the Virginia Convention, called to ratify the Constitution of the United States.]

THIS, sir, is the language of democracy—that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen standing on this ground are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I can not help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone for ever.

We have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practised in the House of Commons of England, and that many of the members raise themselves to preferments by selling the rights of the whole of the people. But, sir, the tenth part of that body can not continue oppressions on the rest of the people. English liberty is, in this case, on a firmer foundation than American liberty. It will be easily contrived to procure the opposition of the one-tenth of the people to any alteration, however judicious. The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited—an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan; they will therefore act as they think proper; all power will be in their own possession. You can not force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the State? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

The honorable gentleman then went on to the figure we make with foreign nations; the contemptible one we make in France and Holland, which, according to the substance of the notes, he attributes to the present feeble government. An opinion has gone forth, we find, that we are contemptible people; the time has been when we were thought otherwise. Under the same despised government we commanded the respect of all Europe; wherefore are we now reckoned otherwise? The American spirit has fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never been expected; it has gone to the people of France in search of a splendid government, a strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government—for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different; liberty, sir, was then the primary object.

We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty; our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of everything. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors; by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, “we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble.” Would this constitute happiness or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects.

Consider our situation, sir; go to the poor man and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society; you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances. Why, then, tell us of danger, to terrify us into an adoption of this new form of government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce? They are out of sight of the common people; they can not foresee latent consequences. I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people; it is for them I fear the adoption of this system. I fear I tire the patience of the committee, but I beg to be indulged with a few more observations.

When I thus profess myself an advocate for the liberty of the people, I shall be told I am a designing man, that I am to be a great man, that I am to be a demagog; and many similar illiberal insinuations will be thrown out; but, sir, conscious rectitude outweighs those things with me. I see great jeopardy in this new government. I see none from our present one. I hope some gentleman or other will bring forth, in full array, those dangers, if there be any, that we may see and touch them. I have said that I thought this a consolidated government; I will now prove it. Will the great rights of the people be secured by this government? Suppose it should prove oppressive, how can it be altered? Our Bill of Rights declares that “a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”

The voice of tradition, I trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for freedom. If our descendants be worthy the name of Americans they will preserve and hand down to their latest posterity the transactions of the present times; and tho I confess my exclamations are not worthy the hearing, they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty, for I never will give up the power of direct taxation but for a scourge. I am willing to give it conditionally—that is, after non-compliance with requisitions. I will do more, sir, and what I hope will convince the most skeptical man that I am a lover of the American Union; that, in case Virginia shall not make punctual payment, the control of our customhouses and the whole regulation of trade shall be given to Congress, and that Virginia shall depend on Congress even for passports, till Virginia shall have paid the last farthing and furnished the last soldier.

Nay, sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent; even that they should strike us out of the Union and take away from us all federal privileges till we comply with federal requisitions; but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy manner for our people. Were all the States, more terrible than the mother country, to join against us, I hope Virginia could defend herself; but, sir, the dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to my mind. The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union. The increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New England; consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country. Consider this and you will find this State more particularly interested to support American liberty and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. I would give the best security for a punctual compliance with requisitions; but I beseech gentlemen, at all hazards, not to give up this unlimited power of taxation. The honorable gentleman has told us that these powers given to Congress are accompanied by a judiciary which will correct all. On examination you will find this very judiciary oppressively constructed, your jury trial destroyed, and the judges dependent on Congress.

This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy, and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American? Your president may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed to what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue for ever unchangeably this government, altho horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design, and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely—and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion—have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the president, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I can not with patience think of this idea. If ever he violate the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of the army to carry everything before him, or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of everything and being ignominiously tried and punished powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your president! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch; your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

19 posted on 09/20/2009 8:33:29 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The 0 regime: harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cc2k
Here is good article on "rights"...

Defining Rights

In the final analysis it comes down to what people are willing to tolerate.
20 posted on 09/20/2009 9:21:45 AM PDT by orinoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orinoco

Read it all. It sounds about right to me unfortunately.

So, even if some of us get it and try to stop the onslaught on our freedoms, the powers that be scream anarchy and chaos and the rest of us sheep will agree and nothing will be done. The govt failing that in that, which seems unlikely, more legal issues will be resolved without juries with the end result being that the govt gets to keep the status-quo.

Doesn’t sound too promising.


21 posted on 09/20/2009 11:24:19 AM PDT by abbi_normal_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper
That was the first book of his I read.....it was funny and I have been a fan ever since...

We have been under a dictatorship for a long time, it has many heads (congress and judges) instead of only one...that does not make it less a dictatorship...It started in the 60's when congress stopped representing the citizens and did what was good for themselves..

22 posted on 09/20/2009 11:56:02 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
In 1776 what the Americans revolted against was not the King but the abuse of their rights by a Parliament controlled by a corrupt oligarchy of moneyed interests.

This is a very good point, one I haven't seen made before here.

The "rotten borough" system persisted in England until the mid-1800's, when it was finally reformed. Until then, parliamentary seats based on medieval population patterns and having few contemporary constituents served as safe seats and political spoils. Control of them allowed moneyed interests to control Parliament.

23 posted on 09/20/2009 12:22:40 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Good point.

Lot's of people forget that the Boston Tea Party was a protest against a plan, implemented by Parliament, to give the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade.

24 posted on 09/20/2009 12:26:15 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (The 0 regime: harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cc2k

Bookmark for careful read.


25 posted on 09/20/2009 12:46:18 PM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus (Hey, O'Riley! I'd rather be a CRACKER than a CASPAR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2; Chuckster; MNJohnnie
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm

“Publius” was the moniker of the pro-constitutionalists.

Robert Yates of NY, the primary anti-consitutionalist used “Brutus.” Quite appropriate. IIRC, the few good points he made were overwhelmed by his general hysteria against replacing the Articles of Confederation.

The mood of 1787-88.

26 posted on 09/20/2009 12:57:49 PM PDT by Jacquerie (That to secure these (God given) Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: abbi_normal_2

There may be some crucial line(s) in the sand which the government may attempt to cross which cold result in a citizens revolt. Examples are an attempt to ban second amendment rights or extremely hight taxation. Once a revolt start more than just the trigger of the revolt is changed. I believe that fascists or outright communists cannot help themselves and will try to achieve total control. One day they will cross the line.


27 posted on 09/20/2009 2:29:55 PM PDT by orinoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

bump 19


28 posted on 09/20/2009 4:03:05 PM PDT by Christian4Bush ("A community organizer can't start bitching when communities organize." - Rush, 8/5/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RC2

You’re welcome.


29 posted on 09/20/2009 4:15:11 PM PDT by Jacquerie (That to secure these (God given) Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Thanks.....I saved that for better reading time.


30 posted on 09/20/2009 4:24:51 PM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cc2k

Bump for later reading...


31 posted on 09/20/2009 7:08:04 PM PDT by stevie_d_64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cc2k

btt


32 posted on 09/20/2009 7:21:14 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wintertime; RC2; avg_freeper
wintertime wrote:
The author misses one of the signs. I would add a sixth:

The Marxists have nearly total control over our government K-12 schools and colleges and universities! Once they took hold of the schools those graduates then took over the culture.

I agree there, and I do think that could be a separate issue.

Although the problem actually stems from his second point, the creation of new “rights,” created by governments and provided by governments. We now have a “right to a free (publicly funded) education.” And it is sheer insanity to expect that the government that funds that education won’t twist the curriculum won’t present the most government friendly curriculum they can get away with. That’s how they maintain power. That is entirely predictable.

RC2 wrote:
I agree but, I read the Federalist Papers from time to time but only to see “why” they did what they did. Not to attempt to pick their minds as to what they really meant without saying it.

I agree with that for the most part. However, there are some times when contemporaneous statements by the founders does help us to understand the full meaning of the actual words in the Constitution. Take this quote from Madison:


“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” — James Madison

There has been great confusion about the “general welfare” “clause” in the preamble to the Constitution, as well is in the preface of Article 1, Section 8, which only introduces the list of enumerated powers of Congress. This quote (and many others from the founders) makes it clear that there is no power to tax for the “general welfare.” Any law or court ruling to the contrary is based on either ignorance or willfully ignoring the actual words as well as the intent of the writers of the Constitution.

avg_freeper wrote:
You wouldn't happen to have links to the other parts of this would you?

Unfortunately, I don’t have an online source for these. All of these were posted here on FreeRepublic when they were published back in 2001 and 2002. And back then, we tended to post full text from articles, not just excerpts. I posted some of these myself. But it appears that the original threads from that time have been removed or lost somehow.

On the BackwoodsHome.com website, there are only two other columns by John Silveria on this topic, “The Coming American Dictatorship, Part XI,” from the current issue, and “The Coming American Dictatorship revisited,” from late 2002.

I hate to sound like I am trying to sell something here, but Backwoods Home used to have a CDROM with all of their back issues on it. You might try contacting them over on their web site and seeing if there is a CDROM covering the entire period when these columns were written.

By the way, most of John Silveria’s columns are great discussions of constitutional issues and government. The entire collection is well worth reading.


From the desk of
cc2k:

33 posted on 09/21/2009 5:25:00 AM PDT by cc2k (Are you better off today than you were $4,000,000,000,000 ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson