Americans have the Constitutionally protected right to speak freely. But what if we began to self-monitor ourselves to not speak words that may be deemed unpopular, offensive, or politically incorrect? Pretty kewl, huh? Kinda like slaying the king in the womb before birth.
As we approach the mid-term 2018 elections where many U.S citizens and Citizens of the States will be exercising their franshised right to vote on who shall they trust best to uphold their Constitutionally protected rights at the city, State and federal levels. The unfortunate thing is that many of them will be voting on everything other than someone who ensures that their rights are protected, but how much of the government’s benefits and treasure they can get for their personal benefit.
On Wednesday morning, the 9th of November 2016, many Americans and citizens of the United States awaken with sadness, heartache, joy, exhilaration, and some with anger. And I’m sure that there were some wondering WTF?!. and asking themselves, how did we get to such a decrepit political situation, again? We were literally stuck with no good choice to be the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Some members of the society were so upset over the democratic election of the Mr. Donald J. Trump that they marched in the nation’s streets and lashed out to almost anything of a visual reminder of the victor to express their dissatisfaction and frustration. I found it interesting that Media sought not to describe this extreme expression of dissatisfaction as “racist” due to the fact that Mr. Trump is Caucasian, or discriminatory against the wealthy, due to Mr. Trump’s immense wealth, or age discrimination, due to the fact the Trump will be the oldest man to be elected president at 70 years old, or any other excuse for violent acts and disorder to attach to a protected class as it did strenuously struggled to apply to any criticism or expression of dissatisfaction over the election or policies of Mr. Barack Obama; as though any and all discontent expressed was simply due to the fact that he was Black.
As I look at it, I see very little difference from post-election day 2016 and that of 2008 or 2012. I’m sure that were many of the voters wondering, could we had done better with the choices that were laid in front of us? A good argument can be made that in the 2008 and 2012 elections the voters were left between rather to have their left arm or right leg sawed off at the joints. Whereas on Tuesday November 8th 2016 left voters with the choice of either have the left or right eye ball removed with a rusty tong; both candidate’s had unfavourabilities hovering near 60%. Amazing!
I think that mid-1700’s French lawyer, diplomat, writer, and philosopher, Joseph de Maistre, may have said it best, “In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve.” You notice that he did not say that we get the leaders that we want, but the leaders that we deserve. I’d be willing to bet you a dollar to a donut that most U.S voters would say that they want the U.S president to be a person of high moral conviction, of good character, and honest. But, actions speak volumes. If you take an honest assessment of the two individuals that were the electable choices to be president, it would be quite obvious that that’s not what the voters ultimately voted for. Quite the opposite. So too the same can be said as for the two prior presidential election outcomes.
The Citizens of the United States in ’08 and 2012 elected a man to be president without enquiring of him anything more than they would someone who was applying to manicure their yard. We cared not his political philosophy. We cared not of his personal affiliations that helped mold and influence his world view, men such as Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. All of whom were either Communist/Marxist, Socialist, and or Anarchist. We showed scant, if any, interest in how did the effects of both of his dads being from socialist/communist Muslim countries, one being from Indonesia and his biological father being from Kenya, and his mother having extreme socialist political leanings, had on his world perception. Nor did we seem to be too inquisitive how he could be part of the Trinity United Church of Christ for some 20 plus years, be married in it, and have a person such Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who preached a radical form of black liberation, and then tell us that he had no idea of the type of preaching that was espoused by Rev. Wright. Mr. O was presented to the voters as blank canvas, for which we could mentally create into who we wanted him to be, as he spoke with velvet silk tongue about “Hope & Change”. How he would make all of our economic pains go away; that Santa [the government] would take from the bad an evil rich and give all of their ill-gotten wealth to us, the “less fortunate”; and that Santa would deliver us a Utopian paradise, just because. Too many of us chose not to question with boldness the man who promised to “Fundamentally transform America”, just what was he transforming America from, and into what? And the complicit Media ensured that we the people stayed distracted and squabbling amongst over selves so those such questions remain unasked.
With so much of the population so conditionally adverse to learning history, and therefore lack the ability to learn from it, it should come as no surprise that another virtual unknown is elected to the highest political office of the land, once again. This time he wears the Republican brand, billionaire businessman Mr. Donald J. Trump. Riding an emotional tsunami of a nation’s silent majority’s anger and discontent who has felt betrayed by the political “Establishment” and disillusioned with the future prospects of the nation – economically, nationally, and socially, with admittedly having never held any public office and showing no passion for historical political functioning nor posture. He sailed his way to being elected president of the United States on bluster, showmanship, machoism, and an emotionally charged mantra, “I’m Going to Make America Great Again”. And let’s not forget to mention he was up against the most ethically and morally flawed Democrat opponent who literally had a personality, that if she was honey, would draw 2 bees; and 1 would be lost. But even the most intellectually passive person might ask, What is his vision of America’s greatness? and How will that be manifested?
Once again, the voters of the United States some to be grossly disinterested in the philosophical constitution of the man who they have chosen to be president. The nation voters seem curiosity vacant regarding the political constitution of a man who has never held political office. For the man who is to be the face of the Republican Party, Mr. Trump has stated positions that are more than intellectually counter-intuitive, if not repugnant, to the ideology of Republicanism, such as; he favors Planned Parenthood, favors gender “equality” in the workforce, advocates eminent domain, he is for forcing businesses to adopt family paid leave policies, has stated the need for “universal healthcare”, and what to me is the most irreprehensible statement that he made was that “he has never sought the need to repent or ask the Creator for forgiveness. Should even the least inquisitive amongst us not pause and ask, what is it that guides this man who will be president’s decision making and governs his notion of right and wrong? Should someone be asking what does the fact that he is on his third marriage and that he has many times placed a greater value on potential golf course over that of 92 y/o Scottish woman’s fundamental right to be left alone say about his moral compass? Should we be at all concern of his strong fascist and corporatist leanings? What does the fact that he treats the Constitution with ill reverence says about whom he may choose to enforce it? Is he the best amongst us whom we could have chosen? Do we care to even ask such bold questions anymore? And if the voters continue to take their choices so triviality, what does that say about the future of our great country?
A good argument can be made that it hasn’t been since the election of Reagan that the nation has had a president who the people, with little conscience reservation, felt proud when he spoke in our name, felt confident in his character, had confident that he was guided by Divine moral conviction, and felt little need question his judgement. There is a reason that Reagan’s name still demands honor and respect, and so many Republicans blasphemously speaks his name for their illicit political benefit. When have you heard any Democrat president spoken nearly with such reverence? Carter? Clinton? Will Obama be? Yes, you can say Kennedy. But the nation was vastly different then – morally, socially, economically, and politically. The distance from America then and America now is comparable to that of Earth and Pluto.
The importance of choosing a God-fearing man of good moral character to govern and the consequences that would come if the American people failed in that undertaking may have been foretold no more prophetically them Founding Father Noah Webster, when he said, “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, “just men who will rule in the fear of God.” The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.” and “When a citizen gives his suffrage (vote) to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country.”
This nation will not fail or succeed by the moral compass or quality of character of the leaders placed to govern, but by that of the people who chooses them to govern.
In the wake of the Iranian-U. S Nuclear Treaty Agreement, where by nearly all conscious observers the U.S government went far beyond bending over and grabbing it’s ankles to give Iran all that it wanted out of the deal. The Agreement between Iran and the 5 Permanent members of the U.N Security Council – the U.S, the U.K, Communist China, Russia, & France, plus Germany gave Iran access to Trillions of seized funds and blockaded military hardware and technology. But, what may be an even greater prized for Iran is the public relations value of the strong appearance that they surrendered little to nothing of it’s core principles or position. It does not have to denounce it’s sponsorship and promotion of terrorism. It does not have to denounce it’s position of wiping Israel off the map. And it did not give into demands of unfettered inspection of it’s nuclear sites nor disclose the status of it’s nuclear program.
There are many who strain to draw comparison to this perceived U.S/Obama led gross capitulation to Iran and U.K/Chamberlain’s towards Hitler’s Germany [the Munich Pact Treaty] that arguably led to WW 2. But I like to look at the possible intent and motives of the two main characters – Obama and Chamberlain.
By all historical accounts, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain loved his country and it’s people and was determined to not get his people involved in another war, like the WW 1. And even though he eventually saw the error in his position, he relented to his arch political nemesis, Winston Churchill. But he stayed on to serve in Churchill’s Administration. As for Mr. Barry-Barack Hussein Soetoro-Obama [Barry Soetoro is Barack’s official name age 6] his loyalty is very much in question. Though seemingly of little to no interest to the U.S Establishment News Media.
The U.S Media appears to be most disinterested in the fact that Mr. O was raised by two Muslim fathers of nations which did not hold western culture or America in high regards. He was not taught of Americanism like many of us have, due to the fact that he did not step foot on the Continental United States of America until his college days where he became heavily influenced by anti-American/Marxist/Communist/ Socialist personalities, such as Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The U.S Media seems narcoleptic when it comes to Mr. O’s relationship with Islam and his brother, who is linked to the Iranian-backed Muslim Brotherhood. And I have not even included Mr. O’s repeated expressed mantra of America and the United States’ unjust dominant position in the world, as evidenced by his infamous Apology Tour and his unfailing attempts to degrade and or denigrate America’s culture and history whenever he’s presumably out of ear shot of the American people. Even on foreign Muslim soil as in Turkey he thought it was a good time to shine light on America’s “dark periods”, referring to our nation’s slave period. Of which he has a connection only through books and movies, for neither Kenya nor Indonesia were sources of American slaves.
Though the Media can easily gets hyper invigorated over the fact that Republican Candidates Marco Rubio has had a couple of speeding tickets in the past and has a bought a boat, Ted Cruz was a dual Canadian citizen, and that Wis. Governor Scott Walker dropped out of Marquette University, it seemingly sees nothing at all to be the slightest bit inquisitive of in the current occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Mr. O will be the face of what future historians may call the most tragic military agreement ever! If there has ever been a nation’s leader that has epitomized such a severe indifference and hostility to the fundamental principles and traditional values of the very nation that he or she was supposed to represent and serve as Mr. O, history has yet to give him or her their just due.
The lightening quick resignation/firing of newly hired Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich is only the latest disturbing sign of the Progressive Liberal’s publicly execution of anyone who dares to claim opposition to their point of view. What was the crime that meant that his head should be put on display to forewarn any others who dare to come down his path of free expression? He contributed $1000 to California Proposition 8, that dared to declare that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. Shut da front door!! Oh by the way, the measure passed overwhelming, and was only rejected by a grossly overreaching Federal Circuit Court declaring that the voices of the people does not matter regarding matters that it [the government] wants to promote.
But this is not the first time in history in which the government sought to silence descending or opposing points of view. Remember throughout Nazi Germany, with the SS Brown Shirts, and totalitarian/communist nations, such as China and North Korea, where friends, family members, and coworkers are literally turned into government informants, and the citizens are conditioned to self-sensor their actions and words so as not to appear out of step with the conformist population and suffer the wrath of the government. To the point that hardly anyone dares to speak publicly against the actions or motives of the government or whatever the current politically correct attitude is of the time. Even in the Bible, the story of King Nebuchadnezzar and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, where the king mandated everyone bow down and willfully submit to his wishes and to be blindly worshiped, or violators would be cast in a burning furnace. When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego openly refused his demands, they were arrested and thrown into the burning furnace for all others to take notice if they too dared disobey the kings demands or wishes.
History has shown us that one of the first things that a tyrant, or a government that seeks to rule of its citizens, is to suppress and or control speech and the flow of communication amongst the people. And the Founders of this great nation were all too conscious of such tragic episodes in history. So they placed the freedom of speech as the very first Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America. Ironically, it was placed right along with restraining the government from interfering in the free exercise of a citizen’s religious. At the end of the day, the free expression of religion, particularly that of Christendom, is what all of this dust up is about. Just as in the Phil Robertson’s, of the A & E Duck Dynasty Reality TV show, brouhaha over his personal belief that marriage is defined in the Bible as being between a man and a woman. Period! We are supposed to be fruitful and multiply, i.e., to procreate according to the Bible. And though I’m not a biology whiz by any measure, two men nor two women can procreate. But since the end game is to fundamentally transform this nation into something that it was never designed to become, to detach it, and it’s people, from its Christian foundation, any semblance or representation of Christendom has to abolished from public view and of any relevance.
In order to carry out this grand deception, freedom of speech has to be contorted, suppressed, manipulated, and or extracted, except when it promotes the governments needs,and the truth to made into a lie. If the government says that a woman can correctly raise a child absent a man, than anyone else who says otherwise is now wrong. If the government says that the Negro people are inferior to Caucasians and should be made subservient to them, anyone who says otherwise is wrong. If the government says that Christendom should be detached from the lives of the citizenry for the sake of not “offending” someone, than anyone else who says otherwise is wrong. And if the government mandates that marriage shall now be defined openly to include those of the same sex, than anyone who does not bow to that way of thinking is now wrong. And the best way to infuse compliance throughout the population is a public lynching, execution, or burning in a furnace for the populace to be warned of the consequences of noncompliance. It does not matter of what political party’s affiliation that prescribes such policy. It only matter if such policy is designed to encourage more freedom, or less freedom.
Tyranny does not have to come via direct brute force, but by gentle coercion and the redefining of truth and right. Today truth and right is being redefined under the guise of “tolerance”. Particularly during the past 6 years or so, to publicly show favor of anything traditionally American, whether it be our language, our history, our flag, our laws, customs, values, or religious principles, has been redefined as being intolerable in defense of that of anothers. Conservative political commentator Erick Erickson truthfully stated, “Evil Preaches Tolerance Until It Is Dominant, Then Seeks to Silence Good.”
True freedom is defined, “The quality or state of being free: as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” The Founders knew all too well the crucial importance of the people being able to speak freely amongst each other, to be able to disseminate information without fear of government reprisals, manipulation, coercion, or intimidation. That is why a free and unadulterated press was also placed in the first Amendment.
If we began to self-censor what we say or how we communicate to each other to the point that we only publicly display actions or say things simply because its what others want to see or hear, it stifles freedom and opens the way for government to come off its leash. 1700’s French author and writer, Voltaire, famously said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” The freedom of speech does not shield you from being offended or having bad things said to you. I remember back in the day, there was a saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, words will never hurt me.” As an individual though I may not like what you say or do, or the manner by which chose to act, I can not stop you by force for speaking nor acting in any way. But, the government can, whether it be directly, via standing near you with his hand on his gun, or indirectly, via public policy enactments, laws, or decrees. So long as one is not infringing upon another’s right to his of her life, liberty, or property/pursuit of happiness, it should not manner. We have gotten to a disturbing point in this country that we a self-censoring our thoughts so as not to commit a crime. Founder Ben Franklin so warned us, “Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.”
The choice is ours.