MADDOG10's Blog

Old news.

As I wrote last week, Paul said he was concerned that Americans targeted for  suspected terrorist ties would be destroyed in America itself. He revealed in an  editorial in the Washington Times: “The president said, ‘I haven’t killed anyone  yet, and I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might’” (“Rising in  defense of the Constitution,” Rand Paul, washingtontimes.com, March 8).

I have a complete transcript of Paul’s 13-hour speech, including his  follow-up to this presidential contempt for the separation of powers: “What if  the president were to say, ‘I haven’t broken the First Amendment yet; I intend  to follow it, but I might break it.’”

Later, Paul said: “Presidents, Republican and Democrats, believing in some  sort of inherent power that’s not listed anywhere … For a hundred years or so,  power’s been gravitating to the president – and the executive branch.”

And dig this from Rand Paul: “One of the complaints that you hear a lot of  times in the media is about there is no bipartisanship in Congress. (But) if you  look at people who don’t really believe in much restraint of government as far  as civil liberties, it really is on both sides.”

So, “Republicans and Democrats (also) vote overwhelmingly against the  Constitution giving Congress the power to declare war.

“The Constitution gave it to us (the people),” Paul emphasized, “but we are  giving it back.”

Also, on the question of bipartisanship, he adds: “The bipartisanship that we  have now, which many in the media fail to understand, they see us not getting  along on taxes and on spending, but they fail to understand that on something  very important, on whether an individual has a right not to be restrained  indefinitely, there is quite a bit of partisanship, usually in the wrong  direction.”

How about a Citizens’ Teacher of the Year Award to Rand Paul? Or at least  something that gets teachers who know enough about constitutional rule of law to  discuss his illumination of Americanism in their classrooms.

An awful lot keeps getting debated about Obamacare – in bars, restaurants, by  hospital patients and among doctors – but during those 13 hours, Paul added this  very troubling dimension to what is going to affect the health care of more and  more of us, whether young or an octogenarian, as I am:

“When we passed Obamacare, it was 2,000-some-odd pages. There have been 9,000  pages of regulations written since. Obamacare had 1,800 references that the  secretary of health shall decide at a later date. We (the people) gave up that  power. We gave up power that should have been ours, that should have been  written into the legislation. We gave up that power to the executive branch …  many of whom we call bureaucrats, unelected.”

Since some of those bureaucrats, who have never examined us as patients, will  soon be telling us that our doctors’ treatment of us is too expensive, how angry  are we at giving away our power to maybe live longer?

How many voting Americans know and care about this Rand Paul regeneration of  the Constitution, as it can affect our very lives?

He told us: “Your government was given a few defined powers (by the  Constitution), enumerated powers. … But your liberties are many. … When you read  the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, it says that those rights not explicitly given  to government are left to the states and the people. They’re yours, not to be  disparaged.”

How many Americans are familiar with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments – or have  read them at all?

Perhaps you remember this from Paul during his 13-hour speech:

“They say the United States is the battlefield (against terrorism) now. …  This battlefield being here at home means you don’t get due process at home. …  Is that what we’re moving toward?”

Paul got more penetratingly specific: “The question is, if the government is  going to decide who are sympathizers (with terrorists), and people who are  politicians with no checks and balances are to decide who is a sympathizer, is  there a danger really that people who have political dissent could be included  in this?”

The answer is in the database records of the FBI and state and local police  intelligence divisions.

The ACLU and other non-partisan civil-liberties and human-rights  organizations should set up continuing debates around the country that are  rooted in Paul’s revival of the Bill of Rights and other now-somnolent parts of  the Constitution.

But also, the growing number of active civics classes I’ve been reporting on  in schools around the country should bring Paul into the lives and intentions of  these students who are learning to be authentic, informed Americans.

And Rand Paul himself, in addition to now campaigning for the presidency in  2016, should start visiting schools and getting students to learn how this  patriot suddenly regenerated American values that they can continue  strengthening throughout their lives as citizens.

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

– Psalm 11:3

In case you haven’t heard, his son is a homosexual.

“I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime  commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the  government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married,” Portman wrote in  a commentary published Friday in the Columbus Dispatch.

I guess we should all be grateful Rob Portman’s son didn’t choose to become a  polygamist or a serial killer.

I have no doubt Rob Portman is sincere in his newfound opinion.

However, that’s all it is – an opinion.

And opinions don’t determine what is right and what is wrong. Opinions don’t  determine what is sinful and what is not sinful. Opinions don’t determine what  is truth and what is a lie.

Few are willing to say it anymore, but I will: Morality is determined by God,  not men.

Portman’s statement about two people making a lifetime commitment to love and  care for each other is very touching. But it’s not what marriage is about.  People make such commitments all the time. Parents make lifetime commitments to  love and care for their disabled children. They don’t generally marry them.  Siblings sometimes do the same thing. I trust Portman is not advocating  incestual relations as next on his list of reflective changes in the law.

And then there’s the question no one in the same-sex marriage camp wants to  answer: Why should such marriages be limited to couples? Isn’t that  narrow-minded and bigoted? Why not legalize polygamy or group marriages?

I once asked a noted homosexual-activist radio talker this question. His  answer was remarkable: “There is no demand for polygamy,” he said.

No demand? There’s far more demand for polygamy than for same-sex  marriage. One of the biggest religions in the world, with more than 1 billion  adherents, says it is perfectly all right. Another religion, based in the U.S.,  was forced to change its beliefs so that Utah could enter the union. And  polygamy is not waning in popularity – it’s on the rise.

If you think it is of little consequence that a Republican senator has  decided to cave to the cultural pressure to redefine the institution of  marriage, think again.

• Portman was one of a handful of politicians on Mitt Romney’s short list for  a vice presidential running mate. 

   

• Even more important right now is that Portman is the vice chairman of the  National Republican Senatorial Committee whose sole job is to raise money for  Republican Senate candidates in 2014. How would you like to be an  anti-establishment Republican Senate candidate who affirms that holy matrimony  is an institution created by God in the Garden of Eden with Rob Portman doling  out money to Republican Senate candidates? This is one more very important  reason not to send a dime to the NRSC or to Karl Rove’s super PACs. Give  your money only to the campaigns of worthy candidates.

People like Todd Akin and Steve King don’t represent a threat to the future  of the Republican Party. People like Rob Portman and Karl Rove represent a clear  and present danger to its future.

What they are pushing is not liberty, it is licentiousness. What they are  pushing is not morality, it is moral relativism. What they are pushing is not  the kind of virtue and personal responsibility that makes self-government  possible, it is the kind of pop-culture immorality that makes self-government  impossible.

“In short, contrary to the founders – and in ways they do not realize  themselves – Americans today are heedlessly pursuing a vision of freedom that is  short-lived and suicidal,” said Os Guinness. “Once again, freedom without  virtue, leadership without character, business without trust, law without  customs, education without meaning and medicine, science and technology without  human considerations can end only in disaster.”

Do you believe in the God of the Bible?

Here’s what He said about marriage in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore shall a man  leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall  be one flesh.”

Here’s what He said about homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not  lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Do you believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

Here’s what He said about marriage in Matthew 19:4-6: “Have ye not read, that  he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For  this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:  and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one  flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Do you believe the Apostle Paul was divinely inspired in his New Testament  writings?

Here’s what he said in Romans 1:18-32: “For the wrath of God is revealed from  heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in  unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for  God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation  of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,  even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because  that, when they knew God, They glorified him not as God, neither were thankful;  but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of  the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds,  and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to  uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies  between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and  served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their  women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise  also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one  toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in  themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they  did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate  mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all  unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of  envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God,  despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,  Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable,  unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things  are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do  them.”

Whom are you going to believe – the Creator of the universe or Rob  Portman?

Does it seem to you like there is far more strife within America in the last  few years? Brother against brother, women against men, parents against children,  neighbor against neighbor, race against race, faith against faith …

You’re not imagining things.  It’s happening. And a great deal of this strife  can be directly or indirectly traced back to the government and its  programs.

It is the natural course for government (any government, really) to gain  power by dismantling or neutralizing any restrictions placed upon it.  In  America, those restrictions are found in the Constitution and Bill of  Rights.

But the government can’t just declare the Constitution null and void.  Too  sudden, too dangerous.  Instead, it must incrementally remove these restrictions  by fomenting dissension among citizens, using divisive tactics, and then  proposing the suspension of certain liberties in the name of “safety” or  “fairness.”

The plan is deceptively simple.  The first thing to do is create dependency  whenever possible.  The government has done this by pushing (actively  pushing) welfare on any and all who want it.  By removing the incentive  to work, eradicating the need for fathers and subsidizing unwed motherhood, the  government has created a multi-generational dependent class rife with poverty,  apathy, violence and criminal behavior.

Next, nurture distrust between economic levels.  By implying that the  economic playing field should be leveled (regardless of effort) and the rich  should “pay their fair share” (regardless of reality), the twin sins of envy and  greed are cultivated.  Productive citizens are punished for their success, and  unproductive citizens are encouraged to take without earning.  Imagine what this  does to personal incentive on either end of the spectrum.

Next, discourage entrepreneurship by imposing insane and unnecessary  bureaucratic red tape on businesses to keep us all “safe” from any harm and make  things “fair” to anyone whose feelings get hurt.  This discourages the free  market and makes room for state-controlled monopolies.

Next, reduce the need for self-control.  By removing the consequences of poor  decisions, the government breeds indulgence, decadence and selfishness.   Self-disciplined people are self-governed.  Those without self-control need  strong government to control them.  The more personal responsibility our  government can convince us to surrender, the more power it obtains over us.

Next, cultivate hatred between racial groups.  “Obama has repeatedly returned  to the well of racial divisiveness to serve his political ends,” notes Ann  Coulter, and this administration has certainly seen far more racial violence and  tension than any time since the Civil Rights Movement of the ’60s (but without  the noble motivation).

Next, take hold of the children.  Progressive indoctrination in government  schools has been taking place for decades.  Children are imprisoned and subject  to mind control to the extent that even nibbling a Pop-Tart into the shape of a  gun can get a kid into trouble.  Children are trained to passively submit to  violations of their free speech (stifling any references to God, pro-life  sentiments, or patriotic expressions) and to submit to violations of their  persons and property (metal detectors, locker searches, urine tests).  And they  are taught only a progressive agenda, often in defiance of parental values and  always in defiance of civilized and decent behavior.

Next, plunge the nation into debt so massive that an economic collapse is a  statistical certainty.  The scale of societal upheaval (in commerce,  transportation, and justice) in the aftermath of such a collapse has no  precedent in America.

Next, water down the right of self-defense by claiming certain pieces of  metal are evil in and of themselves, and therefore illegal for any civilian to  own.  Only elites and their guards are permitted to own them.

Next, demonize gun owners.  Categorize trained veterans as mentally unstable  and therefore unfit to possess firearms.  Confiscate weapons from any citizen  speaking his mind in public or seeking medical care.

Next, use crude, offensive and sneering labels for anyone who opposes these  tactics.  The most popular labels include racists, birthers, teabaggers,  right-wing nutjobs, fanatics, tinfoil hat wearers, conspiracy theorists, etc.   I’m sure you can think of more.

And above all, be patient.  The government can afford to take 50 years to  create a dependent class.  It can afford to wait a few generations to breed out  any vestiges of pride or self-reliance in children, their parents and their  grandparents.

These divide-and-conquer strategies work.  They keep the masses bickering  among themselves.  And while we the people quarrel with each other, our  attention is diverted away from the government, which is gradually dismantling  the Constitution and implementing anti-constitutional legislation to control us.  All for our own good, of course.

When the dependent class gives in to violence and begins rioting, the  government will find it convenient to intervene.  Perhaps they will implement  martial law or impose gun confiscation on everyone (not just rioters) to  calm the masses and reduce strife… the very strife the government purposely  created.

Always, always, it comes down to self-defense.  As long as its citizens are  armed, no government can succeed to despotism.  That’s why they spend  generations training children about the evils of guns.  That’s why they’re  hostile to patriotic families.  That’s why they sneer at veterans and tell them  they’re too mentally unstable to own firearms.  That’s why our politicians,  public schools and other federal branches demonize guns and gun owners at every  possible opportunity.  The government must disarm us, whatever it  takes.

But I have hope for our future, and I’ll tell you why: America is unique  among nations.  We do not have deep roots of meek obedience and passivity in the  face of government abuse.  At heart, we remain a stubborn and independent  people.  While the flicker of autonomy has been forever quashed in some, for  most of us that irrepressible spark can never be fully eradicated.  Our heritage  of freedom, liberty, self-reliance and sheer orneriness will eventually  rise.

When it does, our own government might be shocked and appalled at the unified  spirit of opposition that will sweep our country, bypassing liberal bastions but  rooting deep in the heartland.

And if the government elites come for our guns, they’re going to find  themselves facing a conflagration larger than anything they could ever imagine.   By and large, the heartland of America hasn’t been brainwashed into the  progressive groupthink that’s been so successful in the cities.

When it comes time to reclaim our country, we’ll be ready.  We’ll no longer  be brother against brother, blacks against whites, rich against poor, elite  against the masses.

We’ll be patriots against tyranny.  Just as America has always  been.

Like the proverbial monkey typing for infinity and getting Shakespeare, Mayor  Bloomberg’s obsession with reforming New Yorkers’ health has finally produced a  brilliant ad campaign.

Posters are popping up in subway stations and bus stops giving statistics  about teen pregnancy that show cute little kids saying things like, “Honestly,  Mom … chances are he won’t stay with you. What happens to me?” and “I’m twice as  likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen.”

It’s one thing to stigmatize “Big Gulp” drinkers, but liberals are hopping  mad at this attempt to stigmatize teen pregnancy, 90 percent of which is unwed.  To put it another way, if you’re a New York teen with a distended belly these  days, it had better be because you’re pregnant.

Planned Parenthood’s Haydee Morales complained that the ads are creating  “stigma” and “negative public opinions about teen pregnancy.” (I’m pretty sure  that’s the basic idea.)

Instead, Morales suggested “helping teens access health care, birth control  and high-quality sexual and reproductive health education.” Like the kind they  got before becoming pregnant, you mean? Are you new here, Haydee?

Coincidentally, Planned Parenthood happens to provide reproductive health  care! Liberals act as if gun owners, soda-guzzlers and smokers are innocent  victims of the gun, food and cigarette industries, but the $542 million-a-year  birth control industry is a quarry of angels.

The New York Times’ Michael Powell explained in a column that, as a parent of  teenagers, he’s learned that the stupidest thing to do is resort to “the  shame-and-blame game.” Teenage pregnancy, he states categorically, is a “problem  of poverty.”

I think we have a chicken-and-egg problem, but let’s stick to liberals’  newfound opposition to shaming campaigns.

Far from opposing stigmas, liberals are the main propagators of them –  against cigarettes, guns, plastic bags, obesity, not recycling, Fox News, racist  “code words,” not liking “Lincoln” and junk food.

The stigma against smoking has gone so swimmingly that you can’t enjoy a  little tobacco pleasure 50 yards from another human being without some bossy  woman marching over and accusing you of poisoning her.

California is currently running a series of “Reefer Madness”-style  anti-smoking ads, including one that shows cigarette smoke going from a woman  outside on her porch, up a story, through the door of another apartment, across  the living room, down the hallway and into a room where a baby is sleeping. That  would be the equivalent of the Bloomberg ads claiming teen pregnancy causes  genocide.

And what exactly was the purpose of the Journal-News publishing the names and  addresses of every legal gun owner in various counties in New York state a few  months ago? To congratulate them? To start a hunting club?

No, I believe it was to stigmatize legal gun owners. The fact that we didn’t  already know who they were proved that the problem isn’t legal gun ownership.  All those legal guns – and no rash of drive-by shootings!

Los Angeles has banned plastic bags at supermarkets, even though reusable  canvas bags are portable bacterial colonies. But a little ad campaign describing  the downsides of teenage pregnancy – which is still subsidized – and liberals  howl in protest.

One begins to suspect that liberals aren’t as interested in stopping  teenagers from having illegitimate kids as they claim. Do they believe a  teenager who gets pregnant out of wedlock is harming herself and her child as  much a teenager who smokes? How about an unwed teen who smokes at a landfill? 

It’s only a “shame-and-blame game” when liberals secretly approve of the  behavior they pretend to oppose.

Unwed mothers have been the perennial excuse for big government, going back  to Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who plotted in the 1960s to create  broken families, welfare dependency and urban riots to pave the way for  socialist revolution.

That’s why single mothers are revered victims – victims in need of an  ever-expanding social safety net, staffed with well-pensioned government  workers. As described in that great book, “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their  Assault on America,” liberals concoct fake victims in order to victimize the  rest of us.

The only thing single mothers are “victims” of is their own choice to have  sex with men they’re not married to. Liberals seem to believe that drinking soda  is voluntary, but getting pregnant is more like catching the flu.

It would be hard to make the case that fast food, plastic bags and cigarettes  do more damage than single motherhood.

• Controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the  strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was  raised by a single mother. 

   

• At least 70 percent of juvenile murderers, pregnant teenagers, high school  dropouts, teen suicides, runaways and juvenile delinquents were raised by single  mothers.
• A study back in 1990 by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that, absent  single motherhood, there would be no difference in black and white crime rates. 

So liberals don’t try to make that case. They just say they’re against  “shaming” and then go back to shaming gun owners, non-recyclers, smokers and  “Big Gulp” aficionados – while subsidizing illegitimacy.

Where the Sun Don’t Shine

President Obama promised transparency and open government. He failed miserably. So why do Washington watchdog groups look the other way? 

By Paul D. Thacker|Posted Tuesday, March 12, 2013, at 5:23 AM

According to the Maryland delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention,  Benjamin Franklin was reportedly approached by a lady with a question as the  convention drew to a close. The Constitutional Convention had been called to  address several critical issues facing the fledgling confederacy of colonies.  There were several domestic issues, involving among other things, national  defense, taxes and commerce to be resolved. It must be understood that the 1777  Articles of Confederation (which served as the written document that established  the functions of the national government) did not empower the new government to  tax, control commerce or regulate many other domestic affairs.

For example, since Congress lacked the power to levy taxes, it depended on  financial contributions from the states to repay foreign loans, as well as the  soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War. Several of the states would not  participate, and since the former colonies (now states) themselves often engaged  in economic discrimination against each other, the fledgling nation faced doubts  as to its ability to survive. There were those, both at home and abroad, who  wondered if any treaties with the new nation were valid. In point of fact, the  young nation was essentially bankrupt and something had to be done.

The founders, via the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, convened 55  delegates to “devise such  further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution  of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the union.”

There were a number of issues facing the delegates: the liberties of  conscience, protection of creditors and debtors, and, of course, the issue of  slaves and slave owners. While there were other issues, these were some of the  major topics to be addressed.

The colonies had recently been subjected to rule by a monarch, by dictate,  and had lacked the freedom to make decisions for themselves, by themselves. The  overriding concern now was, how would they subsequently be governed?

The question posed by this lady to Franklin was rooted in the concerns of  many: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

Benjamin Franklin reportedly replied, “A republic Madame, if you can keep  it.”

Two were two critical issues in Franklin’s short response and both are  vitally important. Failure to grasp either of them would be extremely  detrimental to the future of the 13 colonies then and our 50 states today.

“A republic”: The United States Constitution created what we now know as a  representative republic, one of the few in the world. It is vital that we  comprehend that America is not a democracy and was never intended to be one, no  matter who calls it such. “Democracy” never once appears in the Constitution.  This is why; in a democracy, the majority makes laws directly. Put another way,  it can easily become, essentially, mob rule. However, in a representative  republic, elected representatives, chosen by the people, make the laws and are  subject to the laws according to the limited powers assigned them in a written  document.

“… if you can keep it”: Prior to the American revolution, most nations were  ruled by kings or dictators. The people were subject to them, had nothing to do  with rulership and had no responsibility for, or say so in, their own destinies.  The founders’ intent was clearly demonstrated by their assignment of the destiny  of the people to the people. The people were to be responsible for their own  future and the future of their children. “We the people” was more than merely a  slogan or poetic phrase. It was indicative of the desire and intent of the  founders for the people to become and remain active in their own destinies.

“… if you can keep it” was a dire warning. The liberties endowed by our  Constitution were in the hands of the people themselves; they were not to be  delegated, inherited or passed on by virtue of status. It was anticipated that  the people themselves would become knowledgeable and remain actively involved in  the defense and maintenance of their own liberties.

There was to be “liberty and justice for all” – not for a privileged few or  the rioting many, but individual liberty secured by an informed citizenry  participating in their own representative governance.

Is that what is presently taking place in America, or have we abandoned our  republic to a privileged few professional politicians and political party  hacks?

Who do/should/would we hold accountable for the loss of our republic? Us or  them?

“Well, America, what have we got?”