Sunday, April 25, 2010

Judge Napalitano's "The Constitution and Freedom"

View blog authority

Bigger Government = Less Privacy

Arguably our most famous founding father, Benjamen Franklin passionately declared, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Currently, these words come across loud and clear as we sacrifice liberty in the name of safety [hand-in hand with computer technology] the more exposed our citizenry is sacrificing its Fourth Amendment rights.

Franklin's testimony about liberty vs. security is just as relevant now as it was first orated in 1775. As our Founding Fathers fought against the tyranny of British monarchists, our current Constitutionalists use their First Amendment rights against out of control government. These freedom fighters are standing up against the DC insiders, who resemble oligarchs, pretending to duke it out under the guise of the Democratic and Republican Parties. I simply refer to most of these sheep as "modern day progressives."

Give Up Liberty to Gain Security

Beltway insiders are surrendering every one's liberties in order to create "safety." So, where is this so called "safety zone?" Is playing the role of "big brother" really helping our citizenship to stay secured?

The answer is not just a plain no, but a "HELL NO!" To demolish the Fourth Amendment,["The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."]and strike it out with a permanent black marker, politicians and lobbyists create a post-constitutional society which strips citizens of this inalienable right.. By creating an enormous mega government, inhabitants of the United States gives up its once taken for granted right to be left alone.

Will Deserve Neither And Lose Both

I am fully convinced that America is proceeding to more dangerous turf as legislation is piled up, one on top of another. As I comment about how our Fourth Amendment rights to avoid unreasonable searches and seizures are being brought to light, it is becoming more evident that with every statist advocating to increase the size of government, a few more federal departments are added while computer technology is used to track citizen data, directly or indirectly.

Legislative tyranny is self evident every time a lobbyist, big or small, pulls the perpetual wool over the television addicted masses. While many more individuals are now taking on the Jeffersonian model of proactively educating themselves in civics and history, the vast majority of unstudied citizens do not understand the role that a few corrupt self interest/corporate lobbyists are trumping the original intent of the United State's Constitution... legislation in the name of "We the people, not special interests!"

Franklin's wisdom about the subject of liberty and security is just as relevant in this twenty first century digital age as it was during the age of the colonial printing presses. Asides from corrupt lobbyists benefiting by creating "safety minded" legislation, we the people are lied to by the ever expanding government to the point of surrendering our god given Fourth Amendment rights by the punch of a few computer keystrokes.

Less is More

Our founding fathers would be rolling in their caskets upon witnessing the super expansion of our current governmental powers... central powers must be rolled back in order to create a more perfect union.

The Jeffersonian theory of expansion of governmental power at every possible opportunity is becoming more of a reality upon each tick of a clock. This activity is represented by bailouts, so called "economic stimulants," [aka; monetary inflation], military appropriations, congress men's/congress women's salaries, congressional Aid's hourly pay, janitorial pensions, and so on and so forth.

In reality, what is taking place in the circus ring better known to most as the floor of the House and Senate, displays only a portion of the ever expanding federal government. For every Congressman/Congresswoman elected, many more invisible variables enter the picture. Remember, secretive powers corrupts!

Before we deal with the buffoon lobbyists, lieing senators, expansive executors, it is time to improvise a radical new solution. Citizens of the United States ought to toss their apathy in the trash bin and loudly demand to rid the beltway of a corrupt and ultra-large central government. Put on your thinking caps and think out of the box ...Less is more.

A great and very creative solution to reduce government was recently placed before my eyes inside Wayne Allyn Root's informative and most recent book, "Conscience Of A Libertarian." The author, a former Vice-Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, sounded off by stating a certain portion of the Nevada model of government ought to be implemented.

The scope of government has gotten so large that we have passed the large government barrier and are moving into super-sized government territory. Our federal bureaucracy is quickly becoming a runaway bullet train ready to roll off its tracks. What kind of action does the Average Joe want implemented?

In his usually boisterous but proud testimonial, Root proclaimed in "Conscience Of A Libertarian," that the best way to reduce government is to cut down on the number of working days. He endorses Nevada's common sense blueprint, allowing only 120 days a year of government intervention. By implementing this cost cutting time restraining exercise, less money would be distributed towards Congressional staffs, the upkeep of federal facilities would be radically lower, lobbyist activity would be forced to corrupt the system less, and government would not be running at the speed of light.

Think of central government which is smaller in the scope of things, taxes are extremely reduced to what the founding fathers prefer, and the liberty we all should aim for is less likely to be intruded upon.

Unalienable Nation

With the recent announcement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter's stepping down, many concerns has been brought fourth that judicial activism will further trump inalienable rights.

On the day that out Founding Fathers transferred the idea of inalienable rights from the Declaration of Independence to the the Constitution, this nation had created a blueprint for judicial officials to inspect and make Constitutional decisions. Well, this was the original intent.

With many days of the sun rising and setting, our government started out in its original small form, getting to the large version, and eventually transfusing to our current "mega government." Thinking about our past history of ill-advised selections, my individualistic mind ponders whether the up and coming Supreme Court Justice will take any resemblance by selecting a judicial activist.

By appointing a judicial nominee using his/her political stance rather than his Constitutional knowledge, the United States of America risks further dismantling our "inalienable rights." Inalienable rights states that god /spiritually given law has been passed down to man and should not be taken away because it is a right given to you. The opposite, unalienable rights, is man arbitrarily defining laws to fit his own need. Currently, most of our laws fit the later category.

My individual hopes ride mighty low about our current president appointing a constitutionally knowledgeable Supreme Court Justice. In college, Mr. Obama pondered over the nature of "world vision constitutional law", dangerously falling into the activist and unalienable camp.

Government Money + Newspaper Industry = No More Free Press

With the swift moving Keynesian influenced president named Barack Obama, it appears as though the newspaper industry will soon dispatch its payroll towards the land of government sponsored handouts. By applying for those temporary remedies, this struggling industry potentially sets itself up with corrupt money as an exchange for editorial manipulation.

Me and well as many others are very strongly dead set against the idea of bailing out any sector or any micro-sector of the economy. We feel violated because the responsibility of self-reliance endorsed by Benjamen Franklin is vetoed by allowing the idea of "theft" to be funded by the people.

Yes sir... the macro-economy has been lately headed down the collective crap hole. Yes sir... the print industry has not fared an iota better than any other financial sector. Unlike any other division in our micro-economy, an entitlement program could potentially set a very extremely dangerous precedence in the media industry.

Amidst the cold days and nights of the authoritarian Soviet Empire, fearful journalists were required to dutifully dispatch their articles in a government approved blueprint. Harsh punishments were administered to those so called dissidents, because they did not follow the draconian government protocol.

Flash forward to almost any modern day American newspaper. This hard pressed industry has not only covered the current global financial downward spiral, but are also feeling its blood oozing in painful real time. The Detroit Free Press has reduced itself to a part-time, three day a week publication. Meanwhile, the New York Times has to use their new state of the art headquarters as collateral against a loan, while the Chicago Tribune is hemoraging green even after making a recent format change.

Despite the fact that the rapidly descending newspaper industry proclaims that it needs to extend their heavily ink smudged fingers towards government entitlements, their editors ought to take a moral stance by proclaiming, You take a bailout, and I resign! By allowing newspapers or any other private media outlets to accept nanny state handouts, the publication house becomes a servant to the government while losing its most important independence. With this omni-potent government coercion, a free press has become disqualified.

The government must always walk directly away from bailing out any sort of media industry because throwing monetary units at the media industry creates the same burden upon the editor as their Soviet counterparts to the point of manufacturing a franchised version of Pravda.