Thursday, October 15, 2009

Understanding the Preconditions to the Right (or Duty) of Revolution:

The Right of Revolution better referred to as the Duty of Revolution can be defined as a justification for a people’s action of overthrowing the government in which their “allegiance is owed”.

An obvious example of this right is the American Revolution.

As the American Declaration of Independence states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”
The Declaration of Independence also goes on to list charges against King George III:

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”

“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent”

“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments”, et al.

Citing charges against the monarchy as well as citing equality under the unalienable rights endowed by their Creator, the 56 American revolutionaries that signed this document grounded the right of revolution as both positive and natural law.

The example of positive law (law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society) is the Declaration of Independence’s 27 charges listed against King George III. These charges ultimately justified a revolution on the grounds of a contractual breach. This is best described by Christian Fritz in American Sovereigns:

“In this bargain, the people were protected by the monarch in exchange for the people giving the king allegiance. This was a contractual relationship. American revolutionaries accused George III of breaching his implied duty of protection under that contract, thereby releasing the people in the colonies from their allegiance. The sovereign’s breach of the hypothetical contract gave rise to the subjects’ right of revolution”
The example of natural law (a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society) is a more common and better grounded justification for the American Revolution; “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Although both positive and natural law were used as grounds for justification, it was natural law that fueled the American resistance against England. It was the exercising of the right of revolution that created a new country. It was in the fight for true freedom that America was born; a fight that today is still talked about by many but understood by few.

Names like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Hancock are all very well known today. They are all known for their roles in the formation of our great country, starting with the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. It was on that day that the American Revolutionary War began. Each of their signatures represented the people of the 13 colonies of America; the people that were willing to unite and stand up to fight for the freedom of their children.

Each of the gentleman listed above, and the 51 other individuals that put their pens to the parchment understood the preconditions to the right of revolution. They all understood what their signatures would lead to, and they all understood that a Declaration of Independence, or their exercising of their right and their duty of revolution, was their last ditch effort as a repressed people.

We live in a world today that was influenced so greatly by these brave men. Men that lived under a repressive monarchy, who took as many non-violent steps as possible, who exercised all avenues available, who truly understood the preconditions to the right of revolution, and who ultimately, had no other option than to declare and defend their rights and their duties through violence.

In today’s times it seems that as a people, we have forgotten what the rewards of freedom are. Many people only understand the idea and the definition of freedom, and they fail to understand or accept that it is their duty as Americans to fight for an enduring freedom. It is not ok to stop fighting or to relinquish the freedom rewarded to us by the fight of our founding fathers, by the fight of our militia and soldiers during the revolution, and by the fight of our soldiers since then.

Sergeant Alvin York, a famous WWI hero, is quoted in addressing cynics and doubters of what American soldiers are fighting and dying for:

“The thing they forget is that liberty and freedom and democracy are so very precious that you do not fight to win them once and stop. You do not do that. Liberty and freedom and democracy are prizes awarded only to those peoples who fight to win them and then keep fighting eternally to hold them!”
What we as the American people need to realize, is that it is not just the physical fight that we need to endure, but the fight against our own domestic enemies that have been waging war against our freedoms for decades. As Thomas Jefferson so bluntly stated, “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

When the people of America decide to band together there is nothing that can stop us, and it is time that we realize this. We as Americans have a right to speak out, at least for now, and we have a duty to remove the pork barrel spending addicts currently occupying our capital. In 2010, we need to get up, get out, and vote to flip our House of Representatives.

We need to support candidates for Congress that will represent the focus of the people in their districts, and candidates for the Senate who will represent the people of their states, while keeping the freedom of the American people their top priority.

It is time to realize that 2010 is just as important as 2012; for if we fail at this, our generations will be the next to truly understand the preconditions to the right of revolution.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Reclaiming of Hope, but you can still keep your Change!

If you are a politician, constituent, or lobbyist, working against the Constitution, you should be afraid, very afraid. Your time is almost up.

In 2008 we saw a very charismatic, young, Democratic leader win over the general public with his promises of “Hope and Change”. He said he was a centrist. He said he would reach across the aisle. He understood that we were all sick of the Bush administration, but most of all sick of Washington in general. We all wanted change, in the White House and on the hill. America was at the point that we believed any change would be good change. We all had hope for America (yes I said “had”).

What we didn’t stop to do, and what we as American’s have never really stopped to do, is figure out what the problem was in the first place.

What I can’t understand is why we didn’t take the time as free citizens of the greatest country in the history of the World, to study and understand what Barrack Obama meant by change. It is our right as American’s to vote for our “leaders”, but it is our responsibility as American’s to understand the “leaders” that we are voting for.

Some of us did see through the “Hope and Change” promises, and understood what was to come if we as Americans blindly voted in a “charismatic leader”. Those of us that have been fighting for liberty since before the 2008 campaign are now screaming “Keep the Change!”

As hard as it was for conservative Americans to hear that Barrack Obama was going to be the next President of the United States, it just might have been the best thing for America that Senator John McCain was defeated. Not because Barrack Obama was the better choice, but because Barrack Obama, by the end of his four year term will have shown America his and his party’s true colors.

Almost all Democrats and certainly many Republicans are beginning to sweat over the grassroots demand for liberty. Why are both parties afraid of the Tea Parties of 2009? Because a demand for liberty and call to cease government spending is not coming from a charismatic leader, it is not coming from the leadership of a 2012 campaigner, nor from any particular group or individual. This demand for liberty has come directly from the people organized by no one but themselves!

The general public has started to realize what the promises of “Hope and Change” truly meant and it has inspired this grassroots movement to reclaim America by reclaiming our Constitutional rights that have been stripped away day in and day out for generations.

As more and more people join this second American Revolution, many of us might be able to remove the “had” that we put up in front of Hope.

Monday, September 14, 2009

DNC Play Book Pg. 1 of 2: “Cry Racist!”

DNC Play Book Pg. 1 of 2: “Cry Racist!”

I learned a hard lesson the other day. I have heard this lesson in the past, but never gave it a second thought; at least not until it was my turn to learn by experience.

This lesson relates to the argument tactics used by anyone debating something they do not fully understand. I relate these tactics to most of the “Kool-Aid drinking liberals” arguing their leftist positions, but truth be told, we are all guilty of this.

In developing my own views, I have spent many hours reading and discussing issues, making sure I try to understand them before entering into any debate about the same.

Far too often, people that do not understand the facts of an issue choose to enter into someone else’s debate. This is true of both sides of any political argument, left or right. When this happens, you start to notice and recognize certain argument tactics that take away validity from the original debate.

These tactics that I have been referring to are the “personal attacks” used in almost any argument, political or not. Sometimes they serve a purpose, whether right or wrong. They are almost always used to discredit the opposite party, and are many times overlooked for what they really are: OFF THE TOPIC!

Take Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s speech at the joint session of Congress. Congressman Wilson’s heckling style remark “You lie!” brought national attention to an issue that was being misrepresented by the President. Whether you consider this an inappropriate move by the Congressman is your opinion, but I for one am glad that he did it. In two “well timed” words it brought positive change to a scary piece of proposed legislation. The sad part about his remarks is how the left side of Congress (and with that the main stream media) replied.

“The fact that Joe Wilson is from South strikes a lot of people as awfully close to the idea that maybe there was some sort of racist or bigoted element there.” - MSNBC’s David Shuster

This is just one example of many, from one political debate of many, in which a personal attack, completely off of the topic and in no way justifiable, is used to discredit the individual arguing the other side of the debate.

You might argue that Congressman Wilson “personally attacked” the President, and that he is no better than David Shuster and the rest of the main stream media, but I disagree. It comes down to justification, and I dare you to try and justify the main stream media calling him a racist, and I challenge you to research this public health care debate enough to understand that the President, whether knowingly or not, was lying about the coverage of illegal aliens.

I am convinced that Congressman Joe Wilson is used to these tactics by now; he is a Congressman after all. I only wish that I would have reacted with the same class when I too was called a racist for simply arguing against government ran healthcare. It was my first experience of being personally attacked for not drinking the President’s Kool-aid. I am glad that it happened, and it has truly opened my eyes to what is going on, and to what is ahead.