Posts Tagged ‘Franklin’

DO AMERICANS REALLY BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION?

October 13, 2013

Many politicians and other Americans claim to believe in the Constitution of the United States. But, do they really believe in the Constitution or, are they only hiding behind pseudo-patriotic rhetoric while in reality promoting a selfish anti-American agenda?

The Preamble to the Constitution definitively addresses the intent and purpose of the document. Thus, in order to interpret the Constitution correctly, we must first and foremost consider what the Preamble states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. . .”

The first thing we learn from the Preamble is that “we the people” are the government. Not surprisingly, Americans who claim to stand for “smaller” government generally back an agenda that appeases a minority and is harmful to the majority of we the people.

The second thing we learn is the Constitution’s authors didn’t believe they were creating a perfect government. Rather, they wanted it to be “more perfect”, better than previous governments. Far too many Americans oppose wise policies because they aren’t perfect, which policies created by imperfect people never will be.

The next purpose stated in the Preamble is to “establish justice”. Many Americans support unjust policies that are against the human and civil rights of minority, working class, poor and other citizens. Many support policies denying American workers and others the right to freely organize and demonstrate against injustice.

The fourth purpose the Preamble states is to “insure domestic Tranquility”. The word “gun” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution. Is it insuring domestic tranquility to allow every Tom, Dick and Harriet to own as many “Arms” as they wish, which today include machine guns, tanks, biological weapons and nuclear bombs?

Next we find “to provide for the common defense”. Defense is just one of several stated purposes of the Constitution, yet many politicians and other Americans today act as if this is the only purpose of government, ignoring the rest of what the document clearly states.

The Preamble then says to “promote the general Welfare”. Yet many Americans oppose universal health care, affordable housing, job programs, infrastructure rebuilding and many other things clearly needed for the general welfare of ourselves and future generations.

Don’t Americans realize that people without adequate nutrition, shelter and health care more easily become ill and spread contagious diseases? Don’t we realize children without a strong educational and moral foundation become our society’s burdens of tomorrow? Don’t we realize unjust policies indiscriminately harm everyone, including ourselves and our own children?

The Preamble says the purpose of the Constitution is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. Why do so many Americans oppose environmental and other legislation desperately needed to secure the blessings of liberty for our ourselves, our children and our children’s children?

Do Americans really believe in the Constitution? You Decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article

Advertisements

FIXING AMERICA IN 500 WORDS OR LESS: a free online book with interactive songs and videos

March 2, 2010

LINK HERE TO READ BOOK

LINK HERE TO READ BOOK

WHAT IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE?

March 2, 2010

It is much easier to criticize political leaders than to truly have a better idea.   Regardless of political party or agenda, what would you do if you were in charge, to help regain public confidence in our long since vanished, dream of a democratic process?

Since a political leader should know what he or she is talking about without referring to notes, would you announce there will be no teleprompter allowed when you make speeches and hold press conferences?   Would you declare every speech you give will be drafted by you personally?

Would you take questions from press conference reporters impartially by drawing numbers from a hat, regardless of how recognizable their name is or what media they represent?

Would you hold publicly televised townhall events monthly in different cities, where ten members of the public with no press or organizational credentials, were selected by lot and allowed to ask direct unscreened questions?   Would you answer them while the cameras roll without cue cards and if necessary, conduct research and include anything not answered at the next event?

Would you clearly detail your current agenda for the nation at these townhall meetings, demonstrating that regardless of political fallout, there will be no secrecy, vagueness or uncertainty about the specific goals of your administration?

Would you cancel White House social events, annual Christmas and New Year festivities, elite “black-tie” gatherings and similar, until every American willing and able to work has a job that pays enough to afford basic necessities?   Would you promise you and your staff won’t eat better food on the taxpayer’s dime than average working-class families can afford?  Would you forbid your staff to fly on corporate jets and indulge in dinners, events and vacations paid for by someone else?

Although you could not control what members of Congress chose to do, would you put public pressure on all congressional leaders to set the same standards for themselves and their staff?

Would you prevent all lobbyists from being allowed access to either you or your staff, other than those representing individual taxpayers with specific individual needs not related to corporate interests?   Would you especially put intense and unrelenting public pressure on all Congressional leaders to do the same?

Would you require members of your cabinet to hold at least two scholarly degrees in their area of expertise, while insuring none of them are former lobbyists or, a member or former member of any financial institution?

To remain impartial, would you refuse to appear on media programs primarily devoted to politics and rather if invited, appear on popular shows like Oprah, Leno and Letterman, where you could freely communicate to the American people your concerns and goals, without being rudely interrupted by talking-point pundits with a private agenda not in the best interests of our nation?

Would you insist that neither you nor any member of your staff earn a wage higher than the median American wage?

If you were in charge, what would you do?   You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

DOES THE ACLU DEFEND THE 1ST AMENDMENT?

October 17, 2009

According to the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  This amendment clearly meant something entirely different to the Constitutional framers than the ACLU pretends it did.

Jefferson edited the New Testament while a sitting president and, attempted to have his version become the official U.S. government-endorsed version, ensuring it would be read in every public schoolhouse of his day.  Madison stated he believed the 1st Amendment would aid in the spread of Christianity and, Franklin openly complained the framers were not seeking God’s guidance enough while drafting the Constitution.

Many so-called “experts” interpret “religion” to mean belief in God, while it is far more likely it meant institutional religion to the framers.  Regardless, protection of free expression has nothing to do with what is actually true about God, science or anything else.  Whether modern evolutionary theory is true or just a poorly constructed fairytale, is not relevant to 1st Amendment protections.

According to various polls, over 80% of adults and 50% of American educators believe in a Designer.  Though several major living scientists believe the evidence indicates design, the ACLU refuses to protect their highly credentialed scientific viewpoint.  Instead, they demand American educators deliberately lie to our children by omission, leaving out the known fact that major historical and living scientists and every Declaration signer believe(d) the scientific evidence indicates design.

The “God question” is central to the scientific thought and inquiry of virtually every major historical scientist, including Darwin himself.  Still, so-called “progressives” pretend God is not a question for science.  To allow only one myopic viewpoint is to teach children questioning what is true is not relevant to education. These are the same ‘progressives’ who are angry over the one-sidedness of talk radio.

Modern evolutionary theory does in fact, address the “God question”.  Any theory assuming that everything in the universe is a result of “natural” unguided processes is stating there is no God, not to mention, scientifically completely wacko.  Nobody from our perspective could possibly know the overall process is unguided. Atheism has no more protection under the 1st Amendment than Catholicism. Is freedom of speech or science really being served when only a non-evidenced based superstitious assumption is allowed to be taught?

According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Albert Einstein said:  “I have a deep feeling of faith, a deep religiosity that comes from my appreciation of the way the Lord made the universe.” Every signer of the Declaration of Independence agreed the evidence of a Creator is beyond all rational dispute.

Should we forbid Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Faraday, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Einstein and leading DNA expert Francis Collins to teach a public science class?  Or, should we petition our Creator to toss the ACLU into a bottomless black hole and throw away the key, allowing our children a proper education without any further undue hindrance from the feeble-minded?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article:
http://www.freedomtracks.com/500/firstamendment.html