It's a Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death Thing

Dear America,

happy monday.

let's begin the week going to the depths of what's at stake in just two weeks...

and it comes directly from the mouth of Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775, in a speech delivered to the Virginia House of Commons: [g note:  the pink italicized is just me being G; and the pink highlight within the text is just the parts this girl really, really likes, like a lot] 

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

and don't we just love the 'gentleman-speak'...what a splendid age it was!  can you just imagine it, if the presidential campaign of 2016 assumed the same level of decorum and elegance...

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

indeed it is easy..."to indulge in the illusions of hope."  Are you willing to know the "whole truth...and provide for it?"

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

just love that part about that "insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received..." who does it remind you of??   And as far as that part, beginning with "Sir"...my attention is drawn directly to the current republican majority in Congress; a place where the people's petitions have been slighted for years now;  there is no longer any room for hope, nor time for ceremony.

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

Here, this girl is just enamored with the sense of Henry's great faith -- and it is in this spirit, the outcome of THIS election must also follow.  All things happen for a reason, for better or worse; and a master plan -- Under God -- still shapes us, inspires us, and directs our path, whether in the valley or upon the highest peak.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Here... just in awe of his clarity.

-----------------------------------------

What we have here now -- in America -- is a war of words, ideologies of two armies coming face to face on the front lines and the front pages; and newsflash to the Lefty's... you don't get to decide for me, or for the whole of an entire nation, which, believe it or not, is not lock, stock and barrel in agreement with everything the progressive left dictates.   Talk about chains! 

Whatever happens November 8th, this battle being raged against truth -- against the very nature and nurture of America herself, the keeping of the ruling class in government LIMITED and in its proper place  -- will continue with "the clash of resounding arms" for forever.  The free radicals of the Left do not get to transform and remake America without a fight, that you can be assured.

Make it a Good Day, G

It's an Article I, Section 8, Thing

Dear America,

it's absolutely crazy that we are even talking about this.

going back to Aristotle:

"Even the best of men in authority 

are liable to be corrupted by passion.  

We may conclude then 

that the law is reason without passion, 

and it is therefore preferable to any individual."

amen.

what is absurd is listening to the arguments from the Left as they gaze upon the members of this Supreme Court -- the "individuals" in position to decide the fate of Obamacare; they are whining in unison, saying it's just not fair; and when they break it down to the brass tacks, they find themselves fixated on one guy -- Kennedy -- lamenting it's all up to him.

WRONG AGAIN.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY this government MADE REASON (without passion) the FOUNDATION of the LAW of the LAND.

What does the LAW say?  What limitations does the CONSTITUTION provide?  Where are the boundaries drawn between the INDIVIDUAL, the STATE, and the Federal Government?

America was designed in direct opposition to anything that appeared, intimated, screamed, conjured, conspired, to look, act, dream like we were run by a RULER(s) of any kind.

MAN was NOT going to decide for us; LAW was going to decide.

Our founders created a limitation of power to the federal government to allow for the people's freedom and liberty to reign.  It was conceived from the Age of Reason to manifest a Reign of Reason.  And it was to protect us from ourselves -- and days like this.

But MAN has usurped the LAW time and time again; and in a stunning turn of fate, has done so in such a way -- over time, trial and error -- that it would seem totally reasonable.

This is what I don't get: since when did the body commissioned solely to protect the LAW become a political push me-pull you vehicle driven by the whims of man?

If we focused upon what the LAW actually says -- without the passion, prejudice and pre-existing conditions --  just how happy would we all be right about now?

You know, Patrick Henry, didn't like The Fed one bit; he considered himself an "anti-federalist" -- someone who basically wanted to give the federal government jack....nothing, nada, no power if we can at all help it.

He fought against Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (generally recognized as The Commerce Clause) in a very big way; and when tied to what people call The Necessary and Proper Clause (what some people think of as a blank check of no checks/balances whatsoever), Henry deemed the whole thing entirely unnecessary.  He was afraid that it would ultimately lead us into an era with UNLIMITED federal power, complete with unchecked passion and without constraint.  oh Patrick, ssshhh, you had me at 'NO'.

THIS IS HOW SECTION 8 begins:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, TO PAY the debts and provide for THE COMMON DEFENSE and GENERAL Welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

And beginning with the first clause of great interest with regards to the health care law debate:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

blah blah blah la di da di da da...cue clauses of distinction...the coining of money...being the keeper of the "post offices and post roads"...which is funny, isn't it?  one of the main things the Fed was supposed to be fully responsible for...and then moving into at least nine clauses providing for the COMMON DEFENSE, and related.  But now, without further ado, let's cue the second clause of great interest:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Providing for individual HEALTH CARE is NOT what the founders had in mind when they spelled out "GENERAL WELFARE." The greatest concern of the federal government was to remain one thing -- to provide for the COMMON DEFENSE (oh right, and make a few coins that are worth something, and send mail).  But the militia was basically it.  How uncomplicated could we be?

Health Care is awfully specific to every individual -- as well as, to the state (compare California's health care woes to Kansas, if you will).  So specific, in fact, THIS "Affordable Care Act" forces the individual to pay for other people's contraceptives, forces all people to pay for services they do not personally need, and extinguishes all possibility for private insurance companies to compete equally and fairly with a universal coverage package provided by the federal government.  The one that forcibly mandates the individual to pay for it one way or another -- or get fined, taxed with a penalty --  you say "2-may-toe", I say "2-ma-toe".

When the founders came up with "General Welfare," it was all about things like... keeping the lights on at the White House yet to be ... paying the long distance phone bill to compensate for secret conversations between foreign nations (of course, after creating the very conditions for Ma Bell to come into being, that is).  Any expenditure was to be reserved for the basic, general needs in keeping with the expressed intentions to uphold a free, and general, Republic -- not the other way around.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."  The Tenth Amendment

hello.

The truth is, anything outside a truly limited federal government is too much.

From Thomas Jefferson:

"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to respecting foreign nations.  Let the general government be reduced to foreign  concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants [referring to CIVIL servants...yeah right, like that's what they are now...but we digress]."

"A very simple organization, and a very inexpensive one."  oh my...

You know,  back in the forties, the federal government got involved to tell Americans -- business owners actually -- exactly how much they could pay their employees.  It became a doctrine under the days of FDR to control the market with both a minimum wage and a maximum wage.  A fine idea, in theory.

So how did American enterprises and entrepreneurs respond?

They began to provide something new, something really keen and totally cool:  a benefits package!

In turn, America, all of a sudden and totally unexpectedly, entered into a new age -- an age which limited the power of the business owner to pay the employee a wage based on what the market will bear, in tune with the experience and education of the candidate himself; with nudge and by shove, the employer was forced to work within specific guidelines and constraints...for the "betterment" of the "general welfare" by an overzealous big government.  To do this -- to succeed and be competitive with other companies, all wanting the same thing -- they had to tack on benefits (health insurance, paid vacation, sick days, a pension, maternity leave, bereavement leave, and so on and so on).

The business of commerce became commingled with individual [Employer and Employee] rights and responsibilities and privileges and duties.  And we have never been the same since.

[And in a warped way -- the business of just doing the right thing, in keeping with honoring an honest, trusting, respectful, working relationship between two parties was superseded by a higher authority, paving the way for this era of litigation, large and small, and a tidal wave of regulations and taxation]

Anywho....all of a sudden, health insurance became a commodity of just good business practice; and from then on, we never looked back; "benefits" became something expected, demanded, as a "right" of the individual.   By definition, the good intention back behind a decent benefits package, became something teetering on the obscene.

Something that was restricted to the personal whims and needs -- and controlled purely by the individual, who could buy his own insurance and carry it with him no matter where he worked or lived -- became a tool of the system.  Growing into the system we see today.  

If you have time -- and taking a totally different tack now -- read the horrific precedence laid out "under the law" dating back to the Wickard vs. Filburn case, of 1942.  I found a really good summary of the case and how it pertains to what is currently happening HERE. 

It was just about a farmer having a little extra wheat, and just look at what happened!

So, here's my final thought on the day and I promise to leave you all in peace and quiet --

"If the day should ever arrive (which God forbid!) when the people of the different parts of our country shall allow their local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington, and when the self-government of the states shall have been so far lost as that of the departments of France, or even so closely limited as that of the counties of England -- on that day the political career of the American people will have been robbed of its most interesting and valuable features, and the usefulness of this nation will be lamentably impaired."  John Fiske, The Critical Period of American History, 1783-1789 -- plucked from The 5000 Year Leap

 Make it a Good Day, G

It's a Know Your History Thing

Dear America,


I'll admit it; I do not know my history the way I should.  But at nearly a half century old, I do believe there is still hope for me.  And I can tell you this, the more I begin to know, the more I want to know; the deeper I get into it, the deeper I want to go.  It's as if uncovering America's true birth, with all the ages in between, completes a part of me I never knew existed.

The truth is, our history is not just a story like out of the movies or as told by book or by Nook  -- it is real life, real people, countrymen we have descended from, in one way or another, who remarkably live on only in our memory.  When we forget the stories, when we stop telling them, we will lose that which binds.

SO the good news this happy monday morn... now that Sarah Palin has caused such a stir (again) having made crazy claims about Paul Revere and the British and all....having the audacity to go a step further and claim Revere was also alerting the Brits who were here and living among us, as they say (because they were), to not even try -- is that, rest assured, she did it again!

She made us all think about our past; while, she just might have, caused a few of us to crack open a book to get the facts straight -- if only in our own little heads -- or to write a commentary on the HuffPo or Politico; she made us give pause, long enough to give the ride deeper thought, in hopes of trying to understand what we have all grown up to pass off as just a man, and his horse, running through town, yelling and screaming, 'the British are coming, the British are coming.'

Funny -- as they were already here. and in force!

The British were forcing upon the colonies such servitude to the King and beyond, we had to rise up and take arms against the crown; the whole reason of coming to the new world, fleeing religious persecution in the name of religious freedoms, was to get as far away from tyranny as possible, and it would have been in vain if we did nothing.

In the middle of Patrick Henry's speech before the Virginia House of Burgesses, March 23, 1775 -- you know, the famous one where he ends it with the often repeated cry...."but for me, give me liberty or give me death!" --  he gave us this:

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary.  But when shall we be stronger?  Will it be next week, or the next year?  Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?  Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction?  Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our back and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?  Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.  The millions of people, armed in holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.  Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone.  There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.   The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave...There is no retreat but in submission and slavery?"

What will it take, he says, until a "British guard shall be stationed in every house?"  This had become customary, our homes were not our homes; our lives were not our lives -- British rule surrounded us and made us subjects of British rule, even though an ocean separated us, even while a brand new ideology was beginning to shape us.

In Henry's opening statement, he sets up the audience saying:

"for my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in  proportion to this magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate.  It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, to fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country.  Should I keep back my opinions at such time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards country, and of an act of disloyalty town the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings."

Sarah Palin is a living example of a Paul Revere, a Patrick Henry -- going right smack up against the rising tide, set forth by rudimentary standards, enforced by the clear and present narrow-mindedness of mainstream media and left wing pundits.  They feast upon her so-called gaffes; they profit from every move she makes, whether by bus or by fuss.  And through it all, she fears not of giving offense.

Like any battle, victory goes to the "vigilant, the active, the brave."

For me, I love Henry's second paragraph, when he gives us this:

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope.[isn't that just stellar]  We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.  Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?  Are we  disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?  For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."

continuing,

"...And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?  Trust it not, sir, it will prove a snare to your feet.  Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss..."

continuing,

"There is no longer any room for hope.  If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained -- we must fight!   I repeat it, sir, we must fight!  An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!"

Every facet of the truth is essential; it is a way to expand our understanding and grow a deeper connection, not only with each other through story, but forging our path forward, knowing everything there is to know, having been thoroughly bathed in our shadow.  Shining light upon our history, even through our most darkest hours, is what gives relevance and meaning to each new generation that comes.

Sure, maybe a Palin does not speak for everyone -- just as a George Schwartz (now Soros) does not speak for me.  But no matter which side you fall, Palin is making us get it -- you know, a history lesson or two along the way; we are delving deeper into our past more now than we have been for years, generally speaking.  We are talking about Paul Revere in the town square -- can it be any more self-evident than that?

And how about that Alec Baldwin, telling us if he thinks Mitt is our man.  Or, how about anyone on the left telling the right how we should think about the long list of able bodied, patriotic Americans willing to throw their hat into the ring and become the next President of the United States of America.

Are you kidding me? and how did Patrick Henry put it...

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; 

unable to cope with so formidable an adversary..." 

Who are you to tell any of us how to think -- considering, you are basically speaking for all the rest of us who happen to fall just right of center, and sit as a majority in these here colonies now standing united? Hey, FYI, only about 20% of Americans buy into the whole hard core social justice fundamental transformation mania thing...and only about another 20% are best described as left tilt...the rest -- ah, how do you say -- and the rest is history.  It is that 60% you need to look out for -- the "vigilant, the active, the brave"  -- a band of citizenry respective of our past, knowing full well what is at stake -- who will make a history that changes everything.

ah details...as "our brethren are already in the field!   why stand we here idle?  what is it that gentlemen wish? what would they have?  is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

Forbid it, Almighty God!  

I know not what course others may take; 

but for me, 

give me liberty, or give me death!"

the thing is, today,  in spirit  -- I piggy-bareback with the man and his horse taking a midnight ride... alongside the man who said "there is no longer any room for hope"...and not to be left out, or outdone, sitting alongside that girl riding the bus somewhere in New England this morning...God only knows what she will say today.  And amen to that.

Make it a Good Day, G

To really dig deep into the psyche of her adversaries -- especially the media trying to keep up with her, in hopes of making sense out of her every move -- my thoughts tell me she should make it as uncomfortable as possible for them; something Palin might use, to add to her ensemble, is a Snaps Cup (only Legally Blonde aficionados will enjoy that); every time she pops open the door she could have a 'snaps for Americana' just itching to be told and attacked with eyeball rolls, deep rooted indignation, and intolerance a plenty.  one man's annoyance might just be another girl's bliss.  it happens everyday. even here.  with a little pink lipstick, it really brings the whole look together.