In light of the fact that the Senate has just blocked a bill written by Ron Paul to audit the Federal Reserve, coincidentally just as news of another round of stimulus is going to be leveled on the backs of the American taxpayer, and our children--and their children, I'm toasting to the common sense of the average patriot. Meet "Bubba", a friend and fellow vlogger. He, like
ProvokingThought,
radicalramblings,
MyFreedomWings,
saturnnights, myself and many other bloggers spend all kinds of time trying to wake the rest of you up to what's happening to our country. Yet, it seems to be useless much of the time.
For all of you who still don't understand that our economy is being tanked purposely, then I suggest it's high time that you get a grip, do some serious connecting of the dots, find out who the Federal Reserve is, and ask why is it that they are protected from audit. Seems odd don't you think, since the average American and business is subject to audit at whim whenever the IRS thinks it's necessary. Why is the American public mandated to staying in the dark concerning the use of
your own money, when you elected a President who promised transparency? Why does that same President want to give total control of our monetary system to the Fed, yet auditing them is a supreme no-no? Doesn't make you wonder? Do you even care?
We have progressed from generations who marked history with warnings given to us that government can a be a wicked thing...too much power corrupts. Yet while the government is seizing more power,creating more czars, spending more money in complete secrecy--that
you will have to foot the bill for--why are you so trusting? Are you really that gullible? When will you learn, that they don't care about you?
Comments (38)
@leadworshipper82@revelife - the constitution has taken on a living nature since the introduction of case law during reconstruction. By the end of the twenties the court was openly declaring (Frankfurter) that the Constitution was what the Court declared it to be .
The dirty little secret about any professional discipline, be it law, medicine or the clergy; is that the vital point in every discipline is the foundational education system that trains it up. The law and our rights under this government is what the Court says it is...
I wrote on this a few months back
@firetyger - "They can't afford to have an audit...because they are guilty"
Ca-ching, the cash register rings.....In some ways they are avoiding a exercise in futility, no? Why pass a law that they have no intent on observing?
@ProvokingThought - well if that be the case... then there goes freedom of press/speech/religion and all those inalienable rights granted by the Maker but since people and subjectively fickle people take up the court system... there goes my faith expression and checking account...
Just stumbled across your blog on the featured posts from the sign-in page. Can't wait to read more of your posts!
@leadworshipper82@revelife - I see you understand the ramifications of the view. I tried to avoid hyperbolic explanation but many compare this as chilling similar to the pronouncement of the Furher that the law was what he declared it to be...the major difference being nine robes vs. one Adolf.
You are also getting the presupposition correct that is underlying the basic thesis/premise as well. Our independence was declared based on the premise that rights and authority were granted by the Creator and trancended Kings and potenates and dictators, because their rights to govern was also granted by a Sovereign and was conditional.
The Darwinian evolving law disposes of fixed foundational natural law and sees law as evolving (sociological jurisprudence) but also then takes the view that rather than rights being inalienable and seen as natural law, or the law of the Creator, rights are those that the state confers upon its subjects. What the state gives , the state can also take away since it is the grantor of said (in that skewed view).
It is also the exact reasoning behind Roe v Wade. The court views that the state does not owe the unborn child the rights of personage...the state does not owe a fetus any civil rights protection....a direct contradiction to the premise of our Declared Independence and inalienable rights.
@ProvokingThought - I'd rec your last comment to leadworshipper82@revelife
if I could several times over.
@ProvokingThought - So sad, yet so true. I don't believe for a moment that it actually would have been enforced even if it had passed. I did want to hope though... *sigh*
@ShamelesslyRed - I do not know of such country. Which is why I didn't say that. A lot of countries are successful is what I said. And God didn't make America successful. The people did. Then of course we could get into the argument that 'God led those people to do those great things' but I don't agree with that.
@leadworshipper82@revelife - Well, first of all, just because you believe in God doesn't mean he IS there so we're pretty equal there. And I still disagree that the government must answer to God. You make it sound like the corrupt political leaders in this world are only atheists. Would you like me to name a few religious ones? Just because you named a few crazy people doesn't make you correct. I don't bring up the Westboro Baptist Church every time I talk about Christians because it's obvious that they're nuts and are an exception. Also, morals are subjective. My morals and your morals are probably not the same.
Again, I just want to say, I'm not attacking anyone and if people believe in God, that doesn't bother me at all. Power to the people is what I say. I may disagree with some of you but I just don't want this to turn into a bashing.
@Just_For_Shits_And_Giggles - agreed with your statements
@Just_For_Shits_And_Giggles - You don't have to beleive in God to see that the liberties and freedoms we enjoy in this country are a fact because they were based on biblical principles. I will write more about this when I'm awake fully ---must have java :)
@Just_For_Shits_And_Giggles - well luckily the nutjob Fred Phelps ISN'T in leadership position so he really doesn't prove your point that much... yea he's religious... and yea he may have a leadership position... but he isnt running a nation where your well-being is on the line... tell me one atheistic leader that isn't corrupt... and if morality is subjective... you have to be ok with someone stealing from you because what's not ok for you or what's not right for you may just clearly be right for them... would you be ok with that? because according to you; morality is subjective therefore you HAVE to be ok with someone who steals from you... which means that if morality was subjective, Columbine, the Amish shootings, the Virginia tech massacre, 9/11 all are ok because what was ok for the people who committed these acts is all that matters... according to the logic of subjective morality...
I think that deep down, we ALL know that they don't care about us. The people in power never really do.
Good one. Hey, thanks for pointing me to a couple of new (to me) sites!