Category Archives: American Politics

What Is the Proper Role of Government?

In a day-in-age where OSHA labors to protect us from ourselves, and the United Nations is exploring ways to make us “happy,” and the Supreme Court rules that same-sex “marriage” is legal, a woefully neglected foundational question that must be asked is, “What is the proper role of government?”

Historical examples reveal many governmental failures, and the resulting tragedies.

The reason government tends to fail is that it tends to grow. And through growth of government comes corruption, higher taxes, manipulation of the money supply, rules and regulations, economic instability, distortion of justice, poverty for the masses, power for the elites, and ultimately, abolition of individual freedom. The failed government may consider itself successful in reaching its objectives—but its people suffer.

It has been aptly stated: “That government is best which governs least.” The growth of a government does not bode well for its citizens. Expansion of governmental powers always precedes—and causes—destruction of unalienable rights and poverty for the enslaved masses. Governments left to themselves, like children, invariably begin overstepping established boundaries.

Yet too little government—or complete anarchy—creates just as significant failures as governments which have grown too large. There is a proper balance between too much and too little government. What is the proper role of government, and when is it just the right size?

The Proper Role
In order to determine the proper role of government, one must start at the source of life and freedom—our Creator—and examine His standard for civil authority.

In Romans 13 as well as throughout the Old Testament, God established that the main function of government is to protects its citizens:

  • From domestic criminals by executing justice on those who have violated the rights of another individual; and
  • From foreign enemies by raising an army in case of belligerent attack.

Put simply, government is there to protect the rights of its citizens. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is, however, still too vague of a job description, for what are “rights”? Many liberals call education, health care, and housing basic human “rights,” while conservatives fight for other rights such as life, private property, and self-defense. Who is to have the final say on defining “rights”?

Once more we turn to the Lawgiver and Supreme Judge of the World to definitively answer the question.

In establishing the standard of justice and the duties of civil government, He gave every individual human being rights. He reveals some of our unalienable—that is, God-given—rights in the 10 Commandments.

“Thou shalt not steal” names the right to private property. “Thou shalt not murder” gives every individual the right to life. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” gives us the right to marry.

Frédéric Bastiat said succinctly, “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

“If men were angels,” said James Madison, “no government would be necessary.” If mankind was 100% righteous, there would be no need for government at all. Period. We’d all govern ourselves. But since we aren’t angels . . . Executing justice by punishing wrong-doers is the chief duty of government, and only by strict, impartial enforcement of established laws protecting human rights is crime discouraged.

The Declaration of Independence eloquently proclaimed 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.” It further proclaimed “that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

In one of the most important founding documents of our nation, the appropriate duty of civil government is clearly enunciated. Following the eight long years of the War for Independence, the Founders wrote the Constitution, which embodied the role of good government.

They created a Constitutional Federal Republic in which the federal government was granted limited and specified powers—namely, to protect the unalienable rights of Americans for generations to come.

The limited government designed by the Founding Fathers was not meant to be a government that grew in scope and power. Incorporating Biblical principles and protection of God-given rights into both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they established a rule of law based on the divine pattern for good, legitimate government.

Their experiment in freedom, limited government, and checks and balances produced a greater amount of freedom and prosperity for a greater number of people than any system ever devised by man. God knew what He was doing when He gave us our rights, and He knew what He was doing when He instituted civil government to protect them.

It is the expansion of the federal government beyond the powers granted it by the Constitution that our modern problems lie.

An Over-Sized Government
Our federal government has transitioned into a corrupt sugar-daddy system of, by, and for the politicians (and their cronies). They purchase votes by promising other people’s money. That used to be called “stealing” in the good old days; now it’s “public charity” and we Christians are told to support it because Christ told us to care for the poor. Yet He never told us to get government to look out for the needy, and He certainly never indicated that government programs to “end” poverty are a good idea. He said, “You will always have the poor with you.”

Thomas J. Anderson (1910-2002), a conservative author and speaker, depicted a striking illustration of the reality of federal welfare programs. In 1965 he said,

“Even if there were a real need for government projects [specifically welfare & grants], calling on the federal government to do it is like giving yourself a blood transfusion from your right arm to your left arm with a leaky tube. In the case of federal aid the leaky tube represents the swarm of bureaucrats who live off your blood. The federal government has no money, except what it takes from you. The federal government does not create anything. It is a poisonous parasite, fatal when absorbed in large doses. The real reason for federal aid is that the administrations seduce the people by giving them ‘other people’s money.’ … That’s the PLAN: one all-powerful, centralized government in Washington. The Planners say that in our complex society we no longer have the necessary money at the local level. If we don’t it’s because these leeches have stolen from us. Sending money to Washington so the Planners can send it back to us is a continuous transfusion in which the bureaucrats keep one-third for their own use. If we are to save and restore our constitutional Republic, we must assume, at the local level, those rights, privileges, taxing powers, and responsibilities guaranteed by the greatest freedom document ever devised by man, the Constitution of the United States.”

Both foreign and domestic aid are both beyond the scope of good government, and are even more clearly beyond the scope of the Constitution.

Federal welfare programs are merely one example among hundreds that could be used to demonstrate the disaster and corruption resulting from governmental interference in local and/or private affairs. Federal intrusion has made a mess of healthcare, agriculture, drugs, education, and many more areas. When the feds get involved in anything not delegated to them by the Constitution—inevitably armed with higher taxes and more constrictive regulations and red tape—prices go up, quality comes down, citizens are dissatisfied, and government has gathered even more power unto itself.

If our federal government stayed within its Constitutional boundaries, the issue of excessive and burdensome taxes would practically vanish. The federal leviathan would be dramatically reduced in size and cost. The budget would be balanced in no time and they could actually afford to lower taxes!

Below are many modern fallacious beliefs about the role of our federal government, emanating from both sides of the political aisle.

Government Should. . .
Ensure every child receives an “education.”
Manage citizens’ retirement funds and insure they are cared for.
See to it that every person has health insurance, regardless of the needs and priorities of the individual.
Fight terrorism abroad.
Help foreign despotic regimes by giving them billions of American tax dollars and fighting their wars for them with the blood of American boys and girls.
Fund state and local departments through grants.
Clamp down on greedy corporations.
Bail out banks and businesses that are “too big” to fail.
Protect us from ourselves.
Manage industries.
Provide welfare for the poor.
Set price controls and determine minimum wage.
Surrender sovereignty to as many supranational and world governing-bodies as possible.
Engage in endless no-win wars.
Legislate “marriage” standards for Americans.
Define when human life begins.
Fund abortion.
Grant tax-breaks to those it deems worthy.
Manage the monetary system.
Make its citizens “happy.”
Protect the environment.
And much, much more.

America has a colossal government which has far out-stepped the bounds of good government, causing myriad problems in every area in which it gets involved.

On April 8, 2010, John Bachtell, who later became—and is today—Chairman of the Communist Party USA, provided a partial view of the Communist view of the role of government in an article for People’s World entitled “What is the role of government?” (No, I didn’t forget to properly capitalize the letters in the title—that was the forgetting of People’s World.)

“The role of government and its ability to make a difference in people’s daily lives is not a question the progressive or democratic movement can take lightly . . . For 30 years the extreme right wing and Republicans have been doing every thing in their power to dismantle the part of government that addresses people’s needs [If only!] . . . Government is an arena of the class struggle. Whenever government actually serves the interests of people it is the result of bitterly fought battles . . . [The public] appreciates social services and any protections from corporate exploitation, racial or gender discrimination. But people’s faith in government has eroded in the face of the constant anti-government ultra-right ideological barrage.”

What Chairman Bachtell means by government “actually serving the interests of people,” of course, is government serving the interest of communist elites. Even while they promise grand socialist programs to benefit the “working class,” supposedly to make our lives easier, they acquire power for themselves and punish those of us who labor for our bread.

The empty Communist promise of “equality” translates into “equal poverty for all” through governmental redistribution of wealth—definitely beyond the power of Biblical or Constitutional government.

Lastly, Mr. Bachtell, most of us “ultra-righters” are not, as you claim, “anti-government.” We are for a just government. A Biblical government. A Constitutional government. A government that serves the people by protecting their rights.

A nation who is so lazy, apathetic, and indolent that they want their government to provide for them deserve exactly what they’ll get: tyranny. Ludwig von Mises said, “Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.”

What it Takes to Limit Government
If our Founders created a limited federal government under the Constitution that left the vast majority of responsibilities up to the states and the people, what has happened?

The tragic answer is that generations of Americans have not been holding elected officials responsible for their actions. They haven’t been appropriately replacing politicians who step outside their Constitutional boundaries. And government left to itself inevitably grows.

The Constitution is not the problem—it’s not causing today’s over-sized federal monstrosity. The problem is that the government isn’t obeying the Constitution—because We the People have shown we don’t care whether they do or not (it didn’t take politicians long to figure out that we’ll keep electing them regardless).

“If you have a government of good laws and bad men, you will have a bad government. For bad men will not be bound by good laws,” said Robert LeFevre. Ultimately, it is We the People who are responsible for the federal mess, because we haven’t held them accountable.

Today’s situation is perilous because over the centuries the American people have been lulled into complacency through freedom and prosperity, and have largely taken their eyes off civil affairs. Left to itself, the American federal government exploded into the modern massive behemoth of Washington, D.C.

The Swamp has not been drained—and won’t until obedience to the U.S Constitution is restored and hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats are sent home to look for real jobs. Downsize, eliminate, minimize. “That government is best which governs least.”

Only a vigilant citizenry can preserve their freedoms—by actively enforcing government to obey the law and stay within proper limitations. Only a watchful, active citizenry can enjoy protection, security, and prosperity—when it “binds them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution,” as Thomas Jefferson said.

We the People are responsible for the actions of our government. It’s high time we spread the principles of limited government—so amazingly simple—so that we’ll be able to enjoy the blessings of good government for years to come.

The Silent Majority

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil,” said Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor who actively opposed Hitler’s Nazi dictatorship during WWII. He was executed by the Nazis on April 9, 1945.

Such is all too often the cost of resisting evil that we of the dedicated minority face—and the Silent Majority looks on, refusing to choose sides.

Most of those in the Silent Majority don’t realize whose side they have chosen by not choosing. The Silent Majority is as culpable as the evil they refuse to fight. By allowing evil to win, the Silent Majority is—and always has been—an accomplice.

The Silent Majority hopes to live their lives without having to participate in the battle between good and evil that is as real and inevitable as death. Choosing to ignore reality doesn’t mean it ceases to exist.

The dedicated minority has two sides. As Tom Anderson used to say, “History, good and bad, has been made not by silent majorities, but by vociferous minorities. Whether we win or lose this titanic struggle for freedom depends on whether the dedicated minority working for what is right and good is more powerful and more effective than the dedicated minority working for what is wrong and evil.”

It can’t get much clearer than that.

Where does the Silent Majority come in on the fight?

Tom Anderson said, “The Silent Majority sat by and saw Him crucified. The Silent Majority permitted the reign of terror in the French Revolution. The Silent Majority watched as the Christians were burned at the stake. The Silent Majority sneered when Patrick Henry pled: ‘Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?’ The Silent Majority watched as the street demonstrations in Germany were taken over by a little unknown paper-hanger and corporal named Adolph Hitler.”

The Silent Majority, my fellow Americans, is right now allowing a socialist, criminal cabal to enslave the world through a one-world government.

The Silent Majority allows socialism, atheism, and immorality to be taught in our public schools—and sends their children there as well.

The Silent Majority has allowed the sodomite minority to force their trash down our throats to the point that my local library’s Teen Summer Reading Program is to “Read an LGBTQ novel.” Mary Calderone herself couldn’t have picked a worse topic for impressionable young teens to explore. And the Silent Majority looks on as Christians are persecuted for refusing to cater to the pervert-community.

The Silent Majority needs to stand up and begin fighting on the right side!

Jesus Christ didn’t tell His disciples, “Go ahead and live your lives. Be silent, be peaceful, and ‘coexist.’ Don’t worry about what the Other Side is doing; the victory is Mine on the final day anyway.”

Instead the Lord said, “He who is not with Me is against Me.” He said, “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

The prophets of the Old Testament—great men of God like Elijah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel—were not silent—and they weren’t a majority. Standing before King Ahab, the prophet Micaiah was outnumbered by 400 prophets of Baal!

The prophets of God were persecuted, but they were rewarded by God. They did not live serene, peaceful lives, but they received the glories of heaven.

The minority dedicated to righteousness and justice—regardless of the cost—are the only ones who will inherit the Kingdom. As for the Silent Majority who play “churchianity,” pretend loyalty to country, and shirk responsibility, God will be less than pleased with them on Judgment Day.

Christ had a message for the majority: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.” If the majority’s doing something, examine God’s standard and get on the right side: you’ll virtually always find yourself in the minority.

But the minority can win! And we will win, by God’s grace—with the help of a repentant Silent Majority who stop watching and get involved in the fight.

For the sake of your children, your grandchildren, your country, and your God: Please, get out of the Silent Majority!

Willie & the Little Sign

Note: This story is fictional.

* * * * *

No Guns

You may have heard of Willie before. . .but then again you may not, since Left-leaning media wasn’t keen on reporting this particular event. Just in case you haven’t heard of him, I’ll tell his story here.

Willie was a convicted criminal. He made his living by robbery. He had his trusty handgun, and he found that almost everywhere he went all he had to do was display his gun—clerks, cashiers, and customers alike complied with his demands. And he had no qualms about pulling the trigger when he deemed it necessary.

This lifestyle didn’t appear to bother him, and though he had served jail-time on multiple occasions, he was always back on the streets in a few months. He managed to elude capture in many situations when law enforcement officials tried to arrest him.

One time, however, he walked into a theater and demanded all the money in the till—a perfectly normal routine for him.

To his surprise and dismay, a movie-goer standing nearby calmly retrieved his own gun and aimed it at Willie.

The hardened criminal fled the theater and vowed never to go near it again.

What if I actually get shot next time? he thought as he grumpily marched down a rainy back alley the next afternoon. He was still quite jarred from his experience with the gun-wielding theater patron he had encountered the previous night. This is dangerous business!

It was indeed, but the next day Willie was back at his same old trade—he did, after all, need to eat, and he was willing neither to work for his bread nor apply for welfare.

After several more successful ventures, Willie’s confidence returned and he faced little if any resistance wherever he went, as before.

Then one day Willie entered the tiny convenience store on the corner and demanded all the money in the till.

This time the clerk herself was the one who badly surprised Willie by whipping her own gun out and pointing it at him.

“Move and I’ll shoot,” she said as she drew her phone from her pocket to call the police, but Willie was too quick and fled the way he had come.

Once more frightened, Willie became angry as he stalked up and down a distant alley and pondered the situation. He stormed and growled and would probably have shot anyone crossing his path. Luckily, no one did.

Willie decided he’d catch a ride on the train and move onto a newer, bigger city. He needed change, and besides, his hometown neighbors were arming themselves to defend themselves against his terrorism and robbery. Now they were succeeding—not him. And he hated it.

Accordingly, he moved on to the next town and began his devilish activities there.

He had only been there three days when he came across the most interesting thing he had ever seen.

It was small, and sitting in the window of a small toy store. It wasn’t a toy, however. It was a little white sign with a handgun symbol and a red strike-through circle.

Willie blinked and wondered if he was dreaming. This was a no-gun zone? A. . .gun-free zone! What a clever idea! I’ll bet some really clever crook thought of that one! he thought, and he wasn’t too far from the truth.

After several moments of silent, delighted reflection, Willie decided he would have to remember to look for more of those special signs.

At last he shrugged, chuckled wickedly, pushed the door open, and stalked inside the unsuspecting toy store.

* * * * *

Gun-free zones are not safe zones.

If liberals and advocates of stricter gun-control laws simply stepped into the minds of criminals (not a very far leap for them, after all) and looked at the world through the warped viewpoints of hardened burglars and murderers, they would realize just how lethal those little gun-free signs really are to innocent civilians.

If you were a crook, would you be likely to pick on a firearms shop, or would you prefer a “gun-free” establishment?

Truth is, criminals are already breaking the law by their very lifestyle. I can just see them entering a gun-free zone, snapping their fingers, and saying, “Guess I’ll have to leave my gun behind this time.”

The only thing gun-free zones do is prevent good guys from having firearms. Those signs proclaim to the criminally-minded, “Come try us out! You won’t find any opposition here!”

Next time you run into a gun-control freak, try asking, “Wouldn’t you like to put up a big sign in your front yard that says, ‘This house is proudly gun free’?”

I’d love to hear their response!

Get US Out of the UN!

graphic

Hurray for American Independence! HR 193, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, introduced by Representative Mike Rogers, has a greater chance of passing today than ever before! Although it has been introduced many times over the decades, it has never successfully passed Congress—although the encouraging news is that each time it’s been brought up for a vote it garners more and more support in Congress.  HR 193 would end US involvement in the anti-American dictators club called the United Nations.

The John Birch Society first championed the Get US Out! movement beginning in 1959, less than a year after the Society’s founding. Over the years the UN has been thoroughly exposed by reliable sources such as The New American for its globalist aims leading to a one-world dictatorship—the New World Order. Under the guise of ‘peace’ they have been deliberately propelling us further and further toward global totalitarianism since 1945.

Contrary to the express ordinance in the US Constitution that Congress shall declare war, we have been allowing the UN to send American armed forces overseas. In other words, our men and women in uniform have been, and are being, sacrificed according to the dictates of unelected, unaccountable globalists at the United Nations, who generally speaking hate America.

In addition to expending the American military, the UN also expends billions of American tax dollars—over eight billion each year according to Fox News. This money we pour annually into the globalist giant is used for “peacekeeping,” bailing out foreign regimes, “saving” the earth from the so-called anthropogenic global-warming threat, and many other corrupt programs. The United Nations has a track record of having at the helm of its leadership men like communist Alger Hiss, who served as acting secretary-general during the UN’s first year. U Thant, who openly admired Vladimir Lenin, served as the UN’s secretary general from 1961  to 1971. Succeeding U Thant was Austria’s Kurt Waldheim, who served as secretary general from 1972 to 1981; Waldheim was a Nazi officer during World War II! These are only a few examples of the socialists and communists who have filled the organization’s ranks since its founding in 1945. Through programs such as Agenda 21, NAFTA, and many, many others, the UN leads the push for global totalitarianism.

America is their most difficult victim to overcome—and their most significant. If America falls, the rest of the world will quickly follow. If America throws off the chains of UN authoritarianism before it’s too late, the rest of the world will still have a beacon of hope and light. The future happiness and prosperity not only of our children, but of the whole world, rests on us! Please contact your federal representative and ask him to co-sponsor HR 193 today, and ask your senators to introduce a companion resolution in the US Senate. Get US out of the UN, and get the UN out of the US!

Send a pre-written, editable email of support for HR 193 to your federal representative and senators. Just two clicks to make your voice heard in support of American sovereignty! Go ahead, do it. . . . it couldn’t be easier!

Audit the Fed?

 

A popular movement in many conservative circles is the idea of auditing the Federal Reserve as a way to bring public attention on the harmful institution. This plausible argument has had ill luck in Congress whenever the occasion arrives that a congressman introduces a bill for this purpose. Most politicians are afraid to mess with the gigantic monetary establishment.

Auditing the Federal Reserve would undoubtedly reveal corruption, waste, and fraud, at least to a minor degree, that violates current laws on Fed policies. But the most blatant fraud of all is actually protected by current laws: the bankers who are in control of the Fed are enabled to have a worldwide monopoly—at the common man’s expense. The fiat money called Federal Reserve Notes, a fraud in itself, is wholly in the hands of of the international bankers and monetary scientists, and they manipulate it from many angles to their own advantage. They engage in inflation through fractional reserve banking, which means loaning out money they haven’t even printed (it is debt-created money; if the debt is paid off, the money supply decreases). And this fraud is actually legal!

So while the audit would not accomplish a lot for conservatives, and may even put people back to sleep, who are satisfied that the Fed is obeying the law, the audit might actually do some harm for our country.

For example, if an Audit the Fed bill were really to make it through Congress by some stroke of luck, the actual audit would likely take years and years to conduct, and then, in the words of G. Edward Griffin in his masterpiece The Creature from Jekyll Island,

“By the time fourteen volumes of testimony, charts, tables, and exhibits finally appear, the public would be intimidated and fatigued.”

And in the meantime, conservatives would feel that the Fed was being taken care of, and that Congress was doing their job. Constituents would be deceived in this matter.

What really needs to be done is something much more radical, something that involves real action: the entire Federal Reserve System needs to be completely abolished. Since its inception in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act, the Fed has manipulated the economy, inflated the money supply, and loaned vast amounts of money both to our own government as well as many foreign despotic regimes whose experiments in socialism/totalitarianism have utterly failed—all at the American taxpayer’s expense, of course. Inflation is a relatively safe way to steal from the average American’s pocketbook undetected, for as John Maynard Keynes said about debauching currency, “…not one man in a million is able to diagnose [it].”

And that is what the fraudulent banking elites depend upon in order to continue the economic manipulation and vast power they currently enjoy: the ignorance and apathy of the American public, who, by and large, are too focused on things of little-to-no real importance.

If sufficient numbers of Americans can be educated and informed—woken up—and organized into an educational army dedicated to restoring obedience to the U.S. Constitution, then it is not too late for the monetary powers-that-be, who wield considerable wealth and power, to be dethroned and their power stripped from them.

In the 1830’s war over the abolishing or preserving of the national bank, Nicholas Biddle, head of the Second National Bank of the United States, in his political battle with Andrew Jackson, whose second presidential campaign focus was to abolish the national bank, boasted, “All other banks and all the merchants may break, but the Bank of the Untied States shall not break.”

Jackson’s stalwart reply to the public was, “Bank and no Jackson, or no bank and Jackson!”

In spite of Biddle’s deliberate causing of economic turmoil by decreasing the money supply in order to frighten the public into thinking the Bank necessary, Jackson and the anti-national bankers (Thomas Jefferson’s political heirs) eventually won out, and the Second National Bank of the United States ended, and the national debt was entirely paid off. The nation also went back to the gold standard, which created true economic stability and prosperity, after the harmful effects of the national bank had worn off.

It can be done today, too! The banking cartel’s legal monopoly can be dismantled and the Federal Reserve System can be abolished. It will take hard work educating ourselves and our circles of influence on free market economics and the giant fraud called the Federal Reserve; and as in Jackson’s day, the bank will fight like crazy to stay in existence, perhaps including planned chaos in their strategy, which will affect the whole nation. But if we are to return to the free market and sound money, with no legally protected cartels, then it is necessary, not that we simply audit the Fed, but end the Fed!

For more information:

Read Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island – A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, available here https://www.jbs.org/store/shopjbs/the-creature-from-jekyll-island This excellent book reads like a detective novel, believe it or not. The most interesting book about money or the Federal Reserve you are likely to find anywhere. This 608 page book gives you the background story on money, the people behind the creation of the Federal Reserve, seven reasons why the Fed should be abolished, the history of the national banks in our nation before the Federal Reserve came along, what we can do about it, and much more. A fascinating, educational read written in easy-to-understand language, not bankers’ jargon. I will never look at banks the same again.

Fixing the Real Problem

It’s presidential election year again! Every four years there is a big to-do about who America’s next chief executive will be. It means excitement, debates, rallies, fundraisers, partisan politics, increased civic involvement, rallying behind politicians, etc. The presidential race becomes a huge distraction for many well-meaning patriots who throw their time, money, and political efforts into campaigning for whomever they think should become president. Many of these supposedly “conservative” candidates are in fact no friends of the Constitution at all. We should always measure candidates (for any public office) by their loyalty to, and track-record of abiding by, our Constitution.

A significant point often missed by those distracted with presidential politics is that the president really does not, according to the Constitution, hold much power. This is a good thing! The Founders did not want too much power delegated to any man, and this is why we have Congress. The real lawmakers in our land are those we elect to Congress. If Congress abides by the Constitution, then the president will be held accountable for his actions, and that problem is fixed. But if we somehow managed to send a Constitutionalist to the White House next year, while our capitol remains filled with a bunch of lying politicians who delight in burdening us with ridiculous amounts of rules and regulations that choke the free market, how much good could really be done by the new president with a Congress like that? The key to reigning in the government is Congress.

Imagine a mad dog in your neighborhood who is viciously attacking your child. Would you dash over to the chaotic scene and put all your focus into simply preventing the dog from biting by shutting the dog’s mouth and trying to keep it shut at all costs, even while the dog continues to kick, claw, scratch, and injure with the rest of his body? Or would you instead focus your energy on immobilizing the dog itself? If you kick the dog so hard in the ribs that he flies into the street and limps away whining, you have controlled the harmful beast itself, and you no longer need worry about simply containing the mouth of the dog.

So it is with our federal government. The president is under the authority of Congress, who has the power to impeach him for violating his oath to the Constitution. If we force Congress to abide by the Constitution, by extension our over-reaching president problem will be fixed as well if he wants to keep his job.

Which part of the federal government writes the laws that affect our daily lives? Who taxes us so heavily? Who regulates us nearly to death? Who gets to declare war? Who’s in charge of our money supply? Who is in control of the vast bureaucracy encroaching on our rights? The answer to all of these is Congress. Most people would agree that Congress has been doing a terrible job at each of these things, and that’s because they aren’t acting in accordance with the Constitution. Who must we then focus on fixing? Congress!

If there were any Constitutionalists currently running for president (and that’s a big if), certainly it would be good to support them. A president who strictly obeys the Constitution would be the most excellent president possible! Yet our federal representatives would still be the ones who held the law-making powers. They are the key to restoring obedience to the Constitution.

With this in mind, why does the mainstream media focus so much on the presidential race? It is obvious that the mass media don’t want a return to the Constitution—it is obvious in how they treat any Constitutionally-minded candidates: ignore, ridicule, smear, slander…they go at great lengths to keep the public from hearing the candidate’s real views just in case the public actually decided that limited government and free markets sounded like worthy objectives. So the mass media, being anti-Constitution to put it simply, why do they focus so much on presidential races and try to make them seem enormously important? They are experts at manipulating public opinion and they successfully divert the public eye from where it should be: returning to the Constitution and holding all public servants accountable to their oath of office.

The mass media also skillfully uses the presidential races to divide patriots, which greatly hinders the patriot cause. It is foolish for us to refuse to work with patriots of like-mind simply because we support different candidates.

Let’s not let them dupe us into pouring all our efforts into the presidential race while ignoring our even more important civic responsibilities. What if all the Constitutionalists today who are divided on presidential candidates instead united and worked more on getting their family, friends, and neighbors informed so we could elect federal representatives who are dedicated to liberty, freedom, and the Constitution? Let’s get going! Find out how at www.jbs.org.

Gun Control

Every time there is another tragic mass shooting, President Obama has virtually the same message: “Our hearts go out to the victims…we need more gun control!”

While the idea of gun control sounds on the surface like it might solve the violence problem, the reality is, gun control never has—and never will—end violence. And why the war on guns? Many everyday items can be, and have been, used for violence. It would be absurd to impose regulations, background checks, and permits on every item that can be used to inflict harm on another person. The idea that government, by controlling external objects, can eradicate internally chosen violence is naïve at best. The fact is, a criminal bent on doing harm to someone else will do that harm with or without guns.

Not only do gun control laws fail to end crime, but they actually give an advantage to the criminals! Criminals are law-breakers by nature. They don’t care if they have an illegal or unlicensed gun. In other words, they don’t try to stay in line with the law on their road to crime. The only people who are actually inhibited by gun regulations are the law-abiding citizens, who dutifully comply with the whims of the law-makers.

Ever notice that many mass-shootings happen in gun-free zones? The criminals aren’t stupid; they know they won’t run into armed opposition in these zones. The unarmed law-abiding citizens are then made helpless victims waiting to be shot by the armed villain, who, thanks to restrictive gun laws or the “gun-free” zone, has a huge advantage.

Guns are an excellent invention for everyone—but especially for women! Guns have better equipped us to be able to defend ourselves, even against the huge muscular would-be robbers, rapists, or even murderers. Talk about making men and women “equal!” The great “equalizer” is under attack, yet it’s the smaller and weaker people who would be negatively affected by gun control—not the attackers.

So if gun-control hasn’t, doesn’t, and won’t work, why are there those in government who are so eager to take away our guns?

The sober truth is that there is a much deeper agenda. “Reducing violence” is their illogical excuse for cracking down on gun owners.

Throughout history it has been the would-be tyrants of the world who want nothing more than to disarm their citizenry. When this is done, what can the common people do to stop the tyrants? They, their cronies, and their army are now the ones with the weapons, and the people are defenseless subjects, hardly able to resist and restore freedom.

This is why the U.S. Constitution does not give any authority whatsoever to Congress (or the president for that matter) to have anything to do with guns and their owners. The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution says, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Could the Founders have been any more clear? Hardly! Yet, in disregard to our governing document, efforts are being made to strictly regulate guns and gun owners.

It is very clear that the federal government has no power given by the Constitution over our guns.

As for state and local governments, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution leaves “the powers not delegated” to the federal government up to the states and the people. Naturally, this will mean some states choose to place heavy restrictions on gun use, and in some cases even make it illegal. Other states would not regulate firearms at all. What would happen? Highly restrictive states, such as California or New York, would be the flocking place for criminals who wish for no opposition to their evil deeds. Freer states would be the place for freedom-loving individuals who want to protect their life, liberty, and property.

Can you imagine the gun regulations in place today if they were in place at the time of pioneers, cowboys, and Indians in the American West? Permits, background checks, rules upon rules laid on gun distributors…it wouldn’t have been acceptable to the people of the time period—not for a moment. Why should we allow government to exert their power over firearms and their owners today?

There is only one acceptable form of gun control. As former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer said, “I guess I kind of believe in gun control: You control your gun, and I’ll control mine.” This kind of gun control is what allows for a free society—guns are used to help people defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property. It also has a way of keeping the government in check, when government knows the citizenry are well-armed.

Of course tyrannical governments have always been adamant about disarming the citizenry, so they might more easily enslave them. (Which should be a warning for us if gun-control is being pushed for by those power-hungry politicians!) A free society should never allow any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. If a government does so much as require the people to register their guns, this is a bad sign of what may be coming next, since gun registration always precedes gun confiscation.

So beware of Obama and any other politician who calls for more gun control laws!

Are We a Republic or a Democracy?

It is commonly supposed today that our American form of government is a democracy. Others call it a “democratic republic”. Others emphasize that we are a republic, not a democracy.

What’s the difference between the two? Does it matter what we call it?

Democracy

A democracy is the rule of the majority. This sounds good on the surface, but it results in majorities ruling minorities. In a democracy, if 51% of the people voted to violate your rights, you would have no protection.

The Founding Fathers knew the inevitable downfalls of democracies, and they warned against them.

Alexander Hamilton said, “We are a republican government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy.”

Samuel Adams said, “Democracy never lasts. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, said, “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Perhaps Benjamin Franklin put it simplest when he said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Republic

A republic is the rule of law. In a republic, even if the majority votes to violate your rights, the law protects you. This is precisely what our U.S. Constitution does.

“If You Can Keep It”

The word democracy does not show up once in our Constitution, nor in any of the fifty state constitutions. We were set up as a republic, under the rule of law, not the whimsy demands of mobs.

As Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a woman asked him, “Sir, what form of government have you given us?” He replied, “A republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.”

We must understand that we are not a democracy—we are a republic. Let’s keep it that way.