Two Hundred and Thirty Three years ago, our founding fathers developed and signed the declaration of American independence and freedom that would secure the freedom of America’s future children that would come after them. They envisioned an America sovereign in her own right, aided by the establishment of the Constitution of the United States and the Amendments and Bill of Rights that accompanied it. These documents underscored our founding father’s understanding of the importance of freedom by ensuring that those born in this country would be protected in life, in their freedom and in the pursuit finding joy in life. And so these documents were signed, sealed and delivered into the hands of the government establishment never to be questioned again. I wonder if our founding fathers ever considered the deception of the freedom they worked so hard to provide for us.
Just as there is a “thin line between love and hate”, there is also a thin line between freedom and slavery. The great leaders of our past forged many victories in the fight for freedom, and many others have come to snatch that freedom right from under us. I was thinking about my last post regarding the freedoms that we are seeing threatened and decided to write another installment to that topic. In many other areas of American life all of our freedoms are just a pen signing away from being a thing of the past. One of the greatest deceptions of freedom is that the freedom of one group can quickly become enslavement for another group. Our founding documents were supposed to provide a balance that would help us arrive at a best case scenario for all citizens involved. That scenario was called majority rule. Anyone remembers that concept? I am sure no one noticed that America is no longer under a majority rule concept of government. Today, minorities rule, courts rule, legislative bodies rule, but the majority of the consensus of people of this country no longer rules. Now who took away that freedom when no one was looking?
Upon our nations horizon is nationalized health care, which means that our healthcare system will be fully controlled by the government of the United States. Healthcare is one our most essential needs for a good quality of life. Under a nationalized government owned healthcare system, our citizens will not longer have the “freedom” to choose whatever health care provider one desires. Having nationalized healthcare strips all citizens of the three principles of the American constitution; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One no longer has free reign of their own lives because the government will decide whose lives are important and whose lives are not. How will we sustain such a catastrophic expense on the backs of the American tax payer? Remember the Alamo! Remember the Civil Way? Remember the American Revolution? Do you remember anything that would jolt the American people’s mind into the value of our freedom? Our lackadaisical regard for freedom is soon becoming our path to enslavement. Remember the USSR?
In the last several weeks five states have enacted same-sex marriage, when 55 percent of the American public believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It appears as though the legislative bodies of these states no longer trust the rights of their citizens to vote on such issues in a manner that they deem satisfactory. When did the government take away a persons right to vote? Definitely did not see that coming. A minority of people who desires to have sex in their own manner have been able to take away the freedom of the majority rule. I believe that a new criterion for the American people should be; do you believe in the constitution of the United States? Another very important preamble of our country’s founding document is our need for God. The freedom to worship God was central to the building of a moral and just society. We will not soon forget what happened to Governor Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean. Both women held to Christian beliefs and were viciously attacked by the MSM and the liberal left for those convictions. What? I thought we were free to express our religious convictions in this country, even when others may disagree? I am sure the fairness doctrine will take care of the rest of our Christian freedoms once it is enacted by our new radical left administration. This doctrine would silence anyone who put forth an opinion that was unacceptable to the liberal left and their protected class of gays and lesbians. Too late, the hate crimes bill will accomplish that.
This is an issue the conservative movement must adopt as a central part of its platform message. Americans must understand the sharp contrast of the Democratic Party and its radical left agenda which are quickly dissolving our freedoms and another party that will fight to keep Americans free. I believe that most American’s love being a free nation. Many who live here have come from places where freedom was not a way of life, but a luxury to those who were held wealth and power. Freedom should exist for everyone, from the smallest person in the womb to the eldest person at the fullness of life. It should not be something that the government controls and provides for those they deem worthy. It may be that we have all been deceived.
2 years ago
To me Freedom can be summed up in two words, Individual Liberty. There should be no laws that restrict our individual liberties. However the left believes in group thought and group identity. That there are no individual rights or liberty. If you look at the books that they try to teach children from today and you will see how children are taught wealth envy and group thought for society acceptance. One example is Rainbow Fish.
ReplyDeleteWe do have to be careful of full acceptance of majority rule because it can easily become mob rule.
Ah, but look what has happened to us in minority rule, the courts, the legislature, and other put forth policies upon us that we really don't desire. Remember the truest minority is the individual. I have sort of dropped the ball in my keeping abreast of public school liberal indoctrination. I will check the Rainbow fish thing out.
ReplyDeleteTo swing the racket back in your direction, we must also be careful of individual rights, because the rights of the individual can not supersede the rights of the whole. Ha! So now my clever blogsphere friend how do you suppose we reach a balance?
The Declaration of Independence stated that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These were not collective rights but individual rights and that the government should not trample them. When we go majority rule we get individual rights often trampled for the sake of the majority and sometimes it can lead to tyranny.
ReplyDeleteYes you have to seek balance but Obama supporters could argue that he won the majority and thus all of his ideas should be enacted since "He Won". The balance is in our inalienable rights. And ultimately could be decided by the Supreme Court.
Oh BTW. I know Obama was elected by the electoral college not by the overall people but when dealing with undereducated liberals you have to speak their language. The election of the president is one balance where the majority rule does not apply. You can win the white house without winning the majority of votes. This was by design so that more popular states in themselves could not determine the total outcome of the race for the white house.
ReplyDeleteThe two houses of Congress is another example of controlling majority rule. That is why bills have to pass both houses before going to the president. And the final check and balance is in the veto pen. So majority rule does have balances but it can have its abuses too!
Yes in all things there is the possiblity for abuse, but I think that if there are certain safeguards in place we can find a balance. For instance, one may feel that they have the individual right to smoke whereever or whenever they desire, they purchase the cigerattes with their money, they do not believe they are harming anyone so why should the majority of people who say there should not be smoking in public areas be allowed to have their say? I would suggest that in the event that individual rights supersede the will of God, then it is not in the best interest of the people. Our framers made it a point to instill in the design of our democracy a respect and reverence for God.
ReplyDeleteSecond if the majority rule infringes on the rights of an individual then that also is not in the best interest of the people and should not be allowed as law, as in the case of race relations.
If an individual felt that their rights are being infringed on and they would desire to marry whomever they desire, older women marrying young boys, below the age of maturity and older men doing the same, what standard would be used in determining that type of situations, the parents of those children would have to have a say as well.
I can live under the majority rule because I think that it is the only fair way to decide when governing a large body of people. I believe that when the majority's desire is rooted in something that would be harmful that is when the legislative process should be involved. As long as a policy does not harm, abuse, or infringe on the inalienable rights of a person or group we should be able to make decent policies for the common good of the people. I also think that without morality a group will eventually destroy themselves so there must be God's standard of morality because man is bias and when allowed will try to benefit oneself. If we all become separate entities because of our individual rights that will result in no a stale mate because everyone is equal.
I believe in individual rights as well, but at some place we must come together as a group and decide what is best for us as a whole. I would always desire what is best for my fellow man even when he or she may not see it.