Politics and Insights from History

November 23, 2009

Dear Mr. President,
Why do you hate the United States so vehemently? What is it about this country that causes you to despise it so? This nation allowed you to go from being a poor black kid in Chicago to becoming the President of the United States. You used our capitalist system to improve your lot in life. Now you have the gall to trash it and to deny such a future to all Americans: current and future generations. You, like all liberals, use the free market to advance yourselves and then you turn around and talk about its shortcomings and how it has failed and is outdated. If the system is a failure and outdated, then how is it you and those like you were able to use it to your success? The real reason for you denunciation of capitalism is that you and your ilk do not want others to be successful, thus challenging your power. Such greed has proven to be the downfall of all who pursue it.
I do find it interesting that you have recently decided to allow Fox News to interview you, especially considering that you and your administration has spent the past several months trashing Fox. Your duplicity came out clearly in the interview. In it you said, “I think it is important though to recognize that if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.” Why then are you pushing for universal healthcare? The current estimated cost is $1.2 trillion. $1.2 trillion! Then, you want to go to a green economy meaning that all current means of producing energy will be eliminated and many more people will be forced into unemployment. You plan to accomplish this with cap and trade, another bill that will cost us trillions of dollars. Considering we had to beg China for money to pay for your disastrous stimulus bill, where are you going to get the money to pay for these other two bills? And this does not include whatever else you have planned.
You said yourself that we are in debt as a nation and that if spending does not cease the recession will be worse. Why then do you insist on spending money? Why don’t you urge Congress to quit spending? Why not cut all wasteful spending? It’s simple. You expect the average citizen to do as you tell them, but you have no intention of controlling your spending.
There are also a few lies in your above statement. 1) We are not in the midst of an economic recovery nor have ever been in one since your stimulus bill. 2) The world has already lost confidence in the U.S. economy. Why do you think the value of the dollar keeps falling? 3) Double-dip recession? We are well on our way to a depression, if we’re not already there. And we have you to thank for this.
Mr. President, you had the opportunity of being a great president. But, you abandoned honesty and integrity for your Marxist ideology and your lust for power. Glenn Beck was correct when he said that you and your associates are collapsing the system because that is exactly what you are doing.
You’ve weakened the economy to a near state of disrepair. The dollar has sunk and prices are up. More people are out of work and businesses are looking at even more ways to cut costs in preparation for your massive takeover of the economy. This will result in further unemployment and a decrease in the quality of our goods while prices continue to rise.
You and your union thugs are doing what Marxists have done throughout centuries. It happened in Rome, Germany after WWI, the French Revolution, and the Bolshevik Revolution. Those who wanted a socialist utopia created anarchy by collapsing the current economy. Afterward, the ones who caused the problem step in with the solution. The people, being desperate and frightened, accept these “saviors” only to regret it later as their quality of life sinks and their freedom disappears. This is what has happened recently in the United States. Our own government, with their big government regulations, caused the housing market crash, inflation, tumbling wages, loss of jobs, and the continued demise of the dollar. Through you, the same government steps in with a solution: increase in the size of the government and an increase in government spending, thus choking what little free enterprise and liberty are left.
Mr. President, on the outside you appear to be like everyone else. You are clean cut and well dressed, even pleasing to look at. But underneath all of that beats the black heart of a soulless man whose foul stench and deeds are consuming this great country. If you do not put a stop to this madness, we will all sink into the black hole of socialism’s disease.
Sincerely,

Lady Liberty

With all of the information coming out about ACORN, SEIU, and the Apollo Alliance and their connections to President Obama, one has to wonder, how deep do these connections go?  Who is really in charge of the United States?  Who is behind recent legislation being pushed through Congress?  We all know that ACORN received money from Obama’s stimulus bill, though it is not the first time they received federal funds.  SEIU has a large stake in the Health Care Bill being rammed through.  And then there is Cap and Trade which is speaking through with little to no attention from the press.  How much you want to bet that the Apollo Alliance is going to receive a tidy sum from Uncle Sam?  They promote “green” jobs.  Isn’t that what Cap and Trade is supposed to do?

First let’s explore SEIU (Service Employee’s International Union).  Andy Stern is the president of SEIU.  He is a Marxist.  SEIU’s policies fall within Marxism. (Click on the link below to watch Bill Moyers’ interview with Andy Stern.)

Bill Moyers\’ Interview with Andy Stern June 15, 2007

Notice the similarities between what Andy Stern says and what Obama says.  He talks about making government work for the unions.  Oh he speaks about individuals, but if Stern had his way everyone would be part of the union.  Stern mentioned redistributing wealth and how it mustn’t be in the hands of a few people.  Obama mentions the sam when trying to answer Joe the Plumber\’s question. Which he failed to answer.  Andy Stern wants to use political power to change the behavior of corporations like Bank of America.  Obama is using political power to force people to buy into an insurance program they do not want; to force insurance companies to provide coverage that they do not wish to provide and may be unable to provide.  Of course, this will take care of the universal health care coverage that SEIU wants.

Andy Stern has had at least 22 visits to the White House where he has talked personally with Obama in the first 6 months since the inauguration.  He has had the most visits with the president than anyone else.  That is a lot of meetings between the president of a union and the President of the United States.  Didn’t Obama pledge to end special interests?  Apparently he only wishes to end the special interests of evil corporations and their profit making.  But Obama has no qualms about SEIU, a labor union, making a profit through taxpayer money.

Watch these three videos below.  (Click on the link to access the video.)  The first two are from an SEIU conference in October 2007.  The third from the SEIU convention of 2008.  In both video Obama is addressing SEIU.  Now listen to what he says.  Listen to what he promises SEIU member.

Obama\’s SEIU Agenda is my Agenda

Does Obama Represent the Country of SEIU?

Barak Obama Adresses SEIU\’s 2008 Convention

Here Obama admits to working with SEIU members during his days as a community organizer.  Did you notice the phrase, “get everybody organized”?  Does that mean we will all be forced into a union?  Is this the setup for his civilian task force which he mentioned in another speech?  Notice he said “Your agenda is my agenda.”  That is a very clear sign that SEIU is a special interest in the Obama Administration.  His agenda is their agenda!  In the third video Obama claims, “You and I together-together you and I, we are going to change this country and we are going to change the world.”  Sounds like SEIU and its president, Andy Stern, have authority over what happens in this country and influence over Obama.  Obama is admitting right here that they will work together to change America.

It is no secret that SEIU spent at least $60 million on Obama’s campaign for the presidency.  (Do you still believe that Barak Obama has no connections to this organization?)  Obama’s political director is Patrick Gaspard.

Gaspard is a former lobbyist for SEIU. [i] He first joined SEIU in 1999 to help organize the local 1199 “March For Justice”.[ii] He remained with SEIU promoting their agenda in Congress until 2008. He only quit that job to join Obama’s campaign. That is a good seven years with the union. The fact that he went straight from SEIU to Obama, who is also well connected with the union, shows that it is unlikely that Gaspard became disillusioned with the union and quit because of such sentiments. Especially since President Obama is promoting SEIU’s agenda. Gaspard also has known ties with ACORN. It is interesting how ACORN keeps popping up in Obama’s circle of friends.

It is well documented that Obama and SEIU are connected.  Very much so.  Obama himself said that SEIU’s agenda is his agenda.  He has a former SEIU lobbyist in his administration.  Lobbyists do not change.  Even though this evidence is circumstantial, the circumstances are suspicious.

What form of government does America have? Anyone reading this will say, “A democracy.” But if that is your answer, then you are wrong. I know what the schools teach about our form of government. Many politicians insist that we are a democracy. But we are not. The United States is a Republic, more specifically a Representative Republic. Nowhere in our founding documents are we called a democracy.

Benjamin Franklin said: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”[i]

Democracies are majority rule and can easily lead to mob rule, which in turn either leads to a dictatorship or anarchy. In a true Democracy every citizen gets 1 vote on every issue. That’s all well and good, but what if you are the one person who decides to stand against everyone else? The needs of the minority go unnoticed in a Democracy. Votes are easily bought either by blackmail, or just naming the right price. This means that Democracies easily give way to corruption and mob rule, which later leads to anarchy proving Franklin’s above quote all too true. In a Democracy, the policy makers are not beholden to anyone. They do not answer to the populace for their stance on issues or their votes. Since, every citizen votes on every issue, they work for themselves and no one else.

In Ancient Greece, Athens is the best example of a Democracy. In Athens every male citizen was expected to serve in the government. Athens’ democracy worked for a time. The city-state became very prosperous and controlled the seas. It was the envy of Ancient Greece. But Athens became corrupt. The people cared more about their personal gain and used the majority vote to get it. Athens later found themselves conquered by the Spartans.

“Democracies have been found 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 death.”  James Madison

John Adams describes the nature of democracies clearly and concisely in his A Defense of the Constitution. Here he is referring to Montesquieu’s statements about democracy. In it he writes:

1. No democracy ever did or can exist

2. If however, it were admitted, for argument sake, that a democracy ever did or can exist, no such passion as a love of democracy, stronger than self-love, or superior to the love of private interest, ever did, or ever can prevail in the minds of the citizens in general, or of a majority of them, or in any party or individual of them.

3. That if the citizens, or a majority of them, or any party or individual of them, in action and practice, preferred the public to their private interest, as many undoubtedly would, it would not be from any such passion as love of democracy, but from reason, conscience, a regard to justice, and a sense of duty and moral obligation,; or else from a desire of fame, and the applause, gratitude, and rewards of the public.

4. That no love of equality, at least since Adam’s fall, ever existed in human nature, any otherwise than the desire of bringing others down to our own level, which implies a desire of raising ourselves above them, or depressing them below us. That the real friends of equality are such from reflection, judgment, and a sense of duty, not from any passion natural, or artificial.

5. That no love of frugality ever existed as a passion, but always as a virtue, approved by deep and long reflection, as useful to individuals as well as the democracy.

6.That, therefore, the democracy of Montesquieu, and its principal of virtue, equality, frugality, &c, according to his definitions of them, are all mere figments of the brain, and delusive imaginations.

7. That his love of the democracy would be, in the members of the majority, only a love of the majority; in those of the minority, only a love of the minority.

8. That his love of equality would not even be pretended towards the members of the minority; but the semblance of it would only be kept up among the members of the majority.

9. That the distinction between nature and philosophy is not enough attended to; that nations are actuated by their passions and prejudices; that very few in any nation, are enlightened by philosophy or religion enough to be at all times convinced that it is a duty to prefer the public to a private interest, and fewer still are moral, honorable, or religious enough to practice such self- denial.

10. Is not every one of these propositions proved beyond dispute, by all the histories in this and the preceding volumes, by all the other histories of the world, and by universal experience?

11. That, in reality, the word democracy signifies nothing more nor less than a nation of people without any government at all, and before any constitution is instituted.

12. That every attentive reader may perceive, that the notions of Montesquieu, concerning a democracy, are imaginations of his own, derived from the contemplation of the reveries of Xenophon and Plato, concerning equality of goods, and community of wives and children, in their delirious ideas of a perfect commonwealth.

13. That such reveries may well be called delirious, since, besides all the other arguments against them, they would not distinguish the family spirit, or produce the equality proposed, because, in such a state of things, one man would have twenty wives, while another would have none, and one woman twenty lovers, while others would languish in obscurity, solitude, and celibacy.[ii]

The point is, people, we are a Republic. This country was established as a republic. All of our founding documents call the United States a republic, not a democracy. In the last 100 years, though, the foundations of our republic have been stripped away and the government has increased far beyond the bounds and limitations of the Constitution.

When asked at the end of the Constitutional Convention what form of government they came up with, Franklin replied, “A republic, for as long as you can keep it.”

Our republic is similar, though not exactly like, to that of Ancient Rome, before the reign of the Caesar’s. While Rome was a republic they had assemblies, most notably the Senate whose members were chosen to represent the Patrician class.

Here is a layout of Rome’s Republican government[iii]:

Offices

Assemblies

The idea of representative government came from Rome’s republic. However, instead of having five assemblies, the drafters of the Constitution chose to have one, known as Congress. Congress has then been subdivided into two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The senate consists of two senators from each state chosen by the state legislatures, until the 17^th amendment allowed for a popular vote to choose senators. In the Senate each state receives two votes allowing equal representation. This gives the smaller states a chance to voice their concerns and stop the more populous states from overriding their rights. The House of Representative (the only essence of democracy if you will) allows for the majority vote. There representation is based on the population of each state. This was done to please both the big and small states, but also to cut down on the corruption that democracy brings.

In a way the House of Representatives represent the people’s interests while the Senate represents the State’s interests. And before any bill moves to the President’s desk (who is similar to the Roman Consul), both houses of Congress must reach an agreement. This arrangement was on purpose. It is meant to fully represent the people and States and to prevent bills from being rushed through Congress without any deliberation. Of course, judging from the last ten months you wouldn’t know it.

Our state governments are set up in much the same way: republican. Each individual state has a head (the Governor), and a legislature divided into two houses (the Senate and House of representatives). There are only a few exceptions to this. But is you examine American Republicanism, it is divided, subdivided, and divided some more so that no one individual or group of people are ever in control and elections take place every number of years so that there is a change in leadership from time to time.

“The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent….To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations…..  The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman’s farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.”  Thomas Jefferson

America’s republic does work. We have proven it time and again. However, in the last 100 years, since the rise of the progressives, we as a nation have moved away from republican government to a more Marxist state or dictatorship. The federal government has seized power it was never meant to have where they now dictate much of what we can and cannot do. It even dictates what individual states can do. For instance, in 2003 a display of the Ten Commandments was taken down from an Alabama courthouse. (It is very interesting how it is only Christianity that is not allowed to be displayed but anyone can display the Koran or wave and Islamic flag and be praised for their courage.) This past year when individual sates tried to give back stimulus money that the federal government forced them to take, they were told that they had to keep it. The States that chose to use Stimulus funds to pay down their debts had the Feds knocking on their door telling them that they were supposed to spend that money on government programs. The federal government mandates the minimal amount of coverage that States have to require health insurance companies to offer. There is a federal tax on everything, from a gasoline, phone service, mortgages, health insurance, utility bills, to your bank accounts. All consumer goods and services have a tax imposed on them by the federal government.

There is no true change in leadership either. We have career politicians and the development of a political class. Our current politicians believe that the people are here to work for them. (In a republican government the politicians work for the people.) Many of the same faces are always in Congress and they keep getting elected because they wrote laws to kill any opposition. What do you think McCain Feingold was all about? It prevents anyone from challenging the incumbent during election year.

Our modern government represents the Roman Empire, not the Roman Republic. The last days of the Roman Empire were full of corruption starting at the top with the Emperor all way down to the local regents. The Roman Empire suffered from massive bureaucracies and laws that were establish to solve every little problem, every crisis. The Roman Senate became well known for writing new laws to solve some problem ranging from business to health care, to retirement. They never repealed any of their old laws either. Rome eventually reached a point where they had so many laws no one knew what was legal and what wasn’t. They had so many bureaucracies that nothing ever gone done. All of Rome’s wealth was swallowed by their bureaucracies, when the Emperor or Senate didn’t waste it on some other “pressing” matter. As Rome became more bureaucratic its wealth disappeared until all it was left with was massive deficits and debts. Eventually Rome fell from its own corruption and stupidity. The Barbaric invasions put the empire out of its misery.

Rome was once a powerful empire that controlled the known world. Roman currency was the world currency. They brought law and order to distant lands. People lived well under the Roman Empire and had a quality of life that they never would have had otherwise. (Not counting slavery.) But Rome became decadent society. They had no standard of morality. Most Romans made their own morality believing that it was relative. Roman politicians cared more about their personal wealth and no longer concerned themselves with the well being of Rome or the people. The Roman Emperors worried more about their personal glory than the Roman people. The government became vast. The Roman Legions reached a point where they no longer felt any loyalty to Rome or the Emperor. They became loyal to themselves. This is why Rome fell.

Does any of this sound familiar?

The United States controls much of the world economy, for now. We have politicians who make a lot of money from their seats in government and always get re-elected. We have books of laws that establish one bureaucracy after another and no one knows what is legal or not anymore. Laws established over a hundred years ago are still in effect today even though they are not needed and have proven to be disastrous. We have a president that keeps pushing legislation through Congress on the basis of necessity and a mounting crisis. (First it was the economy, which still hasn’t recovered. Then it was health care. Soon it will be global warming and we will have a cap and trade bill. Next will be the lack of education among our youth and we will be forced to send our kids to school at age three and keep them there year round. And Obama’s latest, using the fear of a cyber attack to push for legislation that would give him control of the internet.)

But what has he, or our Congress, accomplished other than establishing another bureaucracy? They have yet to solve the problems that they created. We have an increasing deficit and our government continues to add to it while promising us that they will reduce it. For instance, Obama insists that we have a crisis in this country: people are uninsured. Therefore it is necessary for the government to step in and ensure that every American has health insurance.[iv] The end result is the passage of the House Health Care bill which will force everyone into a program they do not want and it will cost $1.055 trillion. And we are supposed to believe that this will not add to the deficit, or that it’s good for us?

Remember these words:

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.”  William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

If we, the United States, are not careful, and refuse to return to our republican principles, we will suffer the same fate as Rome.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

Patrick Henry