Amillennialist

Death by a thousand cuts

In George W. Bush, James Madison, Liberal treason, Liberty, Thomas Jefferson on April 12, 2008 at 11:29 AM

James Madison identified succinctly the strategy of many of our democratically-elected “public servants” (and their counterparts in the slow jihad):

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

For several generations, American Education has been in the hands of those who despise Liberty and the God Who gave it to us. Science (fiction) and the Media have pounded the same rhythm, and the Church has cowered.

Since at least FDR (or Lincoln — still thinking about that), the American president has violated (or done little to restore) the Constitutional limitations placed upon his power.

And not only the Executive, but also the Legislative and Judicial branches have gone far beyond the chains set upon them by the Constitution. What government official doesn’t violate its principles in attempting to satiate his or her lust for power (McClintock, Thomas, and their few fellow patriots in power excepted)?

And in our ignorance, greed, and apathy, We the People not only allow this usurpation of our Rights won for us (and preserved today) by much better men (and women), we continue to vote for thieves and tyrants, surrender to them our birthright, and then thank them for the privilege of doing so.

[Seeing the success of America’s own God-haters (mostly atheists, Communists, Socialists, and the sexually deviant), what approach has Islam adopted in its goal of establishing the tyranny of Allah over the United States?

Taking down our Towers has gotten many of them killed (have fun in Paradise, devils!), so most Muslims continue the slow jihad against us in our courts, legislatures, executive offices, financial institutions, and media.]

President Bush was supposed to be a Conservative. Considering the contempt for the Constitution and American sovereignty he shares with most Democrats, the only difference between President Bush and a liberal is that he expresses a muddled religiosity without supporting abortion or overtly hating the military.

On President Bush’s perfidy, from here:

When President Bush expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court ruling that said neither he nor the World Court had the authority to order a Texas court to reopen a death penalty case involving a foreign national, I was a little puzzled.

I know it was Bush who sided with international law over U.S. sovereignty to set up the case. I know it was Bush who sided with a brutal murderer-rapist over state courts to set up the case. I know it was Bush who sided with Mexico and the World Court over common sense, decency and the rule of law.

But I was still a little taken aback by Bush’s continued protests – even when the highest court in the land had rebuked him in a 6-3 decision.

Why was I surprised about Bush’s reaction to the ruling in the case of Ernesto Medellin v. Texas that will clear the way for the execution for his part in a gang rape and murder attack on Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 15, as they walked home from a friend’s home?

Well, I couldn’t help think about the first time I met George W. Bush – before he became president. This was the one and only meeting I needed to know, without a doubt, Bush was clueless – destined, if elected, to be an inept leader faithless to the principles of American independence and self-government.

It was in that meeting that someone asked the former governor of Texas what he would do if a piece of legislation clearly unconstitutional arrived on his desk at the White House.

I will never forget Bush’s chilling answer to that question.

How will I know if it’s unconstitutional?” he asked.

Perhaps in the last nine years Bush has realized that every American – and certainly every elected official – has an obligation to consider the Constitution, a duty to understand it and the intellectual integrity to determine whether our laws live up to the founding document of our republic.

Back then, he apparently thought only Supreme Court justices were qualified and empowered to make that determination. Last month, when the Supreme Court in convincing fashion stood up to Bush, the World Court, Mexico and the injustice they were all trying to ram down Americans’ throats, apparently Bush believed the justices decided wrongly.

It was the right decision.

And it was a little surprising given the dangerous predilection of several members of the court to consider foreign laws in their deliberations.

While we should be encouraged by the ruling, Americans should be very concerned by the way elected leaders like Bush and appointed officials like some of our Supreme Court justices actually believe there are earthly, man-made laws higher that our own Constitution.

If that is so, then Americans are no longer a people in control of their own destiny. We are no longer a people empowered to govern ourselves. We no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We no longer have a government accountable to the will of the people and the rule of law.

Obviously, that is where globalists like Bush want to take America – where foreigners can dictate to Americans how they will mete out justice, where foreigners will tell Americans how to take care of their own property and manage their own environment, where foreigners will instruct Americans on how to conduct their foreign and domestic affairs.

This is the tragedy of the times in which we live. Our founders told us that only a moral people, only an educated people, only a freedom-loving people, only a people willing to sacrifice were suited to the kind of government they gave us. I’m no longer sure the American people are capable of self-government. I’m no longer sure the American people are worthy of the opportunity for self-government.

I’m reminded of what Judge Learned Hand wrote in 1944: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.”

In the context of slavery, Thomas Jefferson said:

“can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . .”

Americans make themselves slaves.

Advertisements
  1. This had great points for sure. The concept of some foriegn court weighing in on our laws (world court) is sad. The fact that we have people here that invite them in is more sad. I also don’t like the idea that prisoners should be brought inside the U.S. with american legal rights is also sad. But it also goes along the lines of the american who hears the words “Iraqi Supreme Court” or some other countries official word that are identical to ours, they proccess that as if it was identical to the American procedures. No awareness of differentiation between us and them.

    I looked up Tom Mcclintok. Not sure if I’ve herd him speak on the radio. But I’ll probably remember his name now. He’s had his job cut out for him then with his ideals in California eh.

    On a side note. Not including a politician being a guest on a radio talk show which I think is great. But I have found it disturbing to have a congressman or a former conressman host a show or substitute in on conservative talk radio?!

  2. This had great points for sure. The concept of some foriegn court weighing in on our laws (world court) is sad. The fact that we have people here that invite them in is more sad. I also don’t like the idea that prisoners should be brought inside the U.S. with american legal rights is also sad. But it also goes along the lines of the american who hears the words “Iraqi Supreme Court” or some other countries official word that are identical to ours, they proccess that as if it was identical to the American procedures. No awareness of differentiation between us and them.

    I looked up Tom Mcclintok. Not sure if I’ve herd him speak on the radio. But I’ll probably remember his name now. He’s had his job cut out for him then with his ideals in California eh.

    On a side note. Not including a politician being a guest on a radio talk show which I think is great. But I have found it disturbing to have a congressman or a former conressman host a show or substitute in on conservative talk radio?!

  3. Hi, ArloRay,

    McClintock ran against Arnold and Bustamante in the California recall election. If I remember correctly, Tom came in second to the more glamorous “Republican.”

    Neither do I feel comfortable with current officials hosting shows, although I’ve heard Campbell host Hugh’s (?) show. He wasn’t bad and it didn’t seem creepy.

    Peace,

    Amillennialist

  4. Hi, ArloRay,

    McClintock ran against Arnold and Bustamante in the California recall election. If I remember correctly, Tom came in second to the more glamorous “Republican.”

    Neither do I feel comfortable with current officials hosting shows, although I’ve heard Campbell host Hugh’s (?) show. He wasn’t bad and it didn’t seem creepy.

    Peace,

    Amillennialist

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: