Congress Should Apologize Alright- for Imposing Slavery ON US.

Once again the Obama faction insults the historical heritage of the United States, and once again present day so-called Republicans (unworthy of the name) not only let them get away with it, they cravenly join in.

The Senate has now joined the House of Representatives in a vote purporting to apologize for slavery. Apparently, the current generation of sorry politicos is too ignorant, too stupidly self-righteous or too blatantly manipulative to remember the little episode in American history called the Civil War. As far as they are concerned Lincoln spoke in vain at Gettysburg when he honored the sacrifice of those who gave their lives during the war that ended law enforced slavery in the U.S.:

Now we are engaged in a great civil war…We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.

With these profound words of truth literally carved in stone upon the record of our history, how can the soulless, self-serving and treacherous politicians in Congress today presume to do what Lincoln knew he could not: better the deeds- more sincerely eloquent than any hollow legislative resolution-of those who acted on the truth that there are rights worth fighting and dying for. Like Abel's in the first age of this fallen world, their lifeblood still cries out from the ground of every scene of Civil War battle. It reproves the nation conceived in liberty for the long persisted sin that betrayed the self-evident moral truths that made its conception possible. But it also proclaims the proof of ultimate repentance which merits God's forgiveness even while it renders superfluous every word and gesture of succeeding generations except those intended to prevent any repetition of that betrayal.

Yet this supposed apology comes from a Congress controlled by a Party ruthlessly committed to the evil practice of child murder, a more surely fatal betrayal of America's moral principles than slavery ever was. It comes from political spendthrifts who have bankrupted the nation and fastened upon future generations a burden of enslaving debt more inescapably onerous than physical chains. It comes from a Congress enacting socialist policies in every sphere that will make Government owned slaves of all Americans except favored politicians, bureaucrats and corporate moguls. They mean to make themselves the new masters and overseers not of one race only, but of all humanity.

Like the breakthrough election of one who only purports to be the first "African-American" President, this mimicry of repentance masks the restoration of the very evils it pretends to decry. We can only hope that Americans with common sense and some memory of our history will apply the lesson these treacherous destroyers of our liberty want us to forget: their actions speak so forcefully that their words serve no purpose- except to distract and to deceive.

The present Congress would do better to apologize for the slavery they are busily imposing upon us, with the one gesture that would be truthful and effective: resign en masse. Since they won't do it now, we should apologize for them in 2010.

Conservative vs. Republican: What’s the difference?

Now I can safely cheer up.

Senator John Thune (R-SD) has introduced a bill he calls the "Government Ownership Exit Plan Act of 2009." At the site he has established to promote public support for the bill, he explains its purpose. "The government has taken unprecedented actions over the past 15 months to stabilize the economy, including taking direct ownership stakes in private companies. This creates a dangerous conflict of interest between the federal government and the private sector. The government shouldn't be an owner of companies it regulates in the private marketplace." The bill aims to prevent further government acquisitions. It sets a deadline of July 1, 2010 for complete divestiture of existing government ownership. It requires the Secretary of the Treasury "to submit a plan within 90 days for how it [sic] will end the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and end government ownership of those entities."

Since I agree with what the bill aims to achieve, I suppose I shouldn't quibble about the rationale Senator Thune gives for it. For better or worse though, my mind has a delicate digestive system. As when food is badly seasoned, so bad reasoning can make an otherwise welcome dish unpalatable. In this case it's hard to stomach the notion that the best reason for opposing the government's takeover of the private sector is that it compromises the integrity of its regulatory efforts. It's as if someone should oppose a government takeover of private homes because it would interfere with the honest collection of property taxes.

Thune's rationale sadly reveals the purblind vision that is destroying the Republican party. While some GM franchisees are seeing the fruits of a whole lifetime of disciplined hard work stolen away in a political vendetta, the Republican Senator laments the effect of the socialist takeover on government administration. In the process he accepts the notion that the current leap into socialism is the incidental by-product of some effort "to stabilize the economy," a lie made completely transparent by the simple fact that government action created the conditions for America's cascade into economic ruin.

I guess the 17th amendment is bearing its ultimate fruit (cf. 3 Cheers for the 10th Amendment Movement.) Even a supposedly "conservative" Republican Senator seems to think more like an appendage of the Federal government than like a representative of the deeply threatened interests of people in the State he's supposed to represent.

For a real conservative, the reason for opposing the socialist takeover of the private sector isn't that it might sully the integrity of the government's regulatory efforts. Instead, like Ronald Reagan at his best, real conservatives oppose specious government regulation because it threatens to undermine the economic independence people need to maintain their political liberty. They oppose it because it precisely gives unscrupulous politicians and bureaucrats the power to manipulate us into disaster, then use the disaster as an excuse to rob us all at once of livelihood and liberty.

How free can a people remain when government bureaucrats and politicians determine their wages, their conditions of work and indeed whether they work at all? How free can a people remain when government bureaucrats and politicians dictate their medical providers, their treatment and even whether they will be treated at all? How free can a people remain when the elected officials who are supposed to represent them become mere appendages of government power, with no thought but about how best to manipulate the people in order to gain and consolidate that power?

Those who wonder why so many conservatives no longer lay claim to or trust the Republican label, should think carefully about what's said here. It's hard to trust what Republicans say or do when their silences and omissions speak so eloquently of their lukewarm or betrayed allegiance to republican self-government.

As for Senator Thune's bill: I would recommend visiting his site to sign the petition that supports it. But while you're at it write him a note reminding him that socialism is bad because it destroys the conditions for liberty, not because it compromises the (mostly fictional) integrity of the government's regulatory schemes. If he ever grasps and effectively advocates the right reasons for his professed convictions maybe someday he'll be able to find the guts to do what he (and his G. W. Bush-led Republican bank bailout buddies) couldn't do last year: hold on to those convictions when the chips are down. They cravenly opened the floodgates to the socialist deluge the Obama faction is inflicting on our nation.

What's the difference between a conservative politician and a Republican? The conservative remembers his principles when he's in office. The Republican only acts as if he remembers when he needs our votes to put him there.

Obama's Rise and Fall-What is the key?

Click on the title above to read my latest article at WorldNetDaily.com

Obama’s Stubborn Cover up Leads to Civil Rights Violations

The tragic irony intensifies. Barack Obama's election supposedly represented an historic breakthrough in the struggle for justice and human rights in America. The success of that struggle depended on respect for the principles of the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitutional sovereignty of the American people, and Constitutionally secured civil rights of all individuals in the United States. Yet every day brings reports of some new travesty signaling hostility to those principles, the abandonment of the Constitution, and the end of respect for those rights.

Along with securing their persons and property against abuses of government power, nothing is more essential to maintaining liberty than the Constitutional rights that give citizens assurance against repression and abuse as they speak and act on political matters. Of these matters, issues that involve respect for the Constitution are the most critical, since without the Constitution the people lose the institutions that assure their political participation and authority.

From the outset, Obama's strenuous efforts to prevent access to records that could lay to rest the growing public concern about his Constitutional eligibility for the office of President of the United States signaled his contempt for the provisions of the Constitution. It was inevitable that these efforts would go beyond legal maneuvering to encompass attempts to suppress all public expressions of interest and concern about his fundamental disregard for the authority of the Constitution. Evidence of this suppression appeared quickly with respect to grassroots internet activities aimed at overcoming the big corporate media's obstinate censorship of the issue. Despite this censorship, and efforts to ridicule and marginalize people who continue to raise the issue, the common sense questions occasioned by Obama's unrelenting cover up have become more and more widespread.

Along with common senses questions about Obama's cover up has come increasing dismay at the willingness of the Courts, the Republican politicians and other elements of the US power elite to accept complicity with it. Some say that this results from fear of a violent reaction from black Americans if the issue is treated with integrity. However, I believe that it may also reflect a shared elite desire to overthrow the sovereignty of the people in order to re-establish government based on the authority of the powerful few (oligarchy) that American constitutionalism is intended to replace. (This would explain Republican cooperation in the 2008 so-called 'bank bailout', which began America's precipitous slide into socialist government dictatorship.)

Against this repressive elite consensus, one key resource for news and information has been the reporting and commentary provided by WorldNetDaily. WND's founder and CEO Joseph Farah has consistently stood against the big corporate media censors, to provide readers with the facts and reasoning needed to make an accurate assessment of the nature and importance of the eligibility controversy. He has also taken the initiative to get at the facts, and to encourage citizen action on behalf of respect for Constitutional authority. In this regard he has lately initiated a drive to place billboards around the country asking the simple question "Where's the birth certificate?" Corporate media censors, first at CBS, the No. 1 U.S. outdoor advertising company and now at Lama Outdoor, another billboard giant, have refused to lease billboards for the campaign.

The Italian communist Antonio Gramsci suggested decades ago that Marxist-Leninists learn from the reverses they suffered at the hands of the Nazis and fascists during the 1930's. It's clear that the communist leaning elements of the Obama faction have done just that. In both their economic and political moves to install a neo-communist regime in the US, they are co-opting and manipulating corporate entities rather than openly adding them to the government bureaucracy. Instead of government commissars censoring dissident voices, private entities, claiming to exercise legal private property rights, enforce the regime of repression.

There are some possible avenues of redress against this repressive ploy. Though it is often forgotten these days, the term civil rights has no racial connotations, except in the propaganda of leftist politicos hijacking it for partisan political purposes. In the first instance it refers to the rights of citizenship under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including free speech, assembly and the right to seek redress of grievances. Clearly, the abrogation of the Constitution of the United States represents a legitimate citizen grievance. Clearly, asking the question that highlights this abrogation involves an exercise of the freedom of speech, in the very context where it was most especially intended for protection by the first amendment to the Constitution. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1871

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the

District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any

citizen of the United States or other person within the

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable

to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other

proper proceeding for redress…

Every private entity or corporation seeking to repress free speech on the issue of Obama's eligibility should be sued for damages for violating the civil rights of the victims of their abuse. As part of the legal effort, injured parties should seek court injunctions requiring that the abusers cease their repressive activities so that their victims do not suffer indefinite harm to their citizen rights while the suits are in progress.

Of course, throughout the country, the Courts have been chief among the collaborators in the eligibility cover up. It makes no sense simply to assume they will give fair treatment to the civil rights suits arising from the abuses needed to implement it. Grassroots people have recourse however, in the exercise of their own property rights. People with appropriately situated property who want to see the Constitution's authority re-established, should offer use of the property for placement of the billboards. In addition people should place signs in their shop windows, and bumper stickers on their vehicles until it becomes impossible to drive the streets and highways without wondering why Obama obstinately refuses to comply with the Constitution he has supposedly sworn to uphold.