How should one deal with a government that is prone to a creeping tyranny? Observe the actions of Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York State. He has on more than one occasion rammed a bill through the Legislature in New York pretty much in the middle of the night. It appears to be a habitual act of cowardice on the part of a man who aspires to be president or king. Seize an issue that may be unpopular with the subjects and through coercion and bribery force through a bill that does not reflect the will of the people, in order to propel oneself onto the national stage. These actions are an affront to liberty and, frankly, unconstitutional. Those that would subvert freedom rely on the fact that a majority of the populace does not feel empowered to stand up to the creeping abridgement of our personal freedoms. History teaches us again and again that the motivation for those who would act tyrannically is sheer greed and a lust for power. There is no altruistic design in their actions or a concern for the common man; it is about service of self and the perpetuation of an elitist ideology. The only weapons that will defeat this leviathan are the force of public opinion and strident public actions that will demonstrate the resolve of the people.
Look at the most recent assault on the Constitution, the act that goes by the malapropism NYSAFE. It is certain that much elitist thought went into this one, as one of the primary safeguards against tyranny is an armed populace. Tyranny reigns when citizens are scared of the government. Freedom reigns when the government is afraid of the people. What do citizens do in the face of a government that is attempting to disarm them? How about The New York State Militia? Why not form a “well-regulated militia”? Each county could form a chapter and have drills one weekend a month just like the National Guard, except the power of the militia would be in the hands of the people. The militias would be able to provide mutual support to each other and would provide a significant deterrent to a government that would wish to disarm the populace. An attempt by a government agency to unconstitutionally disarm a citizen could be countermanded by the presence of the militia. Of course the militia would be well regulated and would serve as a primary defender of the Constitution. The militia could also be used to defend against abridgements of religious freedom and other freedoms such as speech, the press, and the right to assemble. If such a militia were in place, the conversation in our state would be a little different today. Is this suggestion hyperbole? Let freedom ring!
This past week we witnessed a glimmer of what is needed to defeat liberalism and all of the failed ideas it proposes to us. Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky, went after it head on. A close second was Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas. Not only did Senator Paul initiate a filibuster for the sole purpose of getting evidence from the White House that they would not obliterate (quite literally) an American citizen’s rights under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, he, and those who joined in with him, expressed an eloquent defense of liberty in general. As Senator Cruz stated “the heart of what you are standing for is liberty” and “every member of this body takes that oath to defend the Constitution.”
The philosophy of liberalism holds that there are no objective truths or rights but only those which people think are important at the time. It rejects thousands of years of tried and true philosophy that honors the authority structures of family, religion, and the extraordinarily successful principles of America’s founding. When a full-fledged leftist such as Barack Obama takes over the presidency, it is no wonder that all of a sudden seemingly all of our rights are under attack simultaneously. Yet at the same time, who in all honesty could suggest this ideology is coherent and worthy of solutions to our problems?
Look at the crime in our cities, the broken families, our schools falling behind other nations, our military losing strength, and our mammoth fiscal crisis. All of this is the result of people that have governed with a relativistic, impatient, dependency, low thinking, and very liberal mindset.
If your house is on fire, do you stomp on the fire in the living room but let the kitchen burn uncontrollably? Do you make a few cell phone calls to tell people the fire is not that bad? Do you start negotiating with the neighbor for some living space? No, you put the entire damn fire out as fast as you can. You eliminate the fire.
Ronald Reagan came very close to obliterating the fire. But since then we have had “conservative” candidates that tinker with the fire, trying to suggest that the fire isn’t great but really not so awful bad. It is no wonder that John McCain, the Republican candidate for President in 2008, is really bothered by what Paul and Cruz did. McCain didn’t have the fight in the belly to aggressively confront and defeat Obama. Romney was slightly better but also nowhere near enough.
Current liberalism, as exemplified by today’s President, has a nature that is almost narcissistic and definitely manipulative. It is inherently dangerous to the fabric of America. The mainstream Republican party does not see this fight for what it is. What is needed to combat the grip of the left is an equally compelling, powerful, but polar opposite view. It should be polar opposite and full throttle with no apologies. It should be Reaganesque and Shakespearean. It is no coincidence that Reagan won in a landslide. But he was a candidate that was full of character and virtue and this is what we need to stand up to the lies of the left. As today’s mainstream Republicans tinker and compromise with the empty chair that is Obama, the self-lover laughs and mocks them with no real intention whatsoever to compromise.
If the American people were to see a Reaganesque figure that dynamically and unapologetically promoted a conservative agenda using modern technology and was aimed it at all ages, races, and genders, and defined coherent solutions, they would vote this person into office.
Trying to be "nice" with Obama is a failure politically. We need leaders that want to defeat their opponent definitively and win the future for families and children. We need less political games men like Romney and McCain that tinker but don't have the passion or the defined solutions to bury the power hungry, both Obama, and the ones coming after him.
The solution to Obamaism is to propose policies and act in ways that are poloar opposite. He lies. Tell the truth. He divides. Unite. He is negative. Be positive. He takes away freedom. Liberate.
Let's hope the courageous antics of Paul and Cruz are the starting point of the conservative side reshaping itself into a winner, and, in the process, salvaging a free America.
By Michael P, McKeating
Pay attention to the French! Wine and cheese aren’t the only things they do well. A new thing is happening in
About a year ago, the Socialists won control of
What’s unusual about that, you ask? Nothing. But what happened next is very unusual, and we would do well to study it and learn from it.
A broad-based coalition developed, made up of Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Evangelical Protestants, some atheists, secularists and even some homosexual intellectuals, to oppose the bill and support traditional marriage. It was not organized by the Church at all but by lay people of all stripes, and the hierarchy and the clergy have had the good sense to stay in the background.
The name of the coalition is La Manif Pour Tous. Manif is a slang word which roughly translated means “rally.” Their strategy is brilliant. Instead of focusing on the rights of adults to marry or not marry, they focus all of their rhetoric on the good of the children. One of their most common slogans is: “A child needs a father and a mother.”
Some very prominent homosexual intellectuals have written articles supporting La Manif and opposing same-sex marriage precisely on the issue of what is best for the rearing children.
On January 13, a major rally was held in
The movement is giving the Socialist government of President Francois Hollande fits. The Mayor of Paris demanded compensation for clean up of the Champs de Mars after the January 13 rally. More than 9,000 people sent him checks for 10 cents each. He complained to the newspaper Le Figaro that under the law he is required to send a written receipt to each person, and the postage will cost him about four times more than he received.
Whether the movement can stop the law from being enacted remains to be seen. Under the Parliamentary system, when the government proposes a policy bill, all members of the governing party must vote for it. If it failed to pass, it could bring down the government.
But what is clear is that there has been a paradigm shift on this issue. The French have stood up to the fascist tactics of the gay movement in a way that Americans, Canadians, Brits, Italians and Spaniards were unable to.
Why is this? A couple of answers tentatively suggest themselves.
--The forces of traditional marriage were able to build a broad-based coalition of seemingly unlikely bedfellows. Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews and Evangelicals on the same bandwagon, along with a few atheists and agnostics? Who would have though it?
--The French are more philosophical than we are. Really. They study philosophy in high school. They think more deeply about the issue itself, without pigeon-holing every topic into liberal or conservative.
--The French are coalition-builders. They always have been. It may be because they’re such lousy fighters, but they know how to build coalitions. We should learn from them.
--French society is very child-friendly.
Where will all this lead? I don’t know, but it’s worth watching. Keep an eye on it.
by Freedom For Americans
According to a
One possible explanation is that the voters do not really know their own Representative or Senator that well. Voters may not truly understand the positions that their own Congressperson takes on issues. The focus of Freedom For Americans is individual liberty. So, where can a voter find out how their Congressman rates when the votes they cast effect liberty? Fortunately, there are various rankings and scorecards available that will show how a specific Representative or Senator respects freedom and liberty.
For example, The Heritage Foundation has a scorecard which “measures votes, co-sponsorships, and other legislative activity” covering many areas, including legislation which directly impacts individual liberty. The scorecard provides a breakdown of these areas for each Senator or Representative. The Heritage scorecard is constantly updated and is linked to here.
For legislation impacting religious liberty, an excellent reference is the Congressional Scorecard by the Catholic Advocate. Here you can find out how any member of Congress voted on important liberty issues relating to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). This scorecard can be found here.
Voters need to monitor these types of scorecards. Local media coverage may ignore or downplay the votes that your local political representative casts. This is exactly what politicians want. They would prefer that press coverage of controversial votes is minimal. It is imperative that voters stay informed of their local politicians and share this information with others who may not be as well informed. As the old saying goes, knowledge is power. Sharing this knowledge with others increases the power and can influence elections.
By Ken May
Cheektowaga translates into “The Land of the Crabapples” in the local Native American dialect. A more appropriate appellation might be “The Land of Intolerance”. A recent decision by the Cheektowaga Central School District in Western New York highlights and clearly illustrates the intolerance towards religion in America today, particularly the Christian faith traditions. The District made a decision that faith is no longer a valid means by which a person may identify themselves and that religion is no longer a credible motivation to do good or positively influence one’s environment. The action in question is the case of Joelle Silver, a district biology teacher, who was faced with loss of employment because she chose to share her own personal motivation to do well and to positively influence her environment. Her motivation is her Christian faith that informs the way she chooses to live her life. It has always been the tradition of our nation that people were free to express their religious beliefs without censorship or fear of losing employment. The district went so far as to ban the teacher from having quotes from a past president because the president had the audacity to mention God in those quotes. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson to the Virginia General Assembly regarding the personal expression of religion:
“All men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no way diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capabilities.".
I think I would be safe in saying that a teacher in the district would be free to have posters extolling sports or with quotes from sports heroes if this was the teacher’s motivation to positively influence their environment. Why has the district chosen to treat religion as something akin to pornography or racial discrimination and ban it as something reprehensible that should be shielded from the eyes and ears of children?
Religion has served our nation well since its founding, particularly the Christian faith traditions. The First Amendment has been grossly misrepresented over the past half century and the result has been the very marginalization of religion in America. The result of this tragic trend has not been the “liberation” of people, but the enslavement of people by their base instincts and wanton desires. The Founding Fathers realized the indispensable value of religion as the very linchpin upon which the Republic would be possible. Once again at the risk of censorship, here is a quote from George Washington’s Farewell Address:
“And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Notice the Washington doesn’t say that it would be nice if we had religion; he went so far as to say that religion is indispensable to the formation and perpetuation of morality. It was this very morality that made our republic possible. There are those who would say that we have been “freed” from the bondage of religion. Let us look at some of the fruits of this liberation: breakdown of the family, increased divorce rates, increased one parent homes, increase in juvenile delinquency, increase in teen suicide, increase in violent crime, increase in child abuse, declining graduation rates, deadbeat fathers, increases in bullying and increased disciplinary problems in schools. I would think that the district would have an abiding interest in addressing these concerns, but this type of intolerance makes addressing these concerns exponentially more difficult, as they seem to treat the cure as the disease. The First Amendment proscribes the establishment of a state religion but why has atheism and secular humanism become the de facto state religion? Why must all other belief systems bow down before these faiths? Why do school systems cower in the face of these religions and treat as communicable diseases the religions that have helped to make our nation great? It is time to engage those that would shrink in the face of defending what has made our nation great.
For more information check out this link:
To do something about this, you can contact Cheektowaga Central yourself:
Dennis Kane - Superintendent: DKane@ccsd-k12.org
Brian Gould - President, Board of Education: email@example.com