It may strike some as strange to state a partial government shutdown is a good problem to have. Such a statement would take most aback, especially when today’s American society has been lulled in a stupor on focusing on the here and now. This stupor has led to complacency, apathy and a lost sense of history. It is only when looking at the shutdown from much larger and far broader historical perspective, that an unprejudiced and bipartisan clarity be attained. Today, the Obama Administration has singly drawn our attention to the “Republican shutdown.” Their strategy is that of the President’s; “blame the Right
” and the people, now lacking the ability to self assess and self educate, will blindly follow – and they have.
While watching the news covering the partial shutdown this weekend, things fell into perspective. Eric Cantor emerged from the chambers and in his opening sentence declared the Democrats were at fault. Shortly thereafter, Nancy Pelosi emerged and immediately blamed the Republicans. More of the same nonsense. It was not until President Obama spoke that truth rang with the aforementioned clarity. He stated that the government was in a shutdown because of the House Republicans’ stubbornness. In the same sentence and in the same breath, the President stated that he would not sit with Republicans and the shutdown would remain in effect until the Republicans gave him the exact budget that he wanted with no attached stipulations. He insisted that he would not settle for anything less than his specific demands and again blamed the Republicans for the shutdown. Here is where Americans miss, have never fully understood, or have forgotten the obvious; America is a Constitutional Republic and is thus specifically designed to prevent such lineal and direct acquiescence of imperial polity.
While the public may in fact blame Republicans for the shutdown
, they fail to understand that it is House of Representatives’ constitutional responsibility to assure the powers of government remain dispersed and are not solely and exclusively under the authority of any singular individual named as President of the United States. What President Obama wants is to increase the debt ceiling by 1 trillion dollars with no stipulations while the House wishes to apply stipulations to the debt ceiling increase. Because the House did not bow down to President Obama’s attempt at imperial polity and upheld the values that founded American political influences, we now have a shutdown. When reflecting back on the President’s words concerning the Republican’s role in the shutdown, it is the demand of the Obama Administration that the House acquiesces to both the legislative and fiscal intent of the President. Again, America was created as a Constitutional Republic to permanently escape such tyranny.
We must remember why the Mighty Pine Tree once adorned the revolutionary Don’t Tread on Me flag. The British government enacted regulation stipulating no citizen could cut down tall and straight trees, even if the tree were on their private property. The government then cut down the tallest and straightest of trees for their naval fleet whether the tree was located on privately held or public land. Being that people purchased property largely for the quality of trees contained within the land, revolution was enacted to dispel imperial polity and attain freedom from government overreach and excessive taxation. More recently, President Obama spoke to this during our Independence holiday. The President stated that he felt the Revolution of our forefathers was wrong and government should possess the ability to tax as it sees fit and not in accordance with constitutional authority or the people’s desires. The historical context of the government shutdown is equally compelling.
The people have been fed very simplistic and sophomoric excuses for the shutdown. Responsible are Republicans, right-wing extremists and even the racist intentions of not wanting the nation’s first Black President to have his way. These are offered forth to shift the focus away from the 40-year history of government shutdowns. There have been 17 shutdowns prior to the current, 15 of these shutdowns were at the hands of Democrats, not Republicans. In fact, George W. Bush is the only president to not have served as President during a shutdown with a divided congressional body in the last 40 years. On the short term, Americans only see the more recent absence of a shutdown. Now that one has occurred, it is easy to sway Americans with disillusioned understandings of government and history to blame on the Party upholding the intent of a Constitutional Republic in order to thwart the reemergence of the governmental tyranny that drove the creation of America. To give the President the budget he wants in the manner in which he wants it with no stipulations, solely because it is his demand, defies the role of the House of Representatives where budgetary assent is required and ultimate fiscal responsibility is bestowed
under “trias politica,” or separation of power. As much as President Obama admires Britain’s parliamentary power that prevents their upper chamber’s dissent from the ruling or winning party’s manifesto – we are not in Britain, and for good reason we have contrived a Constitutional Republic to ensure specific disseminations of power, which block such attempts at absolute rule. Moreover, President Obama has tried to demand the House relinquish its constitutionally ascribed authority directly to the Office of the President of the United States. The House, acting under the rule of law refused to relinquish this authority to the President. The public do not see these basic, underlying separations for their historical significance and how they our vital to America today.
So yes, the shutdown is a good problem to have in that it prevents absolute power. President Obama’s followers and supporters find fault only in who the President has directed them to find fault in. The blame is placed upon the shoulders of the Republicans. The Right, in their eyes, is therefore responsible for what has been closed due to the shutdown. The failing here is the overlooked fact is the shutdown is partial - not complete. This means the Obama Administration decides what remains open, what is closed, what is funded and what funding is stopped.
It was not the Republicans who decided death benefits would not be paid to the families of fallen military members serving abroad, it was the Obama Administration. It was not the Republicans who decided to block people from stopping to view Mount Rushmore because “it is a National Monument and the government is closed” and therefore those driving by cannot pause to witness it, it was the Obama Administration. It was not the Republicans who have forced people from their own homes because they live in a National Park, it was the Obama Administration. It was not the Republicans who have blocked access to the Florida Bay
to prevent fishermen from accessing 1,100 square miles of open ocean due to the shutdown while maintaining staff to police the ban, again it was the Obama Administration. These choices are best described by a Biscayne Bay Park Service Ranger who stated, “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”
These actions are by selective choice, not by Republican force or any other entity besides that of the Obama Administration, which is largely “acting out” an Obama led temper tantrum at the people’s expense. The Left refuses to acknowledge their choices in what aspects of government have been shutdown, but are quick to blame the other while fully and willfully denying the Obama Administration’s motives against a Constitutional Republic as it demands ever increasing control and power over the nation in ways that are beyond the historic understanding of the average American.
Therefore, President Obama’s greatest power lies in the bias nature and intellectual weakness demonstrated by his support base. Today, they would support the House of Representatives losing its fiscal power so that he, as President can have unmitigated and unconstitutional fiscal control. However, should this exact control they want for Obama fall in the hands of Republicans – it is only then that they would see error in what is happening today and why separation of powers are important to the American way of life.
OK, the government shutdown. So what! If Congress were to shut down; at least then we could rest assured the federal government was finally acting with some semblance of competence. But of course, in true Obama fashion, the shutdown is the Republican’s fault – and he and his fellow Democrats are completely innocent and not in the least bit culpable. The shutdown, driven by Republican anti-ObamaCare sentiment has left federal employees temporarily out of work and has been made out to be the ultimate American partisan Armageddon. Ignorance abounds.
The “defund ObamaCare” line in the sand is not what it is being made out to be. The Republicans want “changes” to ObamaCare – not to cast it into the depths of the sea as Obama has been saying… yes, your beloved presidential messiah, is a liar. The bigger question people should be asking is what “changes” are being sought. Before that, the Right needs to grasp the concept that the Republican political elite SUPPORT health care mandates and “taxed” socialized medicine models. Hell, Gingrich, who many Republicans supported on his presidential run supported health care mandates
as Speaker of the House. Never mind the Republican Nixon era push
, or how “Conservative” organizations like The Heritage Foundation spearheaded Republican based support
. At least this supported existed when health care mandates were a Republican ideology. As Democrat ideology, the Republican Party has developed a public oriented façade that the Party despises the concept. If this were the case, why then would the Republicans have started the resistance with “repeal and REPLACE?” If the Republican Party cherished constitutional authority over political agendas of tax revenue, there would have been no need to replace ObamaCare for another insurance mandate model. Because Republican support is what is, socialized health care in its current ObamaCare form is never going away. Get over yourselves already. ObamaCare was largely based on RomneyCare and despite years of fussing about ObamaCare, the Right lined up in mass and voted for Romney. If the Right truly stood against ObamaCare and its founding unconstitutional conceptualisms, Romney’s name would have never found its way to a single ballot. It is continually that the Republican political elite say one thing while doing the opposite, yet the Right’s constituent response is only reflective to what their leading Republicans are saying – not to what they are actually doing. This leaves the Right arguing against their own Party’s agenda because they insist upon themselves with a perverse sense of denial about the larger Party’s actions.
Since we can reasonably establish underlying Republican support for ObamaCare, we can then focus on what the Republicans actually find wrong with ObamaCare and in the least would like its start-up delayed. Here is what you don’t know.
Perhaps the single largest problem with ObamaCare, beyond its blatant betrayal of constitutional authority, is the enrollment process. Forced upon the states and grossly underfunded by the federal government is the enrollment process itself which is managed by “Navigators” and “Assisters.” These individuals are hired to assist citizens in enrolling in ObamaCare in order to stay out of jail and or avoid being additionally taxed by the federal government for not enrolling. Due to ObamaCare’s excessive complexity, it was determined that Navigators and Assisters will need a minimum of 20 to 30 hours of training to effectively enroll potential candidates. Despite the training concern that was generated by the Obama Administration, they have allowed Navigators and Assisters to enroll citizens into ObamaCare with as little as five hours of training despite having no prior health insurance training or experience.
To complicate matters with enrollment, Navigators and Assisters will not be held accountable for providing misinformation about ObamaCare plans that cause the enrollee to undergo financial hardship as are other professionals such as accountants and financial planners that disenfranchise their clients through either malicious intent or professional incompetence. Long story short; the Obama Administration recognized the high probability of enrollment errors and rather than seek to correct the issues before these problems occurred, the Obama Administration has granted Navigators and Assisters “immunity” AFTER SETTING THEM UP TO FAIL the public. This will assuredly result in enrollment errors, cause enrollees to pay for services in which they have no need and have enrollees be refused access to care because they will not be enrolled in the correct plans. Sadly, those doing the enrolling will be provided federal protections for the harm they will undoubtedly cause.
This immunity however, stretches a bit further than one might imagine. Navigators and Assisters will have direct access to the enrollee’s Personal Identifying Information such as SSN, date of birth, household income and even this same information of other adult individuals living within the same residence. During the rulemaking session HSS conducted for ObamaCare, this concern led to a discussion to determine the feasibility of conducting background checks before hiring Navigators and Assisters to mitigate the high risk of identity theft. One government official serving as a board member who was said to be “well versed” in Human Resources questioned whether the federal government held the authority to conduct background investigations as a condition of employment. The discussion was then curbed citing background checks would hinder enrollment in that many areas where ObamaCare is in need. Potential Navigators or Assisters in these areas were described as being unwilling to submit to a background check and thus would not qualify for employment by default. This, according the HHS rulemaking board, would then leave gaps in where ObamaCare could be accessed and background checks were not included as a condition of employment. Again, the Obama Administration identified a risk with the enrollment process and ignored it because it was deemed more important to launch the program by a specified date than it was to protect the American consumer enrolled in the program. Sadly, this not where the enrollment issues end, it is where they begin.
The HSS was also advised against paying Navigators and Assisters on a per enrollment basis. They ignored the warning and have now set in place Navigators and Assisters who are grossly under trained, many of which have criminal backgrounds to include crimes of identity theft and have incentivized them to enroll the highest number people possible for the most expensive plan available while further granting them federal protections for misrepresentations of the program that cause financial harm to those seeking ObamaCare. This system of dysfunction immediately led to ObamaCare scams where individuals and organizations sought to exploit the easily compromised program. The HSS, once informed of the fraudulent activities refused to certify legitimately sponsored programs in order to protect the consumers. This simply means there is little to differentiate the real program from a fraudulent program until such a time as the IRS seeks action against an individual who is actually not enrolled in ObamaCare. In such a situation, it is the consumer who lacks protections and it is stretch to think the IRS will suddenly be forgiving when owed money when it has already abused its power
enforcing its own interpretation of the new health care law. Least we not forget, despite the misinformation and misrepresentations, ObamaCare IS NOT FREE. The majority of enrollees will have to pay for their mandated insurance plans. Because of this, the IRS now has unprecedented access to an individual’s financials that they will forcefully police. Failure to comply will bear results that are hardly unpredictable considering the IRS’ enforcement tactics
The problem here is that issues such as immunity for those enrolling individuals into ObamaCare, the gross lack of training, failure of the government vetting these employees for consumer safety reasons and the IRS’ power grab have not seen the light of day in the media and WILL bring direct harm to those who have been forced into ObamaCare. The ideology behind the program was that it was for the good of the people, yet those implementing the program have not done a single thing to protect the people from the problems that ObamaCare is guaranteed to cause. The “Republicans who have shut down government” as Obama likes to refer to them, want things like this fixed BEFORE implementation of the program. While there are a few who would completely defund and do away with ObamaCare in the name of constitutionalism, they are not the driving force behind the current budgetary debates.
To delay ObamaCare gives government the opportunity to correct the highly faulted program and protect the interests of the consumer who under ObamaCare are forced by law to figure out how to pay for their share of the law’s mandates. The majority of those who do not have health insurance do not have it because they cannot afford health insurance and pay for things like groceries and rent (see RomneyCare complications for an example of how this will affect most Americans enrolled in ObamaCare). The law forces that decision on their behalf at rates that have now been determined to be more expensive than pre-ObamaCare health insurance rates
. More specifically, Obama promised to decrease the average family’s health insurance by $2,500 per year, while it will actually surge some $7,450.
The truth, as painful as it may be, is not what the highly partisan banter has been about. What Obama supporters need to understand is that the program’s implementation is far more important to Obama than the protection of consumer interests that are clearly compromised by the program. The Right needs to accept the fact that the Republican political elite are now completely out of step with their constituent base. On both sides, Americans simply want to believe it is the other side that is wrong. Unfortunately, neither understands what is actually happening. Democrats have been duped, by their own over-abundance of ignorance, into believing Republicans are harming them by blocking ObamaCare while they (the Republican political elite) are in fact the only entity within the federal government attempting to protect them from the certain ill effects of ObamaCare. Republicans, in an attempt to protect the secrecy of their support of ObamaCare have used the denial of the Right to poise a defense of defunding the program. In doing so, they have lost the only position of integrity to be found within the entire debate. Republicans birthed the ideology of mandated health care models in America. They have wanted “ObamaCare” (or the like) for no less than 40 years and have pushed for it on several fronts since 1974. Supporters of the Republican Party must come to terms with this in order to understand what is really happening in America today and within their own Party.
Amazing is the deafening impact of denial when coupled with ignorance. Of course, the Left will never acknowledge that their great one is perhaps the single most deceptive president in US history and Right will never realize their political elite have long since abandoned them and their conservative values. In the end, we are left with exactly what we have here today. We now live in a land where rhetoric has replaced reality.
It is not that I am “anti-Right” or anything like that, though I have matured enough politically to see the gross republican failings. Hell, that would make me a Liberal… or even worse – an Independent! “A far Right Conservative,” a very good friend more recently called me. It was to say that I tend to be a bit unbending in my political perspectives; rigid and unforgiving – extreme even (which is what “far Right” means anymore). Consider it a “slight of compliment” that was both fitting and at times appropriate.
It was a comment that made me think
Place the emphasis of “far Right Conservative” on Conservative; i.e. not Republican is what was being stated. (I like the sound of that – “Not Republican!” It would make a good blog or website theme these days). I like Republicanism and the associated political ideologies, but before that, the political values of fiscal responsibility, individual freedom, constitutional rights, personal accountability, personal responsibility and limited government must be upheld. Looking at my little checklist: Where do Republicans really fit in to my political value system? In my opinion, Republican officials represent these values in terms of rhetoric only, not in practice. They DO exist in Republican philosophy and mantra, but both current and more recent Republican leadership refuse to practice them. Moreover, I see the Party for how it practices the art of American politicking, not how they wish to be perceived as practicing them. And this is where I simply veer course from the “establishment Republican” – they either do not find such values as important as myself, or they simply refuse to see and accept the truth about what their Republican political leadership is actually doing. It is not that they are bad people; it is just that I see things differently and am accordingly not blinded by party affiliations over personal values and common sense. (Ahem, Not that all Republicans are).
I just don’t get it
Practically, everyone on the Right is fuming over Obama’s Executive Order essentially granting amnesty to illegal immigrants – and rightfully so. What I don’t get is why the actively elected Right has called upon an out of office, professional President wannabe (with no active political decision making authority what-so-ever) to take the lead on the immigration issue. Rather than effect active legislation, those HIRED TO SERVE IN OFFICE BY THE RIGHT have taken a roll of passivity while further relying on a moot political figure, solely because he is running for office. Simply put, Romney is not in a position to right the unilateral wrong committed by Obama, nor is Romney in a position to dictate immigration policy. Elected politicians, inept in their own individual political ability, have hid from the issue behind a Romney shield instead of taking action as they were hired by the people to do. Yet, no one really seems to notice.
For purposes of personal amusement, let’s take a quick glimpse on Romney and the Latino vote.
Romney’s presidential bid needs no less than 31% of the Latino vote AFTER Obama just rolled over, smiled and swallowed and secured the Latino vote in a monumental way. When pressed on whether he [Romney] would strike down the EO if elected President, he ducked, dodged and avoided answering. [Should probably insert a note here that Romney’s avoidance means he will do nothing if elected]. Romney however, is not dumb, but he may be making a very stupid move to resolve the “immigration” conundrum he faces.
More of the same old thing
Have you noticed how the media consistently covered how “Obama deported more illegal Mexicans than Bush;” all while AZ was attacked for enforcing the same standard Obama was being given credit for? Perhaps you may have noticed when Obama deportation numbers were being dropped in public view; ICE was granting amnesty. This Democrat hypocrisy exists because MOST DEMOCRATS SUPPORT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, NOT AMNESTY. Obama pandered to both sides of Liberal immigration temperament and then sealed the deal favoring the Latino vote over national sovereignty. Suckers.
Here’s another little immigration conflict for ya! Asians now stand to overtake Mexicans in immigration to the US. If they (both Republicans and Democrats) have sold national sovereignty for the Latino vote to this extent; can you possibly imagine what they will be willing to do for the Asian vote once politicians decide to make Asians the next American race issue? That is how they get the votes you know. They make it look like anyone not of a specified race is wrong and racist for not being of that race and then promise they will make things different and better. The whole time making it worse to have something to actually fix, then walking away - after the given ethic group has given them their blind loyalty that is. If you are Black like me, that should sound all too familiar. If you are Mexican, I hope you have been watching closely; you’re next.
Republican vetting against constitutionalism
Rubio is currently being vetted for the coveted VP slot. Not a bad choice in terms of political perspectives, but one cannot help but wonder if this is merely a “Hey! I like Latino’s too!” move to counter traditionally low Latino support for Republican politicians in a time where the Latino vote could well be the deciding factor in the 2012 Presidential race. Though obvious, this is not what makes it a potentially disastrous and stupid move.
Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has something in common with the good old Prez. Rubio’s parents “held off” on become US citizens until such a time Marco had already earned dual citizenship. (In case you have not noticed, the commonality is not the Cuban parent part….) Please allow me to digress even further.
The Right hosed the “Birther” issue by attacking it the laziest way possible. Challenged was “where Obama was born” because the Right felt that if it proved Obama was born in Kenya, it would be an open and shut case; WRONG! They almost completely ignored the true issue in that Obama’s father gave him dual citizenship because he [Obama] was born of a father that claimed citizenship to a nation that extended its citizenship to those children of their citizens born abroad. You see, it never matter “where” Obama was born per se, because the dual citizenship is where the constitutional argument lies; an argument more difficult in constitutional terms than that of Obama being born in a foreign nation. Had Republicans taken the higher ground, the “birther” conspiracy would have held the merit it truly deserved. The average American of course, does not know this and the majority of those whom do possess the apathy of those worthy of following only. Be that as it may, constitutional eligibility has been brought back to the forefront by Republicans; incorrectly, but nonetheless by Republicans – and constitutionally minded Republicans at that.
So, that leaves me pondering why a Republican presidential wannabe would venture so recklessly in the deep and murky waters of constitutional eligibility – after making such a big deal about it and all.
What matters is winning the Latino vote, not the constitution. Sound familiar? The system was wrong for allowing Obama to be vetted and consequently seated in terms of constitutional eligibility. Now stay with me here. Yet, because American politicians have failed in the three years since Obama’s election to correct (or even attempted to correct) the failed system that allowed Obama to win the Presidential seat in the name of the Democrats – it is now only appropriate that the constitutional eligibility blind eye now be turned in REPUBLICAN favor. A little quid quo pro if you will. Since when was the constitution relevant anyway? When will we, as Americans, become smart enough to realize that Left versus Right yields no true winner when both are wrong?
When both are wrong; all lose
And that is the underlying theme of all of this anyway isn’t it? Both sides are wrong and they are wrong on all of the issues. When it comes to the political elite; they are of the same agenda, just with different means to their ends. Obamacare was so wrong, yet we nominate its architect for President? Never mind Nixonian Republicans and their attempt, ignore Clinton’s attempts and Gingrich who pushed it while Speaker of the House. Illegal immigration is wrong, but Reagan passed Amnesty; now Obama pens an EO for the exact same reasons Reagan pushed it through. I mean really, with such hypocrisy; who should take the establishment Republican or modern Liberal seriously? When is the last time an administration, albeit Republican or Democrat, effectively reduced government, regulation and spending? Chirp, chirp. (Hint: WWII for those not taking the question with its posed rhetorical intent. BTW, it was the sharpest recession recovery in US economic history – yet today both Republicans and Democrats see it only fit to increase spending in order to provide entitlements in barter for votes). The big difference is that Democrats have arguably done a better job of exposing Republican failures than Republicans have exposed the egregious failings of Democrats. What’s funny is that Americans are ever so bitterly divided – all while their given elected officials pursue a common agenda against the good and freedoms of the people. Well, that’s not really funny is it? Please interject sad, pathetic, pitiful or any other adjective you deem most appropriate lieu of funny.
The problem is that, to an establishment Republican, I maintain an “extremely conservative” political perspective. (The word they are looking for is DIVIANT, not so much extreme – while fully admitting extreme can fit in several places). ;)
It is this deviance that separates Conservatives from establishment Republicans. It is almost as if establishment Republicans have not yet awakened to the fact their political elite do not share their agendas, or at least I hope they don’t (given all the unconstitutional laws passed and what not).
It goes to reason why so many people refuse to follow politics. It is truly a culture of deceit, corruption, hypocrisy and destruction. In not following, you are spared the frustration and don’t have to look like a hypocrite for supporting one side over the other; you win by not playing. What’s better than that?
I hope at this point you realize our problem is not so much what the Left is doing versus what the Right is doing. They are doing the same things and we only find political wrongs “un-American” and unconstitutional when it is the other side penning the legislation. It is as shameful as it is true. Perhaps what is most shameful is supporting this Two Party system solely designed for internal destruction and expecting someone to take you seriously.
I had met Richard once before. He and Kimberly had come into the store wanting to discuss “an issue with Congress woman Giffords.” Both were very cleanly dressed, very nice and seemingly approachable. Until the Giffords comment that was. I had nothing nice to discuss with them about the AZ District 8 Representative.
The discussion started tentatively enough. They were on the verge of getting thrown out of the store before Richard mentioned 2D Amendment Rights.
“Have a seat.” And a relationship was born.
It had been a few months since my last discussion with Kimberly and Richard. Perhaps it was more given Kimberly’s introduction of Richard in last week’s visit. “This is Richard, a Delegate and Constitutional Scholar.” Fortunately, I had known neither about Richard during their previous visit making her miss timed introduction was nothing less than perfect. A Constitutional Scholar sitting before me, sitting on my desk a working copy of the US Constitution that I have been aptly studying trying to make sense of what we have managed to turn America into; what more could a concerned citizen ask for.
I had to ask the obvious in terms of the constitutional bearing of health care reform (Complete text of the Bill is here). How do we deal with a president that passed a law, knowing full well that is was unconstitutional and in retort very cavalierly stated that once legislation is passed and signed, it becomes “Supreme Law.” Which is to insinuate that he knew the protest would be made, but could not be formally pursued until such a time that it was signed – which technically made it too late. Richard’s response was simple. “The US Constitution IS Supreme law.” He went on to rapidly list several articles and amendments that were currently in violation with the signing of the bill. (Far more than my constitutionally novice eye caught). I wanted the discussion to focus on the probable outcome of the law suits filed by the states Attorneys General, but Richard was more focused on dealing with the issue directly; what you and I can do. Moreover, the best and most effective way to ensure we do not take the nation down the wrong path with the precedent set with the reform bill. To put it simply, vote Red and remove as many Democrats from office as possible and insist the program never gets funded – essentially killing it in place.
America has forgotten something. Forgotten are the 28 principles that the Framers based the US Constitution on. Principles like: The Proper Role of Government is to Protect Equal Rights, Not Provide Equal Things. (The 7th Principle). This is woven into the Constitution in a manner that limits government’s involvement in our pursuit of prosperity. Government is limited in this fashion because doing so protects freedom and liberty. Doing so ensures that those who chose to strive have something to strive for. Doing so makes the right to fail a privilege of freedom. These principles that are being violated are solely at the hands of Americans that do not understand Americanism, underestimate liberty and take freedom for granted. Americans that do not understand that limiting government is freeing the people. Politicians who do not want freed people by limited government involvement. Politicians who seek tyrannical control under the guise of directly violating this 7th Principle the Framers insisted upon so that we could prevail as people free of government.
“Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and accident. After a period of six thousand years since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance as far as we can learn, of a nation, unattacked by external force, unconvulsed by domestic insurrections, assembling voluntarily, deliberating fully, and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they would wish they and their prosperity should have.” - James Wilson
Done right and going wrong because prosperity is not understood. Prosperity is only measured in terms of what a person does not have and has not accomplished and compared to the reality that someone else has more and has accomplished more. It is a form of greed that has been exploited to grow government’s control over the people as government insists that attaining in life is wrong because not all have. Prosperity becomes punished and turned into a reward for those who have sought not at the hands of those who have sought. A Free People Will Not Survive, Unless They Stay Strong. The 24th Principle was woven by the Framers with the knowledge that enabling success, as difficult as it may be from time to time, is essential for national sovereignty. As we lower the bar for the nation, we weaken the nation. They knew this, we have forgotten it. When a person is rewarded for dysfunction, applauded for not attempting and hailed for not trying; we undermine the fabric of Americanism. In doing so, we only ensure that America will no longer be a nation designed not of force, fraud or accident; but turned into just another nation that was. All because we are too insecure to accept the fact that achieving prosperity is the responsibility of the individual; not the government.