The Great Compromise

- Introduction to Part Two, page 47. -

The introduction to Part Two that contains Federalist Papers 23, 37, 41, 42, 43. 44, and 51 reading, The purpose of the Constitution was simply to provide a structure that would protect us from anyone who thought they were greater than God.

Liberal progressives represented by the election of Barack Obama understand well that to take down the Constitution they had to remove God from America's institutions and then attack free thought.

They knew Obama was the leader they had been waiting for . . . their progressive Messiah. It was Obama himself who stuck his middle finger into America's face along with its symbols of pride and patriotism, using his famous and deliberate "Crotch Salute," so named by some in our military.

Removing God from the country's fabric has already been accomplished in many of our universities and is now aimed at some of our public schools through leaders educated, and I use that term loosely, in far-left institutions not unlike the Teachers College of Columbia University. It's Teachers College graduates are taught to see personal accomplishments as offensive to other students who don't want to study as hard . . . if at all.

With the open S&M demonstrations in colleges tied to promotions of pornography supported by the Obama administration's support of Planned Parenthood and its open use of pornographic images to teach so-called sex education to America's children, the Christian community is under full attack well clarified by the outgoing president of the National Teachers Association, (NEA), in 2009 calling conservatives "bastards."

Original Argument Copy:

"Freedom is not the natural state of man. Without a shield in place to protect individual rights and the force to hold that shield strong, freedom becomes fleeting. Tyranny, the I state of government, inevitably returns.

In America, that shield is our Constitution, and the force that allows us to hold it strong is God. The purpose of the Constitution was simply to provide a structure that would protect us from anyone who thought they were greater than God. That, of course, includes the federal government itself. "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,"

Patrick Henry wrote. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government—lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

The Great Compromise (Continued)

- Introduction to Part Two, page 58. -

The Introduction to Part Two ends with this thought, They [the founders] wanted to ensure that the will of the people was the true will of society, not simply a temporary majority who had come together along some kind of specific line (like, for example, religion) in order to effect change across the entire population.

Our founders could have never realized that their "free" media would become so biased it would gather its outlets to put out the same message for the single purpose of keeping one party in control, which would then enable progressive programs to run wild in Washington D.C. This is being done while the media attempts to sweep Christian values under the rug.

Americans were forewarned of this coming siege from an author in the 1970's who believed that the new Medium was the Massage. He was the first one to explain the conflict of 1970's cool conservative programs on television sets in millions of living room in America suddenly being surrounded by the images of a very hot Vietnam War and its returning body bags.

Americans at home were becoming confused by a media that young far-left radicals such as John Kerry and Jane Fonda were learning to control for their personal agendas. Reports wrote about thousands in crowds seen quietly milling around until the radical leaders saw the lights on the broadcast TV cameras turn red, then suddenly exploding for the electron tube that was being pointed at them for transmission of their images around the world.

Indoctrination using the media for social engineering of the public continued, this time the agenda aimed toward the acceptance of homosexual acts. Cathy Renna, lesbian and former PR director for GLAAD in 1999, reported to GLAAD's annual convention that over 1,500 GLAAD members were now set up in newsroom across the country and that leftist had the high ground in the media.

Renna did this knowing only months earlier a 13-year old boy, Jesse Dirkhising, had been tortured and murdered by two men, which virtually all national media outlets refused to cover except FOX News. Police also confirmed that FOX News was the only national media that considered it important to cover the trial of these men who had brutally killed a teenager in the midwest. FOX reported it had carried the story not because of a teenager's murder by men, but because no one in the national media would cover it. I called it the day the printing presses went silent.

However ten years later some in the media would wonder if the public has had it with of all the "finger-wagging," such as making fun of men and women making babies as huffing and puffing, referring to them as "breeders."

We see the same thing happening today, 12 years later, with national media outlets trying to hide the news of an abortion doctor as a routine practice murdering babies that had survived outside the womb, getting away with it for over a decade.

I had noticed this change in the news around 1996 when the American Society of Newspaper Editors, (ASNE), in its recommendation on hiring practices to newspapers around the country removed religion and replaced it with sexual orientation.

Original Argument Copy:

"It was an elegant solution to a complicated problem: How do you hand over power without it being used against you? But the Founders still worried about creating those 'auxiliary precautions,' mainly to prevent special majorities of people from being able to bond together to the disadvantage of minority groups.

They wanted to ensure that the will of the people was the true will of society, not simply a temporary majority who had come together along some kind of specific line (like, for example, religion) in order to effect change across the entire population.

That created quite a problem: If a majority of people come together and use their power as prescribed in the Constitution, how can they be prevented from enacting the 'wrong" kind of\ change? Madison believed the answer would be found in the size of the country. "The society itself,' he wrote, 'will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.'

Has that prediction held up? In many respects, yes—a national religion was never established, for instance. And, in terms of the ability of a simple majority to enact their will in the Constitution itself—there's no doubt its difficult.

And what about something even more basic like term limits for senators and representatives? Polls show upwards of 80 percent of Americans favor them—but is that close to passing? Same goes for a balanced budget amendment (61 percent favor).

The General Overview Of The Senate

- Federalist Paper 62, written by James Madison, page 210. -

Note Madison writes a warning about laws that citizens don't understand: "It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood . . . "

Madison wrote that if laws weren't kept simple enough for people to understand them, how could citizens then obey them?

The "Relevance to Today" comment below reminds us about the quick passage of the Obama Healthcare Bill so no one could read it. Madison was worried that laws would become "so voluminous that they cannot be read."

But he probably never considered the weasels we have in the Democrat Party today that didn't want the Healthcare Bill read so people wouldn't know what was in it. The problem with this is that one day the people will have to know what was in the bill and eventually, no matter how hard the corrupt Democrat Party tries to avoid it, the s*** is going to hit the fan.

We all remember the arrogance of the witch from the west who said with a smile even the Wizard of Oz would run from, We won't know what is in the bill until we pass the bill.

On the other hand, Robert Ramirez puts truth in political cartoons so easy to understand that even low-information Obama voters can get it. Here are some classics on the Obama Healthcare Bill.

Original Argument Copy:

"Relevance to Today: The number of voluminous and incoherent laws Americans deal with today is amazing. Some of these laws are so large, in fact, that on the eve of passing the stimulus bill in 2008, New Jersey senator Frank Lautenberg explained to the press that though his colleagues would vote on the bill, they probably did not 'have the chance' to read it.

Similar situations emerged with the health-care reform and energy bills the next year. If politicians can't read or understand legislation, how can citizens be expected to? It's the ultimate display of arrogance."

The Length Of The President's Term

- Federalist Paper 71, written by Alexander Hamilton, page 232. -

Alexander Hamilton couldn't believe that the people would fear a president who could serve only four years in office, writing, Wouldn't all we have to fear be that he might not be equal to the task that the Constitution assigns to him? If anyone doubts that during a four-year term the President will not be firm enough, then they cannot at the same time also fear that he will infringe upon or violate his powers."

But Hamilton could not have ever imagined that a free national media would one day not be competitive among themselves but instead form an alliance. While the national media would provide news, at the same time it would march in rank step to bury other news as if an event had never happened. That way any news stories that countered the media's progressive agenda would be left on the editing room floor as of no interest.

This was brought to light a few years ago when someone asked an arrogant columnist for the New York Times, (pick one), Why didn't the New York Times print a story about Sarah Palin that would have proved her correct on the upcoming healthcare bill?

The columnist was reported to have shouted back, Because it ain' t news until we say it is!

The founders could never have believed that in the future a national organization representing newspapers across the country, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, (ASNE), would actually drop religion as a topic for not being biased toward the hiring of a journalist.

They didn't just add sexual orientation as an issue of discrimination when hiring. They added it and then gutted religion to the twilight zone. That was verified by an editor with a local Gannett-owned daily newspaper, who had written a terse e-mail back to me about where religion had gone as a bias issue when hiring journalists. He wrote, They put it under "other!"

At the time I sent a registered letter to the ASNE in late 1999, asking if they had accidentally deleted religion on their diversity page. Their response? The page stayed the same.

Recently they did delete the original copy from their Web site. But I found their language again on another 1999 page. So the ASNE is playing games with our right to know. Surprise, surprise, eh?

Original Argument Copy:

"If, from the most humble beginnings, a British House of Commons, merely with the power to agree or disagree to the imposition of a new tax, was able to rapidly reduce the powers of the Crown and the privileges of the nobility within the limits which they thought appropriate to the principles of free government if they could at the same time raise their own status to that of a co-equal house of the legislature (Parliament); if they could at one time abolish both the royalty and the aristocracy, while over­turning the ancient institutions within both the church and the state; if they were capable of eventually making the king tremble at the prospect of them making their own changes and applying their own ideas to the government, then what do we have to fear from an Executive elected every four years whose powers will be confined to the authorities that are given to the President of the United States by the new Constitution?

Wouldn't all we have to fear be that he might not be equal to the task that the Constitution assigns to him? If anyone doubts that during a four-year term the President will not be firm enough, then they cannot at the same time also fear that he will infringe upon or violate his powers."

Alexander Hamilton

The Delicate Balance Of Power

- Introduction to Part Four, Alexander Hamilton, page 237. -

Alexander Hamilton was very clear about the Constitution allowing citizens to carry arms to protect themselves from a corrupted federal government when he wrote: 'If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.'

In a Congress that doesn't read bills anymore before passing them, some U.S. House representatives laughed. The language was too complicated. They, too, like the ASNE, are playing with fire, messing with the people's right to know

Source: YouTube

Original Argument Copy:

"In theory and on paper, yes, the federal government and the state governments were essentially equals. But in reality we all understand that's no longer the way it works.

The federal government is able to pass legislation having nothing to do with the powers enumerated to it and, all too often, the states sit back and take it.

The second way to balance the power given to the federal government was the cornerstone principle of the entire constitution: power to the people. If the states failed in their responsibility, then it would be up to the people to respond.

'If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,' Hamilton wrote, 'there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.'

We don't often think of it in these terms, but what better way to refer to the process of standing up to a group that is trying to take something away from you than self-defense.

If someone told you they were actively taking your life, you'd respond in self-defense. If someone told you they were actively trying to take your liberty, you'd respond in self-defense. If someone told you they were actively trying to stop you from pursuing happiness, you'd respond in self-defense.

After all, self-defense in the face of an aggressor is a basic right. If the federal government abuses its authority and betrays its constituents, then citizens possess the right—in fact, they have the responsibility—to defend themselves.

All of this, of course, assumes that the people understand their rights and are willing to defend them."

The Relative Influence Of The Federal Government and State Governments

- Federalist Paper, James Madison, page 264. -

James Madison understood that the states were the first line of defense against an overaggressive Federal Bureaucracy, writing, Unless the intrusions of the Federal government were voluntarily abandoned, then the appeal to force that would occur in response to foreign oppression would also occur in response to oppression from the Federal government."

It is important for Americans to understand that the states are the ones that are responsible to sound the alarm of an overreaching Federal government, which under the Obama administration is approaching a point of concern with the Executive branch seeing the Constitution as a blockade to obtain more power without the approval of Congress.

One of the most interesting articles of our time came from the American Thinker as Obama was entering office for his first year in October of 2009. The title said it all about the balance of powers cracking under the weight of a corrupt president supported by an equally corrupt media and political party. It reminds one of another dangerous marriage eighty years ago when the media fawned over another government and six million of its citizens never came home:

Does the Supreme Court Still Sit?

Click here to read how the supreme court has begun to shut down religious freedoms.

Original Argument Copy:

"If the Federal government ever ambitiously intrudes on the authority of the state governments, then not only would the opposition of a single state or a few states rally, but a general alarm would sound for all states.

Every government would espouse a common cause, communication between them would open up, resistance plans would be organized together, and all states would come together with a single purpose.

In short, the same rallying together which would occur if there was danger of foreign oppression would also result from a fear of Federal oppression. Unless the intrusions of the Federal government were voluntarily abandoned, then the appeal to force that would occur in response to foreign oppression would also occur in response to oppression from the Federal government."

James Madison