Posted by votefornotagainst on 07/06/09

(Note: This was written for my RTR blog as a 4th of July message.  However, I feel it is a message appropriate for the 6th or any other day of the year.  Therefore, I have altered only the references to the 4th.  The rest remains the same.)

This 6th of July, I’d like to reflect on what it means to be free.  Certainly, I’m wasting my time because it’s obvious, right?  Even so, I hope you will grant me a moment of your time, as I’ve been having conversations lately with members of the pro-freedom movement which I find quite perplexing.  There seems to be a large faction who love to play the Founding Fathers favorites Vol 1 (featuring such hits as “Give me liberty or give me death!” and “No taxation without representation!“) but then — like a couple that believes going to church on Sundays will automatically get them into heaven — either forget or don’t really understand the message, continuing to advocate evil in various ways the rest of the week.

For example, one woman on my email list said that we needed the government to police us because sometimes “children do need discipline and yes, even forcibly being snatched away from stepping out onto busy roadways, etc.” So, is that what government is?  A protective parent?  They are the adults and we are its children?  Another claimed that he believed in the constitution, then began to rant on and on about how executives were overpaid and government needed to regulate their pay at no more than “20% above their highest paid employee”.  I asked him where in the constitution that role was specified for government and he has yet to respond to the email.

Everyone has their own opinion about specific issues, but arguing about these is akin to debating which color of wallpaper or carpet we’re going to put in a house that’s collapsing.  What we need to worry about is the foundation of the house.  The carpet, wallpaper, windows, etc. won’t make any difference if the house isn’t able to stand.  Likewise, in order to be a united front, we in the pro-freedom movement need to be able to put such personal opinions aside and make sure that we’re operating on a sound philosophical foundation.  If one knows the difference between right and wrong (no matter what the “law” says), he or she will make the right decisions.  This is true with our “representatives”.  If we had made sure that we were electing people whose philosophy was that of freedom, we wouldn’t need to worry about their votes in congress.

So, what is the philosophy of freedom?  Let’s start by defining government:

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington

Government is force.  It is not our friend.  It is not our parent.  It is not the great equalizer.  History shows that as government power grows, so does tyranny.  As such, it is logical to assume that there is only a limited amount of power it can exert between protecting equal rights and oppressing people.  But where is the line?  What laws are just and which are unjust?

“Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” -Frederic Bastiat

One of the most popular phrases from the Declaration of Independence is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

What many people don’t know is that Thomas Jefferson crafted this after the phrase “No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” from John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government.  Thus, Jefferson came to the obvious conclusion that health and life meant the same thing.  But where does the “pursuit of happiness” come from?  Originally, Jefferson wrote “life, liberty, and property” in the Declaration; the final wording changed to “pursuit of happiness” by the Committee of Style.

George Mason helps to establish a link between the concept of “property” and “pursuit of happiness” in his “Virginia Declaration of Rights,” written in 1776:  “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

These are just a few examples of the hundreds that, in effect, illustrate that the founding fathers concluded that the only just laws are ones that protect our “life, liberty, and property” (Note: property does not simply mean a plot of land, but ones mental property as well as physical possessions), allowing us the freedom to pursue our own happiness, whatever that may be.  In this sense, one could argue that this is a government that isn’t supposed to “govern” at all.  For, government (ie. to exert control) implies that the people in Washington have authority over us.  However, any type of authority not only contradicts the idea of “all men are created equal”, but also the idea of “government of, for, and by the people”.

If the PEOPLE are the government, then we delegate our powers to representatives and they are our equals.  For example, I don’t have the authority to go over to someones business, put a gun to an executives head, and tell them that they can’t make any more than 20% profit.  This would be an infringement of both the executive’s property and liberty.  Likewise, I can’t delegate the power to coerce others to pay for my kids education, my retirement, or anything else.

This is where most people get confused.  We have fallen for the grand illusion that our government has authority over us and that the exact same actions it commits (for example, stealing money through taxes) is somehow justified when it is done under the camouflage of the word “government”.  Stealing is stealing no matter who or what is doing it.  Same thing with all other violations of life, liberty, and property.  The perception of authority has allowed a lot of evil to take place in our country (and the world).  In fact, it may be the root of all of our problems.

So, in summation, the philosophy of freedom is very simple.  The only just government is one that equally protects an individuals Life, Liberty, and Property (take careful notice of the word “and” in that phrase — all three must be protected simultaneously for governments actions to be working for the people), allowing one the freedom to buy, to try, to sell, and to fail in the pursuit of their own happiness.  And happiness is not guaranteed.

We need to remember that government is an abstract idea.  You can’t touch it; you can only touch the individuals within it.  Therefore, it cannot have powers that the individual does not intrinsically possess.

Here’s hoping that this 6th of July marks the beginning to the end of our slavery.  Let us learn to deal with each other as adults, freeing ourselves from the chains of “authority”.

Posted by votefornotagainst on 05/30/09

Believe it or not, not so very long ago the Democratic party used to be one of constitutional principle. Thomas Jefferson was once a Democratic hero. Democrats today compare Obama to Lincoln, having no idea that the Democratic platforms of only a hundred years ago represent nothing of those today. (Note: I am not defending Republicans -- who have carried the same torch for many years as well -- but the following transcript may be an eye opener for those you know who think they are a Democrat). The following shocking testimony, given by a brave Democrat during the Roosevelt administration, illustrates that it was a party hijacked into socialism, designed by an elite few whom Mr. Smith refers to as the "brain trust". It gradually went from a party of individualism to one of collectivism. You can take Mr. Smiths advice of comparing the goals of the socialists, communists, and other collectivist platforms to those of our current administration and see that we are being sold down a dark, rough road, deeply tread in "hope" but ending in despotism and slavery for all but those in that "brain trust". There is no other way it can end when the rules of law that protect our freedoms are finally discarded once and for all to the altering winds of men's whims.


BETRAYAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
By Alfred E. (Al) Smith

[Alfred E. Smith, Democratic governor of New York during four terms, became the Democratic candidate for President in 1928 but lost to Herbert Hoover. In 1932 he supported Franklin D. Roosevelt for President, but by 1936 he was so shocked and alarmed by what he saw happening that he decided to warn his Party. Because of the popularity of President Roosevelt this step was considered by some to be virtual treason. Nevertheless, on January 25, 1936, Alfred F. Smith gave the following speech in Washington, D.C., to warn the American people that the Democratic Party was being betrayed.]

At the outset of my remarks let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not a candidate for any nomination by any party at any time, and what is more I do not intend to even lift my right hand to secure any nomination from any party at any time. Further than that I have no axe to grind. There is nothing personal in this whole performance so far as I am concerned. I have no feeling against any man, woman or child in the United States. I was born in the Democratic party and I expect to die in it. And I was attracted to it in my youth because I was led to believe that no man owned it. Further than that, that no group of men owned it, but on the other hand, that it belonged to all the plain people in the United States.

PATRIOTISM ABOVE PARTISANSHIP

It is not easy for me to stand up here tonight and talk to the American people against the Democratic Administration. This is not easy. It hurts me. But I can call upon innumerable witnesses to testify to the fact that during my whole public life I put patriotism above partisanship. And when I see danger, I say danger, that is the "Stop, look, and listen" to the fundamental principles upon which this Government of ours was organized, it is difficult for me to refrain from speaking up.

What are these dangers that I see? The first is the arraignment of class against class. It has been freely predicted that if we were ever to have civil strife again in this country, it would come from the appeal to passion and prejudices that comes from the demagogues that would incite one class of our people against the other.

In my time I have met some good and bad industrialists. I have met some good and bad financiers, but I have also met some good and bad laborers, and this I know, that permanent prosperity is dependent upon both capital and labor alike.

And I also know that there can be no permanent prosperity in this country until industry is able to employ labor, and there certainly can be no permanent recovery upon any governmental theory of "soak the rich" or "soak the poor." . .

A GOVERNMENT BY BUREAUCRATS

The next thing that I view as being dangerous to our national well-being is government by bureaucracy instead of what we have been taught to look for, government by law.

Just let me quote something from the President's message to Congress:

"In 34 months we have built up new instruments of public power in the hands of the people's government. This power is wholesome and proper, but in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of our people."

Now I interpret that to mean, if you are going to have an autocrat, take me; but be very careful about the other fellow.

There is a complete answer to that, and it rises in the minds of the great rank and file, and that answer is just this: We will never in this country tolerate any laws that provide shackles for our people.

We don't want any autocrats, either in or out of office. We wouldn't even take a good one.

The next danger that is apparent to me is the vast building up of new bureaus of government, draining resources of our people in a common pool of redistributing them, not by any process of law, but by the whim of a bureaucratic autocracy.

THE 1932 PLATFORM

Well now, what am I here for? I am here not to find fault. Anybody can do that. I am here to make suggestions. What would I have my party do? I would have them reestablish and redeclare the principles that they put forth in that 1932 platform. .

The Republican platform was ten times as long. It was stuffy, it was unreadable, and in many points, not understandable. No Administration in the history of the country came into power with a more simple, a more clear, or a more inescapable mandate than did the party that was inaugurated on the Fourth of March in 1933.

And listen, no candidate in the history of the country ever pledged himself more unequivocally to his party platform than did the President who was inaugurated on that day.

Well, here we are!

Millions and millions of Democrats just like myself, all over the country, still believe in that platform. And what we want to know is why it wasn't carried out.

Now, let us wander for awhile and let's take a look at that platform, and let's see what happened to it. Here is how it started out:

"We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people, to be faithfully kept by the party when entrusted with power, and that the people are entitled to know in plain words the terms of contract to which they are asked to subscribe.

"The Democratic Party solemnly promises by appropriate action to put into effect the principles, policies and reforms herein advocated and to eradicate the political methods and practices herein condemned."

My friends, these are what we call fighting words. At the time that that platform went through the air and over the wire, the people of the United States were in the lowest possible depths of despair, and the Democratic platform looked to them like the star of hope; it looked like the rising sun in the East to the mariner on the bridge of a ship after a terrible night.

But what happened to it?

ECONOMY IN GOVERNMENT

First plank: "We advocate immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 per cent in the cost of the Federal Government."

Well, now, what is the fact? No offices were consolidated, no bureaus were eliminated, but on the other hand, the alphabet was exhausted. The creation of new departments -- and this is sad news for the taxpayer -- the cost, the ordinary cost, what we refer to as housekeeping cost, over and above all emergencies -- that ordinary housekeeping cost of government is greater today than it has ever been in any time in the history of the republic.

THE UNBALANCED BUDGET

Another plank: "We favor maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate Federal estimate within revenue."

How can you balance a budget if you insist upon spending more money than you take in? Even the increased revenue won't go to balance the budget, because it is hocked before you receive it. What is worse than that? .

THE MIDDLE CLASS WILL PAY THE DEBT

Now here is something that I want to say to the rank and file. There are three classes of people in this country; there are the poor and the rich, and in between the two is what has often been referred to as the great backbone of America, that is the plain fellow.

That is the fellow that makes from one hundred dollars a month up to the man that draws down five or six thousand dollars a year.

Now, there is a great big army. Forget the rich; they can't pay this debt. If you took everything they have away from them, they couldn't pay it; they ain't got enough. There is no use talking about the poor; they will never pay it, because they have nothing.

This debt is going to be paid by that great big middle class that we refer to as the backbone and the rank and file, and the sin of it is they ain't going to know that they are paying it. It is going to come to them in the form of indirect and hidden taxation. It will come to them in the cost of living, in the cost of clothing, in the cost of every activity that they enter into, and because it is not a direct tax, they won't think they're paying, but, take it from me, they are going to pay it!

WHAT ABOUT STATES' RIGHTS?

Another plank: "We advocate the extension of Federal credit to the States to provide unemployment relief where the diminishing resources of the State make it impossible for them to provide for their needs."

That was pretty plain. That was a recognition in the national convention of the rights of the States. But how is it interpreted? The Federal Government took over most of the relief problems, some of them useful and most of them useless. They started out to prime the pump for industry in order to absorb the ranks of the unemployed, and at the end of three years their employment affirmative policy is absolutely nothing better than the negative policy of the Administration that preceded it.

"We favor unemployment and old age insurance under State laws."

Now let me make myself perfectly clear so that no demagogue or no crack-pot in the next week or so will be able to say anything about my attitude on this kind of legislation. I am in favor of it. And I take my hat off to no man in the United States on the question of legislation beneficial to the poor, the weak, the sick, or the afflicted, or women and children

Because why? I started out a quarter of a century ago when I had very few followers in my State, and during that period I advocated, fought for, introduced as a legislator and finally as Governor for eight long years, signed more progressive legislation in the interest of the men, women and children than any man in the State of New York.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEASURE -- UNFULFILLED PLEDGES

And the sin of this whole thing, and the part of it that worries me and gives me concern, is that this haphazard, hurry-up passage of legislation is never going to accomplish the purposes for which it was designed and -- bear this in mind, follow the platform -- under State laws.

Another one: "We promise the removal of Government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works and national resources in the common interest."

NRA! A vast octopus set up by government, that wound its arms around all the business of the country, paralyzed big business, and choked little business to death.

Did you read in the papers a short time ago where somebody said that business was going to get a breathing spell?

What is the meaning of that? And where did that expression arise?

I'll tell you where it comes from. It comes from the prize ring. When the aggressor is punching the head off the other fellow he suddenly takes compassion on him and he gives him a breathing spell before he delivers the knockout wallop.

WASTEFUL EXTRAVAGANCE

Here is another one: "We condemn the open and covert resistance of administrative officials to every effort made by congressional committees to curtail the extravagant expenditures of Government and improvident subsidies granted to private interests."

Now, just between ourselves, do you know any administrative officer that has tried to stop Congress from appropriating money? Do you think there has been any desire on the part of Congress to curtail appropriations?

Why, not at all. The fact is that Congress threw them right and left -- didn't even tell what they were for.

And the truth, further, is that every administrative officer sought to get all that he possibly could in order to expand the activities of his own office and throw the money of the people right and left. And as to subsidies, why, never at any time in the history of this or any other country were there so many subsidies granted to private groups, and on such a huge scale.

The fact of the matter is that most of the cases now pending before the United States Supreme Court revolve around the point whether or not it is proper for Congress to tax all the people to pay subsidies to a particular group.

Here is another one: "We condemn the extravagance of the Farm Board, its disastrous action which made the Government a speculator of farm products, and the unsound policy of restricting agricultural products to the demand of domestic markets." . .

What about the restriction of our agricultural products and the demands of the market? Why, the fact about that is that we shut out entirely the farm market, and by plowing under corn and wheat and the destruction of foodstuffs, food from foreign countries has been pouring into our American markets -- food that should have been purchased by us from our own farmers.

In other words, while some of the countries of the Old World were attempting to drive the wolf of hunger from the doormat, the United States flew in the face of God's bounty and destroyed its own foodstuffs. There can be no question about that.

Now I could go on indefinitely with some of the other planks. They are unimportant, and the radio time will not permit it. But just let me sum up this way. Regulation of the Stock Exchange and the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, plus one or two minor planks of the platform that in no way touch the daily life of our people, have been carried out, but the balance of the platform was thrown in the wastebasket. About that there can be no question.

Let's see how it was carried out. Make a test for yourself. Just get the platform of the Democratic Party, and get the platform of the Socialist Party, and lay them down on your dining room table, side by side, and get a heavy lead pencil and scratch out the word "Democrat," and scratch out the word "Socialist," and let the two platforms lay there.

Then study the record of the present Administration up to date. After you have done that, make your mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and you will put your hand on the Socialist platform. You don't dare touch the Democratic platform.

DEMOCRATIC OR SOCIALISTIC?

And incidentally, let me say, that it is not the first time in recorded history, that a group of men have stolen the livery of the church to do the work of the devil.

Now, after studying this whole situation, you will find that that is at the bottom of all our troubles. This country was organized on the principles of representative democracy, and you can't mix Socialism or Communism with that. They are like oil and water; they refuse to mix.

And incidentally, let me say to you, that is the reason why the United States Supreme Court is working overtime throwing the alphabet out of the window -- three letters at a time.

Now I am going to let you in on something else. How do you suppose all this happened? Here is the way it happened. The young Brain Trusters caught the Socialists in swimming and they ran away with their clothes.

Now, it is all right with me. It is all right to me if they want to disguise themselves as Norman Thomas or Karl Marx, or Lenin, or any of the rest of that bunch, but what I won't stand for is to let them march under the banner of Jefferson, Jackson, or Cleveland.

"WE CAN TAKE A WALK"

Now what is worrying me, where does that leave me as a Democrat? My mind is now fixed upon the Convention in June, in Philadelphia. The committee on resolutions is about to report, and the preamble to the platform is:

"We, the representatives of the Democratic Party in Convention assembled, heartily endorse the Democratic Administration."

What happens to the disciples of Jefferson and Jackson and Cleveland when that resolution is read out? Why, for us it is a washout. There is only one of two things we can do. We can either take on the mantle of hypocrisy or we can take a walk, and we will probably do the latter.

Now leave the platform alone for a little while. What about this attack that has been made upon the fundamental institutions of this country? Who threatens them, and did we have any warning of this threat? Why, you don't have to study party platforms. You don't have to read books. You don't have to listen to professors of economics. You can find the whole thing incorporated in the greatest declaration of political principles that ever came from the hands of man, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS

Always have in your minds that the Constitution and the first ten amendments to it were drafted by refugees and by sons of refugees, by men with bitter memories of European oppression and hardship, by men who brought to this country and handed down to their descendants an abiding fear of the bitterness and all the hatred of the Old World was distilled in our Constitution into the purest democracy that the world has ever known.

There are just three principles, and in the interest of brevity, I will read them. I can read them quicker than talk them.

"First, a Federal Government, strictly limited in its power, with all other powers except those expressly mentioned reserved to the States and to the people, so as to insure State's rights, guarantee home rule, and preserve freedom of individual initiative and local control."

That is simple enough. The difference between the State constitutions and the Federal. Constitution is that in the State you can do anything you want to do provided it is not prohibited by the Constitution. But in the Federal Government, according to that government, you can do only that which that Constitution tells you that you can do.

What is the trouble? Congress has overstepped its bounds. It went beyond that Constitutional limitation, and it has enacted laws that not only violate the home rule and the State's right principle -- and who says that? Do I say it? Not at all. That was said by the United States Supreme Court in the last ten or twelve days.

CHORUS OF YES-MEN IN CONGRESS

Secondly, the Government, with three independent branches, Congress to make the laws, the Executive to execute them, the Supreme Court, and so forth. You know that.

In the name of Heaven, where is the independence of Congress? Why, they just laid right down. They are flatter on the Congressional floor than the rug on the table here. They surrendered all of their powers to the Executive, and that is the reason why you read in the newspapers references to Congress as the Rubber Stamp Congress.

We all know that the most important bills were drafted by the Brain Trusters, and sent over to Congress and passed by Congress without consideration, without debate and, without meaning any offense at all to my Democratic brethren in Congress, I think I can safely say without 90 per cent of them knowing what was in the bills.

That was the meaning of the list that came over, and besides certain bills were "Must." What does that mean? Speaking for the rank and file of American people we don't want any executive to tell Congress what it must do, and we don't want any Congress or the Executive jointly or severally to tell the United States Supreme Court what it must do!

And further than that, we don't want the United States Supreme Court to tell either of them what they must do.

What we want, and what we insist upon, and what we are going to have is the absolute preservation of this balance of power which is the keystone, the arch upon which the whole theory of democratic government has got to rest. When you rattle that you rattle the whole structure.

Of course, when our forefathers wrote the Constitution of the United States it couldn't be possible that they had it in their minds that it was going to be all right for all time to come. So they said, "Now, we will provide a manner and method of amending it."

That is set forth in the document itself, and during our national life we amended it many times.

We amended it once by mistake, and we corrected it. What did we do? We took the amendment out. Fine, that is the way we want to do it, by recourse to the people.

But we don't want an Administration that takes a shot at it in the dark and that ducks away from it and dodges away from it and tries to put something over in contradiction of it upon any theory that there is going to be a great public howl in favor of that something; possibly the United States Supreme Court may be intimidated into a friendly opinion with respect to it.

What I have held all during my public life is that Almighty God is with this country, and He didn't give us that kind of Supreme Court.

Now this is pretty tough on me to have to go at my own party this way, but I submit that there is a limit to blind loyalty.

As a young man in the Democratic Party, I witnessed the rise and fall of Bryan and Bryanism, and I know exactly what Bryan did to our party. I knew how long it took to build it after he got finished with it. But let me say this to the everlasting credit of Bryan and the men that followed him, they had the nerve and the courage and honesty to put into the platform just what their leaders stood for. And they further put the American people into a position of making an intelligent choice when they went to the polls.

Why, the fact of this whole thing is -- I speak now not only of the executive but of the legislature at the same time -- that they promised one set of things; they repudiated that promise, and they launched off on a program of action totally different.

Well, in 25 years of experience I have known both parties to fail to carry out some of the planks in their platform. But this is the first time that I have known a party, upon such a huge scale, not only not to carry out the plank, but to do the directly opposite thing to what they promised.

SUGGESTED REMEDIES

Now, suggestions, and I make these as a Democrat anxious for the success of my party, and I make them in good faith.

No. 1: I suggest to the members of my party on Capitol Hill here in Washington that they take their minds off the Tuesday that follows the first Monday in November. Just take their minds off it to the end that you may do the right thing and not the expedient thing.

Next, I suggest to them that they dig up the 1932 platform from the grave that they buried it in, read it over, and study it, breathe life into it, and follow it in legislative and executive action, to the end that they make good their promises to the American people when they put forth that platform and the candidate that stood upon it 100 per cent. In short, make good!

Next, I suggest to them that they stop compromising with the fundamental principles laid down by Jackson and Jefferson and Cleveland.

Fourth: Stop attempting to alter the form and structure of our Government without recourse to the people themselves as provided in their own Constitution. This country belongs to the people, and it doesn't belong to any Administration.

Next, I suggest that they read their Oath of Office to support the Constitution of the United States. And I ask them to remember that they took that oath with their hands on the Holy Bible, thereby calling upon God Almighty Himself to witness their solemn promise. It is bad enough to disappoint us.

WASHINGTON OR MOSCOW

Sixth: I suggest that from this moment they resolve to make the Constitution the Civil Bible of the United States, and pay it the same civil respect and reverence that they would religiously pay the Holy Scripture, and I ask them to read from the Holy Scripture the Parable of the Prodigal Son and to follow his example.

Stop! Stop wasting your substance in a foreign land, and come back to your Father's house.

Now, in conclusion let me give this solemn warning. There can be only one Capitol, Washington or Moscow!

There can be only one atmosphere of government, tl1e clear, pure, fresh air of free America, or the foul breath of Communistic Russia.

There can be only one flag, the Stars and Stripes, or the Red Flag of the Godless Union of the Soviet.

There can be only one National Anthem. The Star Spangled Banner or the Internationale.

There can be only one victor. If the Constitution wins, we win. But if the Constitution -- stop. Stop there. The Constitution can't lose! The fact is, it has already won, but the news has not reached certain ears.

Posted 06/03/09 Harry Madison, IN

I think it would be more effective to blog this everywhere. Even better, cut and paste it into an email chain. Good find! Thanks. R3VOLUTION! 18 U.S.C. 1918!

Posted 06/05/09 Volvox Minneapolis, MN

Hm ... this is true. Lincoln, I never liked him. But Jefferson and the like ... right on! Good post anyways. Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies, Volvox

Posted by votefornotagainst on 04/27/09
Last updated 04/28/09

Unless you've already disappeared into one of our "constitution free zones" (the Bermuda triangle for ambiguously labeled "right wing extremists"), you've undoubtedly learned a new word this weekend.  A word that seems to have caused quite a stir.  According to media's usage of it, we should all be either preparing to apply plastic bio-suits and bury ourselves for safety... OR... put our collective faith in a government that is working steadfastly to resolve the issue through mass vaccination.  The word?  Brace yourself folks, because it's a scary one: PAN-DEM-IC.

But what does that really mean?  Well, here is the dictionary.com definition:

pan⋅dem⋅ic  /pænˈdɛmɪk/
–adjective
1.     (of a disease) prevalent throughout an entire country, continent, or the whole world; epidemic over a large area.

Notice that there are no references to the bubonic plague or a "Twelve Monkeys" apocalyptic future.  According to the definition of the word, this means that we have pandemics occurring all around us at any given moment of any given day.  Just go to the Center for Disease Control website and see how many of these diseases you recognize.  We are surrounded in pandemics, but the last thing we want is a riotous public giving the government the power to vaccinate the population based on any of them.

Now, this isn't meant to underestimate the concern. Yes, there have been many deaths in Mexico.  Yes, it has been spotted in the U.S.  However, I want to encourage you to take a moment and reflect where panicking has gotten us in the last 6-8 months: The economy was doomed and there would be martial law if we didn't bail out the banks; the economy was doomed if we didn't pass the "stimulus" package that nobody read; the earth is doomed if we don't tax cow farts; etc. As we have learned, the government is all too willing to take advantage (to our detriment) in times like this.  In fact, recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton uttered the phrase "never waste a good crisis".  Of course, the "waste" would be governments failure in usurping more power from the people.  In accordance with this logic, there is a direct incentive for the government to even create a "good crisis".

Please take a moment to watch Dr. Ron Paul's comments on the situation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5-Y08qbjo

As Dr. Paul illustrates, vaccinations can cause more trouble than the actual "pandemic".  His causes for concern are apt.  Remember this little "oopsie" from the Baxter Company last month:


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Health--Science/Science/Virus-mix-up-by-lab-c
ould-have-resulted-in-pandemic/articleshow/4230882.cms

This kind of mistake is akin to accidentally pouring laundry detergent instead of milk into your cocoa puffs.  Would you trust this company to vaccinate YOU?  Well, I've got news for you... that's EXACTLY who will be creating vaccines for this "pandemic":


http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-baxter-swine-flu-27-apr27,0,3579388.s
tory

Not only does this pose concerns for your health, but such a situation could mean dire consequences in terms of U.S. sovereignty.  At the following site, you can plainly see that, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement (signed into law in 2005 by president Bush), there is a "North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza" in place:


http://web.archive.org/web/20071009185923/http://www.state.gov/g/avianflu/91242.
htm

According to Dr. Jerome Corsi, "The International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza was designed to supersede an earlier November 2005 Homeland Security report that called for a U.S. national strategy that would be coordinated by the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Agriculture... The U.N.-WHO-WTO-NAFTA plan advanced by SPP features a prominent role for the U.N. system influenza coordinator as a central international director in the case of a North American avian flu or pandemic influenza outbreak.”

This means that interests outside of the United States will gain control over our health and well being in pandemic situations.  Therefore, we MUST NOT PANIC and allow our government to turn fear into more control.  It doesn't take a trends research expert to put together all of the propaganda regarding pandemics and other recent reports of ill-defined "rightwing extremists" as threats, the ever-present potential of martial law, and all of the globalization talks as solutions to our problems.  These headlines are all ingredients for a cataclysmically "good crisis".

So, what should we do?  Instead of inflating fear bubbles, look at what you need to do to stay healthy in case the virus is seen in your area.  Load up on immune boosting supplements such as Vitamin C and Colloidal Silver.  Purchase some N95 rated particle respirator masks in the hardware section of your local store.  They are relatively cheap and will keep out such viruses.  Here is a 30 pack on Amazon:


http://www.amazon.com/3M-8000-Particle-Respirator-30-Pack/dp/B000GUP7X4/ref=sr_1
_1?ie=UTF8&s=hi&qid=1239665680&sr=8-1

Remaining in optimal health is the first best step in fighting off many potential "pandemics".  The second is staying informed.  You can keep your eyes on where the flu has been spotted by going to this map:


http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&t=p&msa=0&msid=1064
84775090296685271.0004681a37b713f6b5950&ll=32.639375%2C-110.390625&spn=1
5.738151%2C25.488281&source=embed

Let government know that you are in control of your own life and don't need (nor want) their "help".  Don't fuel a "pandemic" that could turn into a "good crisis".  Instead, stay informed, safe, and healthy.

ADDENDUM: just as I finished writing this, I received an email from the editors at grassfire.org explaining how "House and Senate leaders are moving very quickly to put socialized healthcare on a fast-track THIS WEEK as part of the revised Obama budget... Members of the House-Senate conference have struck a deal with Harry Reid and the Obama team to require just a simple majority vote in the Senate to pass Obama's massive socialized healthcare plan." 

Coincidence or taking advantage of a "good crisis"?  You decide.

Posted 04/28/09 B Rae C Grandview, TX

Of course it's taking advantage of a crisis, one I believe that was started by the government just to get a socialized healthcare system into affect. This is a new virus, and from what I have seen, the swine that passed this on to the human race, not only spread swine flu, but human as well. There are five different viruses rolled into one new strain, I thought that to be odd? A new strain? Spreading as quickly as it did? No, this is a planned pandemic and this virus was planted. Let me share something I heard on the Power Hour a couple weeks or so ago. I'll try and keep this brief. A woman called the radio show and was telling the host about a truck driver who had made some strange deliveries around the U.S.. He drove a refer unit, the contents loaded on his truck had to stay on ice. The people who loaded the truck wore bio-suits. He was also given a shot and told it would keep him from getting sick and spreading it to his family. He was paid cash for driving the truck, he had an escort following him, he was not stopped at weigh stations on his route, and he was also told not to tell anyone. Obviously he did, tell someone that is. The woman telling this story said he was a Hispanic man, and he innocently let this slip out, maybe because he was bragging about the high dollars he was paid for delivering these so called goods. He also said he wasn't the only O/O doing these types of jobs. I don't know about others who heard this same story, but my first thought was, something bad is going to happen and it's being planned out by our own government. I don't remember everything that this woman said, but what I remember is pretty accurate. I used to be an OTR truck driver and I have had escorts on government loads. They stay with you until the load reaches it's destination, you are never stopped at a weigh scale, and if you are, there is always a government seal on the door of the trailer. When a DOT officer sees that seal, they know they are not allowed to break it, they just tell you to move on. As far as getting a flu shot for this? Nope, no way!!! From what I understand, more people die from these vaccines than from the virus itself, and the government protects the companies who make them. In other words, it's really hard to sue the manufacturer if someone you love dies from their vaccine.