|
Save The Planet? How About Saving The Republic?
Yesterday, the Politico quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying, "I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet." She was responding, of course, to pressure that she and her fellow Democrats are experiencing to suspend a congressional ban on offshore oil drilling in the face of skyrocketing energy prices. It would be really wonderful, however, if the liberal congresswoman could get as energized about saving our once great republic. Herein lies another problem: the vast majority of our politicos (from both major parties) do not even seem to know what kind of country the United States was designed to be. Virtually every reference made to the United States by our civil magistrates is that we are a "democracy." That's odd; someone should have told our Founding Fathers, because they emphatically rejected the concept of creating a "democracy" in favor of creating a constitutional republic. Has anyone quoted the Pledge of Allegiance lately? Does it say, "And to the democracy for which it stands"? Or does it say, "And to the republic for which it stands"? Of course it says "republic." At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a passerby asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got--a republic or monarchy?" Franklin replied, "A republic--if you can keep it." Ladies and Gentlemen, that is the sixty-four million dollar question: Can we keep our republic? Can we keep our constitutional form of government? Can we keep our constitutionally protected liberties? In Federalist No. 10, James Madison ("The Father of the U.S. Constitution") said, "[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." The fear of what happens to freedom and liberty under democratic rule is what prompted Madison and the rest of America's founders to labor so hard to create what they did: a constitutional republic. Under God, it is allegiance to the Constitution that has preserved our liberties, our peace and happiness, our security, and our very way of life. Furthermore, it is the repudiation and rejection of constitutional government that is responsible for the manner in which these very same blessings are currently being lost. Someone needs to remind Rep. Pelosi that it is not her duty (nor does she have the power) to "save the planet." And by the same token, someone needs to remind Senators Barack Obama and John McCain that they are not campaigning to be President of the World, but President of the United States. What every elected officeholder is expected and required to do is very simple: they are required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Period. End of story. Our public servants are not charged with saving the snail darter or the Spotted Owl, or saving the profits of the international bankers, or saving Wall Street in general, or saving the perks of corporate lobbyists, or saving Freddie and Fannie, or saving the peoples of the world from all the bogeymen, or even saving humankind or the planet itself. What our public servants are charged with, however, is preserving (saving) our constitutional republic. Of course, the problem is, the people who are charged with the preservation of our republic are the ones who are the most responsible for its destruction. The American people have far more to fear from Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and John McCain than they do from any foreign adversary, because our leaders have proven that they have absolutely no fidelity to the principles of constitutional government. They have no compunction about eviscerating the protection of our freedoms, or about abolishing the vanguard of our liberties. They are Machiavellian, making King George of old look like a mere amateur. No, I take that back. It is not our civil magistrates who are most responsible for the destruction of our republican form of government: it is "We the people." At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the people to govern themselves. We must be willing to hold our civil magistrates accountable to the contract they made with us, which is to uphold constitutional government. It is our duty to "throw off" any system of government that does not secure our liberties and protect our constitution. And this we have not done. Christian pastors and ministers have failed us. The "Religious Right" has failed us. College professors have failed us. High School teachers have failed us. Newspaper editors and publishers have failed us. TV news anchors and reporters have failed us. Parents have failed. Friends have failed. The two major political parties have failed. As a whole, no one is talking about, or even thinking about, the loss of constitutional government, national independence, and sovereignty. Few seem even conscious that this is taking place. Worrying about which major party wins a general election is like worrying about whether Coke or Pepsi sold more soft drinks last month. Pick your poison. One is just as bad as the other. Neither has any fidelity to the Constitution or to the principles of liberty, which it represents. Both John McCain and Barack Obama are enemies to constitutional government. Both are in the process of sacrificing our national sovereignty to global entities. Both men lied when they took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. So, why should we care which impostor wins the election? It is up to the American people to enforce constitutional government. From a Christian perspective, it is "We the people" who are the "powers that be" in Romans chapter 13. Under our form of government, the source of authority and the source of legitimacy reside with "We the people." We are not the slaves of any king or despot. Our elected leaders are public servants, not private masters. In a nutshell, they work for us. They are contracted to preserve our liberties and our way of life. When they fail, they must answer to us. So, when will the American people pick themselves up by the bootstraps and start acting like free citizens and stop groveling before these imbecilic political parties? When will we set this political house in order? Of course, all of this demands that each of us understands constitutional government and the principles upon which liberty rests. It also demands that each of us be prepared to do whatever is our personal duty to preserve this republic. Patriotism is more than waving a flag on July 4th, or singing The National Anthem at a ball game, or wearing a flag lapel pin on Flag Day. For an American, real patriotism means that we are willing to preserve and protect our constitutional republic. Remember, Franklin's answer: "A republic—if you can keep it." Nancy Pelosi can talk about saving the planet all she wants to: her duty, however, is to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. And that is also the job of every single American citizen. Unfortunately, most of us are no better at doing our job than Pelosi is at doing hers. By Chuck Baldwin This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080730.html
|
Welcome!
Change Location:
Old Town Auburn’s problem is as old as the wheel, not enough parking. However, a parking …
An ex-Round Table Pizza employee was arraigned today in a North Auburn …
Karen Killebrew went through a sort of midlife career change and came out …
The senior project problem
What to do about senior projects? That’s …
|
look, i like some of the articles that you copy and paste here. but i feel that the recent couple of stories about national vs. global issues are missing some basic logic and are not thought through very well.
first thing that hits me is that there are too many non-sequitur conclusions rambling throughout this article... that is, logical connections are implied where none exist. it's not that some of the statements or arguments within aren't themselves valid or true, but he covers so much territory in one article that the illogic of it is in trying to tie it all together neatly into one answer/conclusion.
what the guy is trying to make a point for - once you sift through it all - is more understanding and standing up for our consistutional republic. okay, that's fine. but there's the introduction of other arbitrary elements throughout that don't lead to that point and ends up making it appear absurd.
my silly little mind tells me that you can love and support our republic while still caring about and trying to do something about world conditions (call it "saving the planet" or whatever you like) or vice versa. one does not negate nor debase the other.
and without attempting to defend our political system or current candidates (which, i agree are flawed, but these are our realities)... i do not think that talking about and caring for our planet automatically leads to the conclusion that Pelosi, McCain or Obama (or any person) do not care about our country and republic. that is illogical and these cares and concerns can and do co-exist.
i see no evidence of sacrificing of national sovereignty to global entities by the mere desire to have concern for and have dialogue about very real global issues. this just sounds like political rhetoric that you can hear from extremist camps on both sides of the fence whether it's talking about the UN or NATO or some tin-foil hat conspiracy, etc.
and a bit unrelated to my rant above is that i get quite fed up with any articles premise of the utter failure of everyone - yes, everyone! - with no real solution given or in sight. what's the point. gloom and doom for the sheer sake if itself does no good and offers nothing.
ahhhh but this just one person's opinion on this type of article that i thought i'd share. :-)
Wrighter, I do appreciate you comments and incite...but as far as the rambling conclusions I do beg to differ. Please check out the following links of information and I will look forward to discussing the facts and evidence that illuminate Chuck Baldwin's stance:
http://www.newswithviews.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rkZ2mQ92Ow
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=XRLPG_HplrA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IClxZOxxqwU
ohhhh... i see the author is a pastor of a baptist church, which might explain the writing style and lack of logic. LOL
and sorry, but i must be a little slow... until those links i didn't get that you were a NWO dude. that explains your copy/paste of these articles. never mind. i'm outa here. :-)
Wrighter, Chuck Baldwin is the presidential candidate of the Constitution party. He is not a member of the NWO. I may disagree with Baldwin on quite a few issues, especially regarding the first ammendment, but he is far from being a "NWO dude". To make it clear, there is no way in hell Id vote for Baldwin, but your accusations of him are not correct.