Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online The Original Pocket Patriot, an Invitation to Truth file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Original Pocket Patriot, an Invitation to Truth book.
Happy reading The Original Pocket Patriot, an Invitation to Truth Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF The Original Pocket Patriot, an Invitation to Truth at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Original Pocket Patriot, an Invitation to Truth Pocket Guide.
"Honesty is the first chapter of the book of wisdom," asserted Thomas Jefferson. Jesus debated the question of TRUTH with Pilate. We didn't get an answer!.
Table of contents
- Thomas Jefferson
- Main navigation
- History of the New England Patriots - Wikipedia
- Thinking About Patriotism - DBQ
- Secondary Navigation
They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? However, everyone in the Constitution and Bill of Rights debates would reject the notion that such changes would ever apply to the constriction of natural rights, such as those enumerated in the First and Second Articles. Read in context, the Bill of Rights is both another affirmation of the unalienable Rights of Mankind and a clear proscription upon any central government infringement of those rights.
The purpose of its inclusion was, without question, to further secure those rights. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery. Much has rightly been written of the fact that, at the time our Declaration was instituted and our Constitution ratified, many Africans were enslaved in the American colonies. Notably, strong sentiments for emancipation were also expressed in that same era.
The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused. The institution of slavery and its consequences formed a line of discrimination. Assertions by those who employed slaves is viewed in the contemporary context as a contradiction, though in the context of the period, they were not.
Unfortunately, as ingrained as the institution of slavery was in the Colonial period, arguments for emancipation gained little traction. The primary catalyst for that bloody war was slavery and its extension westward. He generally advocated returning slaves to a newly-created nation in Africa. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state? By late , it was apparent to Lincoln that preservation of the Union could not be achieved without emancipation of slaves.
Despite resistance from his free white labor constituents in the North, who did not want competition from an influx of black laborers from the South, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in Full emancipation was ultimately codified in with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, but it would take the Civil Rights Act to establish uniform legal racial parity for black Americans.
But incrementally, particularly rapidly in recent decades, constitutional Rule of Law has been diluted and degraded by the actions of those in the executive, legislative and judicial branches — most notably the latter — and at great hazard to the future of Liberty.guitosweylado.cf/a-la-sombra-de-un-angel/adis-a-la-verdad-cladema-filosofa.pdf
Jefferson clearly understood that, should our Constitution ever become a malleable document for a politicized and and despotic judiciary to misinterpret according to executive and legislative special interests, Rule of Law would gradually yield to the rule of men — the historical terminus of the latter being, irrevocably, tyranny.
Our Framers did not subject judges to election in order to avoid political corruption. They assumed judges would remain above such influences and stay true to Rule of Law, thus protecting our Constitution from avarice and populist adulteration. Our Founders and early members of the judiciary were men of character, who were deeply devoted to Liberty and Rule of Law.
Likewise, the ideologically appointed judiciary has suffered a similar fate of oath corruption. That exploitation of the bench is difficult to correct since judges are protected from electoral eviction. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes — rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers.
This makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper. The Federalist Papers clearly delineate constitutional interpretation. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance.
In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account. But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all. The first significant instance of constitutional interpretation by the federal judiciary was the case of Marbury v. Since that ruling, the Marbury precedent has been used by judicial activists to violate the limits of judicial power outlined in Article III of our Constitution. It has thus eroded Rule of Law and created a quiet constitutional crisis of decay and ruin.
So determined was FDR to overstep the constitutional limits on the executive branch that in he covertly conceived a plan to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court from nine to 15, with the expectation that his six newly minted appointees would give him a favorably predisposed activist majority. Their activist rulings consistently allowed him to enact his statist New Deal policies and greatly expand the power and scope of the central government.
In effect, Roosevelt successfully converted the judicial branch from one of independent review according to Rule of Law into one of subservience according to the rule of men. In its prescription for separating the judiciary from the executive branch, Federalist No. It is impossible to keep the judges too distinct from every other avocation than that of expounding the laws. It is peculiarly dangerous to place them in a situation to be either corrupted or influenced by the Executive.
By the midth century, statist executives had all but co-opted the judiciary, and those who favored judicial despotism have been devitalizing Rule of Law ever since. Dulles Since then, activist judges have not only undermined the plain language of our Constitution but have also done equal injury to the Bill of Rights.
It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the Framers, they have no basis in the Constitution. Among the most egregious examples of judicial activism undermining our Constitution are the many flawed rulings rendered in regard to Article One the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, particularly to its assurance of religious freedom.
But activist courts have ruled that this prohibition applies to virtually every public forum, from public schools and sporting events to public squares. In , Jefferson rightly supported the disestablishment of the Anglican Church as the official religion in Virginia. Baptists hoped he would similarly affirm the disestablishment of the Congregational Church in Connecticut. Moreover, Baptists feared the national government would declare Anglicanism the national church, much as the Crown recognized the Church of England as its official church. Recognition of state-backed religions led to discrimination against those who were not adherents of the official church.
Yet, those limitations are how the courts interpret it today. The intended consequence of the contemporary artificial barrier between church and state is to remove references to our Creator from all public forums—particularly government educational institutions. Over time, disabused belief in a sovereign God and His endowment of Liberty and other unalienable Rights of Man fall to the wayside. That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever. They are gifts from our God, not government.
And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. Indeed, this inherent right is the first civil right — the fundamental guarantor of all others — as affirmed by our Founders. It was understood then, as now, that the inherent right to self-defense was irrevocable — and not to be infringed.
It was and remains the most fundamental of the unalterable Rights of Man — the rights of all people.
- Roman Antiquities in Renaissance France, 1515–65?
- Inge se brief (Afrikaans Edition).
- Captain Future 1: Der Sternenkaiser (German Edition).
- Why Dating Doesnt Work!.
- Offbeat Guide To Recovery.
- 50 fiestas populares de España que debes conocer.
After the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, during the Massachusetts Convention debates for ratification of the U. This was a concession to the Anti-Federalists, who insisted upon the enumeration of these specific Liberties in the Constitution, much to the objection of the Federalists, who believed this might imply to future generations that those inherent rights were subject to amendment.
Given the preeminent status of the Second Amendment, and the growing contemporary chorus of calls to amend or fully repeal it, we should be clear that our Founders never intended this inherent right to be infringed. Again, typical of those objections was this from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. Do these words refer to a standing army as some suggest, a national body of armed forces necessary for the safety and security of the nation, but which could be a potential threat to its citizens under the control of an oppressive regime? While the militia reference is not to a standing army, it is clear that our Founders had a uniform concern for such military bodies.
The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
Despite this fundamental truth, there exists a cynical and malicious argument for undermining the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, however, has two clauses, just as it has two purposes. In the context of the debates about the Bill of Rights, critics of the proposed Constitution believed that both the establishment of militias and the individual right to keep and bear arms were vital to the future of Liberty.
Thus, the Second Amendment affirms those two rights, much as the First Amendment affirms five rights — religion, speech, press, assembly and petition of the government. Everyone who is able may have a gun. Let them take arms. That is precisely why in the debates over ratification of the Bill of Rights, as previously noted, many of our Founders expressed concern that the enumeration of such rights might imply to future generations that such rights were subject to alteration.
That notwithstanding, our Second Amendment rights have most certainly been subject to much alteration by malicious judicial misinterpretation. Make no mistake: Statists in the executive, legislative and judicial branches who favor a centralized socialist government do endeavor, wherever possible, to enfeeble and erode the Second Amendment. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. To help ensure that the central government would not overstep its constitutional authority, Madison wrote in Federalist No.
They would be signals of general alarm.
It would reduce the whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure. Unfortunately, the law today is barely comprehensible in its scope even to those who legislate and interpret it, and this has dire implications for the federalist system of government established by our Constitution. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a citizen asked Franklin if the delegates had formed a Republic or a monarchy. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the People against the dangers of good intentions.
There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. Is virtue the principle of our Government?
- Mark Alexander: The Patriot's Primer on American Liberty (Full Copyright Text) — The Patriot Post.
- History of the New England Patriots;
- Elle court, elle court la bêtise (French Edition).
- Murder of a Star Quarterback: The Tragic Tale of Steve McNair & Sahel Kazemi (A True Crime Short)!
- How To Tell A Childrens Story / Write a Childrens Book?
Is honor? Or is ambition and avarice adulation, baseness, covetousness, the thirst of riches, indifference concerning the means of rising and enriching, the contempt of principle, the Spirit of party and of faction, the motive and the principle that governs? With such persons, gullibility takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.
Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. As the erosion of constitutional authority undermines individual Liberty, it likewise undermines economic Liberty, and the primary instruments of that erosion are taxation and regulation. Our Founders were clearly concerned about government power to lay and collect taxes.
Their most notable concern was the direct taxation of income and, accordingly, enumerated specific limitations on taxing and spending. That constitutional limitation survived until , when the first income tax was imposed to defray Union costs during the War Between the States. A year later, that tariff was overturned by the Supreme Court as not complying with the limitations set forth in Article 1.
That resulted in the most devastating blow to economic Liberty, dealt by the father of American socialism, Woodrow Wilson. The resulting classism is the bulwark of all socialist movements. Thus, it should be argued that targeting certain classes of income earners constitutes a bill of attainder, which should disqualify all but the even distribution of taxation by way of a flat tax across the board. Roosevelt, who was, ironically, an aristocrat. That is the only American principle. Tax Code. It seeks a centrally planned economy directed by a single-party state that controls economic production via regulation and income redistribution.
All three socialist manifestations are formed around class-warfare propaganda and are in direct opposition to free enterprise. As noted economist and philosopher F. In , John F. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer.
And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. The ability to impose direct taxes to support a welfare state was anathema to our Founders and the Liberty they fought to secure for their posterity. Nor is Congress authorized to institute countless conditions for the redistribution of wealth in its more than 75, pages and four million words of tax code alone, or to impose millions of regulations on everything from carbon emissions to toilet water volume.
So corrupt is this process of funding special interests in return for campaign contributions, and redistributing wealth to ensure constituent votes, that it is now a grave threat to our Representative Republic. Put another way, a large percentage of income is confiscated by the government and redistributed for purposes not expressly authorized by our Constitution, but to ensure constituent support and perpetuate reelection. Additionally, our federal government has in recent years saddled the American people with more debt than in all our history combined — debt that obligates future generations for repayment.
Despite claims to the contrary, the debt issue is not a government revenue problem but, rather, a government spending problem. Tragically, by the second decade of the 21st century, more than 30 percent of Americans are dependent upon redistributed wealth. Thus, they are predisposed to vote for those promising such redistribution rather than those encouraging them to work.
History of the New England Patriots - Wikipedia
Under siege of oppressive taxation, regulation, debt accumulation and social welfare, can our Republic survive? Can Liberty long endure? If we are to bequeath to our posterity the Liberty that our Founders enshrined, as is our charge, then we must return to principium imprimis or First Principles.
We must be steadfast in our advocacy for individual rights and responsibilities, and we must demand the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary. We must be tireless in our promotion of traditional American values, particularly those family values that are the cornerstone of a free society , particularly marriage and family. It is the parent, and not the child of society; the source of civility and a sort of seminary of the Republic. We must support free enterprise in order that all Americans have the opportunity for prosperity, and a strong national defense to protect our national interests.
Our Founders established a Representative Republic, not a democracy, in order to prevent this cycle. However, with the erosion of Liberty and Rule of Law, our Republic is now in jeopardy of falling to the fate of other republics throughout history, where Rule of Law was likewise eroded. Only intervention by citizens and leaders who fight for the primacy of constitutional Rule of Law, those committed to supporting and defending the foundation of Liberty above their self-interest, will secure our Republic for future generations. In , an outspoken advocate for Liberty, Christian minister William J.
Simply put, the central government cannot give to anybody what it does not first take from somebody else. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in Liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. Tocqueville was commenting on Liberty and free enterprise, American style, versus socialism as envisioned by emerging protagonists of centralized state governments.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
Thinking About Patriotism - DBQ
May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! Some of our countrymen are overwhelmed with the current state of our nation. They have resorted to fratricide within their ranks, or have withdrawn from the fields of battle altogether. In so doing, they have forsaken the legacy of Liberty extended to them by generations of Patriots who have sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them. Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or give me death! But all men and women who have stood firm in defense of Liberty, and remain steadfast, can rightly claim the name, Patriot.
They are among the ranks of a grassroots groundswell across the nation in recent years. Increasing numbers of our countrymen are awakening to the serious threats to our Constitution and the irrevocable terminus of those hazards: tyranny. The growing chorus of Patriot voices from every corner of the nation and all walks of life is demanding restoration of Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution. This is the time of their political probation; this is the moment when the eyes of the World are turned upon them.
Ronald Reagan was elected president in on a platform of strong leadership, constitutional integrity and federalism, and he was devoted to that doctrine. They then start to nationalize everything. The principles of Liberty advanced by President Reagan were, and remain, a template for the victory of Liberty over tyranny. But our Legacy of Liberty is at risk today because so many Americans are wholly unable to articulate the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men, Liberty versus statism.
Taxation follow that, and in its turn wretchedness and oppression. Today, our economy is struggling under the enormous weight of mounting debt, and it may eventually implode with much more ominous consequences than those of the Great Depression. Our Founders understood that Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution was the foundational guarantee to protect and sustain Liberty for their generation and that of their posterity. In the current era, however, many federal officeholders have forsaken their oaths and instead focus on redistributing wealth to their special-interest constituencies in order to perpetuate their own re-election.
Here, we can be certain that when the number of constituents who vote for their income and provisions outnumber those who work for their income and provisions, the Republic will be lost. The time has come to inquire with a unified voice: Because there is no explicit constitutional authority for many of the laws and regulations enacted by the legislative and judicial branches, and enforced by the central government, then by what authority do those entities lay and collect taxes to fund such laws and regulations?
President Reagan challenged us to choose which side are we on, and to fully understand the consequences of that choice. The futility of debating policy matters must now yield to a more substantive national debate about constitutional authority and the First Principles of Liberty. If we are to fully restore Liberty and the integrity of our Constitution, we must continue to do so from the bottom up, a groundswell from the grassroots. Indeed, nothing great and enduring has ever been built from the top down. We must therefore start at the foundation, speaking with one disciplined, determined and unified voice toward one primary objective: the re-establishment of Rule of Law.
If we are to succeed, we must understand our Constitution and the Rule of Law it preserves, and we must extend that understanding to others. In the radical right, constitution worship is an article of faith. Yet constitution worship does not encourage or even tolerate critical thinking about the Founders or their work. Nor does it make room for any inquiry into where they might have got things wrong or where or how the Constitution may need fixing.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings. If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again. How the alt-right corrupts the Constitution 0.
The Constitution is interpreted differently by the alt-right. Finn , Wesleyan University About 10 years ago, I spent a sabbatical on the Maine coast writing a book about the Constitution. It is a view that many in the alt-right share. Christian, conservative and white Most observers think the alt-right are conservative extremists, defined chiefly by their loud and proud commitment to white racial superiority and privilege.
Screenshot from The Patriot Post Shop The Alt-constitution — in sharp distinction from the real Constitution — tolerates no restrictions on speech, guns or private property, does not concede that federal laws trump state and local law — although the supremacy clause of Article 6 of the Constitution clearly indicates otherwise — and incorporates the principle of separate but equal. Guns and speech Extreme right-wing thinking about the Constitution is not limited to radical readings of just a few isolated amendments. The Altth amendment, in contrast, is a muddle.
About Latest Posts. Related Posts. Previous One year after Nicaraguan uprising, Ortega is back in control. Next 3-time deported illegal alien from Mexico, previously convicted for voluntary manslaughter, pleads guilty to illegally re-entering US for fourth time.