A LITERGY OF LIBERTY-PART 1

Let's define our terms.

LIBERTY: autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence; freedom of choice; personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression.

Autonomy: Ancient Greek: αυτονόμος autonomos, Modern Greek: αυτονομία autonomia, from auto "self" + nomos, "law": immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence.

Immunity :unsusceptibility: the state of not being susceptible; the quality of being unaffected by something.

Arbitrary: Based on individual discretion or judgment; Unrestrained by law; tyrannical; Determined by impulse rather than reason.

Statesman Patric Henry knew LIBERTY would not come easy to this new nation-to-be.

He said, "The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!"

He knew that he knew that some things are worth fighting for, LIBERTY being chief among them.

The Father of Our Country, George Washington proclaimed, "...my fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations that His providential care may still be extended to the United States, that the virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved, and that the Government which they have instituted for the protection of their LIBERTIES may be perpetual." [Washington's final annual message to congress - december 7, 1796...(caps mine).]

From the website, The American Revolution HERE, we read: "It is important to remember that several people contributed to the events surrounding the American Revolution. Many think that there were a minimum of 100 people who if they had not been born, we may still be subjects of the British Crown. Many of these individuals are not seen in the same vein as people like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, but those two would be the first to admit that the success of the "great experiment" was the result of thousands of people who laid their life on the line for a specific purpose. Freedom..."

People like: John Adams; George Washington; Thomas Jefferson; James Madison; James Monroe; Samuel Adams; John Hancock; Patrick Henry; Thomas Paine; Paul Revere; Richard Henry Lee; John Dickinson; Benedict Arnold; John Paul Jones; Nathanael Greene; John Jay; Henry Knox; William Prescott; Dr. Joseph Warren; Francis Lightfoot Lee; Ethan Allen; James Wilson; Benjamin Rush; John Quincy Adams and so many others gave both their time and their lives for the causes of LIBERTY.

So, how does this LIBERTY thing play out in your life?

How much stock do you put in LIBERTY?

Is LIBERTY just a passing fad?

Were the men and women who set forth this nation "...conceived in LIBERTY..." all fools?

Has the idea of LIBERTY seen its day?

Is it time that the words of Abraham Lincoln, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." be abandoned?

Which of your LIBERTIES are you willing to give up "for the good of the whole?"

Can you make me a list of them?

As for me, I will take my stand with Patrick Henry: "...GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH!"

I am ready, willing and able to fight to the death for LIBERTY, as did my forefathers.

Are you?

HEAR OUR CRY, OBAMA!

This video has just been brought to the surface.

This is a group of "Community Organizers," The Gamaliel National Clergy Caucus, with a casket that symbolized the "death" of America.

They enter the room with the chant, "Everybody in...nobody out!"

Then they seem to engage in an antiphonal prayer with the repeated refrains of, "Hear our cry Obama," and "Deliver us Obama."



There is discussion about what they are actually saying in this video, but when I first saw it on breitbart.tv HERE, there was no doubt in my un-coached mind as to what they were saying. What do you think?

And then there is this:




There is no doubt about what is going on in that one.

WHAT'S IT REALLY ALL ABOUT?

Let's say I want to start a business.

I think of a good idea, perhaps a product that I think people will feel like they just have to have.

Sitting down with my trusty calculator I discover that I don't have enough money to purchase the equipment to manufacture the product or to pay workers to produce it.

So my good idea must just languish in philosophical purgatory until either someone else thinks of it who does have enough money to produce it or I lose interest and go do something else.

But wait!

There are some people I've talked to who also think it is a good idea, but don't have the time or desire to produce the product themselves.

They could help me get my business started in exchange for a share of the profits, with the understanding that if it produces the goods and people like and want the goods, the business will make enough money to give them a good return on their investment.

They are willing enough to take the risk to invest in my business in order to receive a financial blessing from it in the future.

I, in turn, use their money (and mine) to produce the product and lo-and-behold the product catches on and people all over the world clamor for it, buying it as fast as my company can produce it.

WOW!

If I can increase production, and if the sales continue, my little company will make more money, show a bigger profit, and my investors will gain an even greater dividend.

So my company grows and soon it is as big as Microsoft and I am as wealthy as Bill Gates.

Now, there are those who think that should be against the law.

They think that if I have a good idea I should submit it to the government and they should take the resources of all of the good citizens, help my company grow and take the proceeds and divide them among the populace so that everybody benefits from my business.

Then the government tells me what the limits are on what I can earn from my business and once I reach that figure, I can earn no more. But my business can continue to grow and the overage spread among the populace so that once more everybody benefits.

Problem.

I don't have a desire to work hard enough to produce a product from which I can gain no further benefit.

So, I slack off and just do what the government says I have to do.

My business stagnates, the government gets mad at me and tells me they will take over my business.

Since they are neither equipped to conduct my business nor knowledgeable enough to run it, they sooner or later decide that it wasn't that great of a business anyway and just walk away from it.

See...I know that is all very simplistic and that a lot of factors were left out, but it serves to illustrate what is happening in our country.

The phrase "FREE enterprise system" doesn't mean it does not cost anything, it means the system if free from government interference.

Well, don't recent events prove that more government regulation is needed?

Absolutely NOT!

It proves government interference CAUSES problems.

Well, don't recent events prove that greed and corruption will take place.

Sure.

They will take place no matter who is in control.

Don't be so stupid as to think there is no government corruption.

Think Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, Tip O'neal, Chris Dodd and friends.

There is a statue that stands in New York Harbor called the Statue of Liberty.

Our Pledge of Allegiance ends, "...with liberty and justice for all."

See, we are a liberty based society.

As a liberty based society, the bad apples eventually weed themselves out and the good apples rise to the top.

The more "control" that seeps into the system, the more ambivalence over what is right and what is wrong takes over, and the more bad apples appear.

The best thing for the country would be for government form what it is supposed to form, to establish what it is supposed to establish, to insure what it is supposed to insure, to provide what it is supposed to provide, promote what it is supposed to promote and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.

When that happens, just sit back and watch the economy take off again!

SUNDAY SAYINGS FROM OUR FOUNDERS 9/27

"Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer."

Elias Boudinot: PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT

YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS: A TAX IS NOT A TAX

Wana spend some jail time?

Under the health care plans making their way through congress, if you don't purchase health care, you are liable for a fine of up to $3,600.00

Does that seem fair to you?

One plan says if you don't pay the fine, you are liable for an additional fine of up to $1,900.00!

Does that sound fair to you?

If you don't pay the fine, you are subject to jail time of up to one year.

Does that sound fair to you?

Where is the "liberty for all" hidden in all of that?

Where is the "justice for all" hidden in all of that?

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the legal actions would come from the IRS!

Yet, we are assured that the $3,600.00 is not a tax...neither is the $1,900.00.

Does that make sense to you?

When questioned by Republican, John Ensign of Nevada, Thomas Barthold, the JCT's chief of staff, said the IRS would "take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings."

If the penalty is not a tax, why would the IRS be involved? Why not the Department of Justice?

When Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, tried to introduce an amendment that would strike down the individual mandate, his amendment was struck down.

Now, why would our lawmakers impose a fine on those who do not want to choose to purchase health insurance?

According to President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks), it is because it would be unfair if someone who chose not to carry insurance got sick had their illness paid for by those who obeyed his mandate and bought health coverage.

If you are a liberal, can't you see the trampling of liberty and freedom manifested in that policy?

Of course you can't. Your mental illness has rendered you unable to think straight.

With every passing day, this administration moves closer and closer to destroying this Republic.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government we got from that historic 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia , he replied, "...a republic, if we can keep it."

It looks to me as if we are not doing a good job of keeping it.

Soon we will be saying, "I pledge allegiance to the Obamabanner, and to the dictatorship for which it stands, a divided nation, ignoring God, with excessive taxes for all and jail time for many."

Yet you liberals still think government manipulated health care is the way to go.

I will take no joy, when you begin crying about how you wish you had been able to see this disaster coming, in saying, "I told you so."

PRAISE HIM! PRAISE HIM! OBAMA OUR BLESSED...OH, NEVER MIND

This was filmed at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ on June 19, 2009.

OK!

Now, use the comments section to make me a list of all of the other sitting presidents in our history about whose praises children in school have been taught to sing.

Who have you listed?

George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? Ronald Reagan? Bill Clinton? George Bush?

How about in dictatorships past or present?

Chairman Mao? Joseph Stalin? Castro?

Of course, in the dictatorships, the governments were using indoctrination tactics.

The children in this video were not being indoctrinated at all...were they?

How about here:

Of course it is totally unfair to make any comparisons...right?

Totally.

WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE

A really super video has been put together by Paul Williams.



So, if I understand liberals correctly, when a conservative refers to President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) as "Hitler," it is a terrible, dangerous, fringe-group, right-wing hate-speech thing, but when liberals did it to President Bush, complete with the little mustache and swastikas galore, it was deserved criticism.

When conservatives use rhetoric that seems to threaten President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks), it is hateful and awful, but when liberals did it (and still do it) to President Bush it was OK.

When conservative talk-show hosts ridicule President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) with caricature it is a terrible thing, but when liberals ridiculed President Bush on SNL and other venues, it was perfectly permissible.

Did I get that right?

Come on, you stupid, hair brained, hypocritical liberals. Explain that to me.

With every passing day you are becoming more and more like lilly-livered, yellow-bellied, sap-suckers who couldn't think your way out of a wet paper sack. You are the epitome of venomed, swag-bellied skainsmates.

How on earth do you DARE to use a word like "hypocrisy" when referring to conservatives' characterizations of President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) ?

You are its very definition.