“The War between the States… produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day. Today’s federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. … [The War] also laid to rest the great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that ‘Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
~ Walter E. Williams

“Red, White, and Blue,” Independence Day, Hillsboro, Oregon

His silence about his faith notwithstanding, Mitt Romney will become the first Mormon to win a major-party presidential nomination. That could put more attention on his religion than any candidate has faced since John Kennedy in 1960, especially as Romney tries to attract skeptical evangelical voters. Meanwhile, President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage and the ongoing social issues surrounding the war on women are bound to intensify criticism from the religious right and the crucial faction of conservative Latino voters.

But religion has profoundly influenced presidential politics since the days of George Washington. As Michael I. Meyerson argues in his new book, “Endowed by Our Creator: The Birth of Religious Freedom in America,” a scholarly account of how the framers of the Constitution viewed the role of religion in government, the current campaign has a lot in common with some of the country’s first electoral bouts. Then as now, Meyerson says, the debates were portrayed as a clash between a godless candidate who wanted a secular country and a true defender who was willing to restore the morals of a Christian nation. He says that the study of the formation of the American government can help us understand the reasons behind the growing partisan divide and help bridge the conflicting religious opinions of both political parties.

Salon spoke to Meyerson — a professor of law and a Piper & Marbury Faculty Fellow at the University of Baltimore. — about the framers of the Constitution, the upcoming elections, and religious discrimination.

Throughout your book, you highlight how some of the writings and actions of the framers of the Constitution have been taken out of their historical context to support the political agendas of both liberals and conservatives. How does the historical record compare to the way both parties portray the framers today?

The framers were generally far more nuanced, complicated and willing to be complicated than the modern political dialogue. They didn’t have to be purely on the left or on the right. Most of them were trying to make a compromise between multiple concerns and constituencies.

Compared to the late 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, how would you describe the current discussion of religion in politics?

In terms of the role of religion in government, what I’ve found is that much of the modern dialogue is trying to make the framers entirely one thing or another. You have those who want to argue for a strict separation of church and state, and those who believe that America is a Christian nation. The

former go through history assuming a lot and use writings by Madison and Jefferson with a very narrow desire to say that government should not have anything to do with religion. The latter look at the large amount of religious reference and activity in the colonies and say that there is a long history of government being entwined with religion. What neither side does is take into account the validity of the history of the other side. What you end up reading are two half-histories, and generally neither political side has been willing to put the two different components together, which is what I tried to do in my book.

You write that it is essential to create an “accurate picture of what freedom of religion meant at the time of the framing” of the Constitution. Why does that matter?

Even though we are a more pluralistic society, it is important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were dealing with a diversity of their own — and with very violent conflicts between the different denominations, some of which were caused and abetted by government. So what we can learn, first of all, is how to balance competing concerns. The debates that we are having about the role of religion in government are not new; we are dealing with a centuries-old debate. The framers, and especially the vastly underrated George Washington, were very aware of the fact that religion could be a force for good and a force for evil. That was what they were trying to balance.

Unlike Madison or Jefferson, Washington was very explicit in saying that he considered divine intervention one of the main reasons we won the Revolutionary War. He saw the hand of Providence in the writing of the Constitution, but he also understood — and this was where his genius was — that if you are sectarian, if you favor any particular religion, you end up dividing, rather than uniting, the nation. So, again, what we can learn from the framers is that government is not barred from acknowledging religion, but that it must do so in an extraordinarily careful and respectful way, in which the goal is making sure that every American feels a part of the country regardless of their religious beliefs.

In your book, Washington emerges as a practical thinker who saw religious freedom as a way of avoiding conflict and promoting morality. While he was in office, he used inclusive religious language in his speeches and was careful not to support the idea that the country was founded as a Christian nation, a belief that many people from the right accept today as an unquestionable truth. Why was the first president so vehement in his refusal to say that Christianity was the nation’s religion?

Washington knew that people don’t go to war for God; they go to war for a particular God. George Washington was unique in American history because he was the first person to look after a united country. He was the head of the military during the Revolutionary War, so he was forced to work with soldiers from all the different states, including those that had different religious backgrounds than his own. He knew that if he wasn’t careful and, more importantly, if his soldiers weren’t careful, then religion was going to destroy his army. Washington had to learn as a military person and as a political person that if you discussed religion, you had to do so in a respectful way. At the same time, he was not going to ignore either his religious views or those of the population.

How have the framers’ views on religious freedom shaped America as a whole?

First of all, they made America, ironically, a more religious country. A lot of the religious movements from the 19th century have their roots in the framers’ actions, given that there was no favored governmental religion. Especially in the newer states, there existed a sentiment that people could find the religion that spoke to them most. Second, once immigrants arrived — and despite the strong anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic views of most people throughout the 19th century — there was always a strong sense that the true American understanding was that all religions were welcome. It became part of the definition of what America was. You had, then, both a space for religion to grow on its own and a welcoming of religion. Finally, the Constitution also allowed for a secular view of society and life to also flourish as government was forced to step away. In the end, there was an ironic combination of more religion and more freedom of religion at the same time.

In your book, you mention the 1800 election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. It was framed in the Gazzette of the United States by the question: “Shall I continue in allegiance to GOD — AND A RELIGIOUS PRESIDENT; Or impiously declare for JEFFERSON — AND NO GOD!!!” There are some parallels with the current elections.

[Laughs] Yes, yes. The idea of a presidential battle being a proxy for a view of religion is very old. Indeed, there was the sense that the Adams side viewed their efforts as the only way to protect religion, and that Jefferson’s side viewed their efforts as the only way to stop an establishment of religion in a narrow sectarian government. One of my goals in the book is to show that the debates that we are having today are not a creation of our times. We can learn from the lessons of the election of 1800. One of the most radical parts of the Constitution said that no one had to take a religious oath to serve in government. It was a major step, a radical change, perhaps the most important moment in American religious history. However, that doesn’t mean that people can’t vote based on their religious beliefs. The vote of 1800 seems to suggest that the people then didn’t want to have a purely religious government. They were more comfortable with the Jefferson approach, which sought to limit the role of government, than with the Adams approach, which was far more sectarian than that of Washington and Jefferson.

Mitt Romney’s religion played a significant role in the Republican primary. Because of his faith, after winning the nomination, he’s been forced to reach out to some of the Christian groups that had previously shunned him. Do you think there’s an implicit faith test for candidates within the GOP and one for the president within the country?

First of all, I think that surely within the country there is. There are surveys that say people will vote for almost anyone over an atheist. There is a 30 or 40 percent part of the population that will not vote for someone who doesn’t believe in God, so there’s definitely a religious test for the highest office.

Within the Republican Party, I think there is also a small group that does have a sort of religious test. Sometimes the test, if you will, will be passed if the candidate abides by politics that mirror religious beliefs, and sometimes [it will be passed] by the adherence to a specific faith.

In the book I tried to avoid the ongoing debate surrounding what were Washington’s and Jefferson’s specific religious faiths. I think that most American voters get that people’s professed faith doesn’t matter, and that someone’s beliefs can be incredibly complicated. What matters is how they live their lives and their view of government. One of the points of the framing period is that there were people that were very conservative, devout and pious men, who believed in a very limited role of government — for example, my hero John Leland, the Baptist minister. On the other hand you had people that were largely irreligious, like Benjamin Franklin, who supported teaching religion because they thought it was good for the masses. In political thought, there’s a sense that people should not search for a candidate with their same religious beliefs, but rather for one whose politics support their religious beliefs and tenets.

Meanwhile, Obama’s spirituality has been questioned many times … 

Yes, he has been forced to declare his religion far more than most other presidents. While George Washington would never say in public that he was a Christian, President Obama has to do it all the time. Whether he is comfortable with it or not is irrelevant, but it’s a shame. It’s sad that we have to brand him with a religion. First of all, it implies something very hostile, given that he’s had to say that he is Christian because he’s been accused of being a Muslim, as if that were something really bad. On the other hand, the fact that he has to declare his religion implies that that is the right religion for a political leader. I don’t think he believes in doing that, but he knows that politically he has to sort of fit in with this mindset.

Taking Romney into account, what I think you end up with, ironically, are two candidates who consider themselves to be Christian, even though the Mormon faith is not considered to be Christian by some Christians, and Obama is not considered to be a Christian by some Christians. Both of them need to present their bona fide credentials in a way that I think works to divide, rather than to unite, religious faith.

And those credentials are the faith test you mentioned earlier.

Exactly. In fact, it was understood by de Tocqueville and others that the governmental oath test was removed, but the individual’s religious test could remain. It has fluctuated over time, and I think you saw it in the Republican primaries. It might be muted a little in this campaign because I think that many people are going to vote for the candidates’ politics and not for a candidate who represents their faith.

Republicans have constantly accused Obama of waging a so-called war on religion. Many Catholic groups have filed law suits against the government claiming that their religious freedom was violated by the inclusion of contraceptives in basic health care coverage for women. His recent statements regarding gay marriage have only exacerbated that view among his opponents. Do you think those complaints have any legal standing? 

Well, let’s break up the two issues. President Obama had to deal with the religious objections to gay marriage by giving his support in religious language, so that’s not a “war on religion.” Both sides can quote the Bible in support of their own beliefs. You can make a very strong religious argument, as he did, in favor of an inclusive view of society to combat those who use their faith to oppose that view.

In terms of the Catholic Church and other institutions being “forced” to provide contraception, the problem is more complicated. There are two different issues here. First, all institutions, religious or otherwise, must follow generally applicable laws. These are laws which require everyone to do something. For example, there’s a famous case in which the state of Oregon banned the use of peyote, the psychedelic drug. At the time, the drug was used recreationally and also for religious purposes by Native Americans. The Supreme Court said that the law didn’t target religion. It was universal: No one could use the law. Therefore, even though the law had the effect of crippling a religious practice, the law was considered to be constitutional because it was neutral.

However, there was a response to that case that [argued for making] exceptions so that religious groups can follow their faith. This was adopted in all sorts of cases, including conscious objectors to the draft. Since then, the government tries to accommodate minority religions, in part because majority religions are always accommodated. Only minority religions need special accommodations.

In the case of Obama and contraception, though, the administration learned from past mistakes and arranged for private insurance companies to be in charge of the distribution of contraception. Meanwhile, there are ongoing negotiations on how to be sensitive to religious needs.

The second issue has to do with those ongoing negotiations. While they are taking place, the Supreme Court is bound to rule on whether the health care act is unconstitutional. If the court rules against it, the whole issue will go away. Now, what’s incredibly sad is that a religious argument has been put in the midst of a political debate. I think that contraception is a very important and difficult issue because there are the rights of religious institutions and also the right of women to have health care. To drag this into court in the middle of the presidential campaign while the negotiations are under way smells more like politics than religion.

Their complaints aside, the Catholics don’t seem to be the religious group that the government has actually targeted. Since 9/11, Muslims have been singled out by, among others, the NYPD. Are there any similar historical precedents in America?

From what I know of the issue, what happened is similar to what was done with other minority religions in the past. Catholics were viewed as suspect because they were connected with foreign powers, be it the Pope or France. There was a suspicion of the whole group, an assumption that anyone who was Catholic couldn’t be loyal. John Kennedy had to deal with that in the 1960 presidential campaign — this presumption not of divided loyalty but of lack of loyalty to America because of your religion. I think you have the exact situation here. There’s an invidious presumption that if you believe in X religion, then you must be part of an alien culture that’s un-American. The widespread distrust of Muslims, whether in fighting where a mosque is built or regarding the monitoring of Muslim individuals, is part of this view that being a part of a minority religion make you un-American.

Why Is There So Much God in America’s Politics? | Belief | AlterNet.

Related articles

• Why Is There So Much God in America’s Politics? (alternet.org)
• Why Is There So Much God in America’s Politics? (charlog.me)
• Hip-Hop Foodies | Too Much God in American Politics | Pharmageddon (womensphilanthropy.typepad.com)
• God is a weapon (salon.com)
• J.C. For President! (patheos.com)
• The Truth About Religion in America: The Founders Loathed Superstition and We Were Never a Christian Nation (chasdarwin.com)
• The Crimson White: Disappointing Concerns About Romney’s Religious Beliefs (huffingtonpost.com)
• Romney’s Mormon faith in spotlight (politico.com)
• Connecting the Political Dots (salem-news.com)
• Study: Liberal Anti-Mormonism On The Rise (buzzfeed.com)

Three quarters of a century after the founding republicanism had given way to nationalism and no document that limited the federal government could be tolerated. A civil war was fought to establish the primacy of the federal government and the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments – ratified and enforced at the point of a bayonet – secured that primacy.

Now comes Dahl, ignorant by nature or design, of the difference between a document meant to assure the rights of states and one meant to forge an omnipotent central government. But more than that he is equal parts social Darwinist and secular millenialist and believes that the he – and those like him – have or are evolving beyond the limits of law while the teeming masses as more than ever in need of herd control. What better way is there for him to enjoy absolute freedom than to live in a world where he is subject to no constitution but may enforce whatever strictures he requires on those who don’t agree with him – and they will have no constitution to protect them?

How democratic is the American constitution?    New Haven, CT : Yale University Press, 2003  Robert A. Dahl Book. Castle lecture series.     2nd ed. 224p. 22 cm. Contains bibliographical material and index. Clean, tight and strong binding. No highlighting or underlining in text. VG  

In this provocative book, one of our most eminent political scientists poses the question, “Why should we uphold our constitution?” The vast majority of Americans venerate the American Constitution and the principles it embodies, but many also worry that the United States has fallen behind other nations on crucial democratic issues, including economic equality, racial integration, and women’s rights. Robert Dahl explores this vital tension between the Americans’ belief in the legitimacy of their constitution and their belief in the principles of democracy.

Dahl starts with the assumption that the legitimacy of the American Constitution derives solely from its utility as an instrument of democratic governance. Dahl demonstrates that, due to the context in which it was conceived, our constitution came to incorporate significant antidemocratic elements. Because the Framers of the Constitution had no relevant example of a democratic political system on which to model the American government, many defining aspects of our political system were implemented as a result of short-sightedness or last-minute compromise. Dahl highlights those elements of the American system that are most unusual and potentially antidemocratic: the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system.

The political system that emerged from the world’s first great democratic experiment is unique — no other well-established democracy has copied it. How does the American constitutional system function in comparison to other democratic systems? How could our political system be altered to achieve more democratic ends? To what extent did the Framers of the Constitution build features into our political system that militate against significant democratic reform?

Refusing to accept the status of the American Constitution as a sacred text, Dahl challenges us all to think critically about the origins of our political system and to consider the opportunities for creating a more democratic society.

Slavery was important to American patriots. It was the opposite of liberty and served as a benchmark against which they measured their own freedom. They continually warned that they would not be denied their rights, saying they must not be the ‘slaves’ of England. The ideals of the Revolution emphasized the incompatibility of slavery in a free land, and slaves petitioned for their freedom using the words of the Declaration of Independence.

African Americans hoped that men who wrote such lofty words as “all men are created equal” would realize the immorality of continuing to enslave their fellow countrymen. ‘We expect great things,’ one group wrote, ‘from men who have made such a noble stand against the designs of their fellow men to enslave them.’

However, the American Revolution and the American colonies’ fight against British oppression did not bring slavery to an end. The words slave and slavery did not appear in the Constitution written in 1787, but the framers of the Constitution struck a compromise allowing the slave trade to continue until 1808. Slavery remained important to the economy of the new nation, and after the Revolution, it became more concentrated in the South.

Benjamin Franklin (Photo credit: elycefeliz)

Today Mrs. Pellecia came and did a lesson on honesty and how we should  use tact when responding to  a variety of situations.  She taught  the 5 finger approach to pause and consider the situation.

Think back about the lesson today and write your thoughts on the following:  

WHY IS USING TACT A GOOD SKILL TO LEARN?    How will YOU use the 5  finger approach?

This subject was the Founding Fathers of the United States and the idea that the country was established in deeply Christian doctrines and philosophies. This interests me not because of the religious aspect, but merely the fact that it is – at least mostly – wrong. And a step above that, at least in my local area, the public education system has a tendency to teach American history with masses of missing information and/or utterly wrong information. It always amazes me how so very many people have massive misconceptions about their own history. Even worse, how little the average person really knows, or cares to know, about history in general.

But back to the article: This particular subject came up in conversation about a week ago with a friend of mine, and by strange happenstance, managed to come up in multiple other conversations with unrelated people, through wholly dissimilar subjects. This was followed by yet another person mentioning this particular issue online.

Finally, this morning, as I was perusing the bargain aisles at the local bookstore, I stumbled across it yet again. Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, a book by Brooke Allen, caught my attention and at the bargain price, I couldn’t pass it up. (Wonderful book, by the way- well written and interesting, and not as tedious as a lot of books of this nature.) I then stumbled upon another wonderful book, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, by James Loewen (which is also a great book – check it out).

Combining inspiration and leads of some of the fine material in these books, with some of my own research and general knowledge, here are some tragically little-known snippets of information I found absolutely necessary to share.

~When the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock, they were actually aiming for Virginia, but ended up in Massachusetts due to a storm (though the storm theory is a bit debated). So why did they stay in Massachusetts? Beer. Their stores were almost gone. Since water “was usually considered suspect, because it easily became contaminated with disease” The Greatest Stories Never Told by Rick Beyer) beer was considered a much more staple drink.

~”In God We Trust” and “under god” in the pledge, were not added or used until well after the founding. The first showed up on our money during the civil war period, and “under god” was added to the pledge during the red scare of the 1950s.

~The majority of the “Founding Fathers” were much more enlightenists than religious. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Tom Paine were all deists (defined as those who “belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation” and generally do not participate in or follow organized religion or it’s doctrine) even if they occasionally did the political thing and showed themselves going to church, etc. They did not denounce Christianity, but simply felt that religion of any kind should be left completely out of government.

~The Puritans that were not the only religious group seeking “freedom of religion” when they came to America. This was one big reason for the Founding Fathers to leave religion out of the government. There was no way to include all of their already established peoples. As for the Puritans themselves, they considered fundamentalists who, in the words of John Adams, would “whip and crop, and pillory and roast” if not kept in check by the legal system (Brooke Allen).

~The pilgrims did not start Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving was made a holiday by Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War in an attempt to inspire patriotism, and the pilgrims weren’t even in the story until around the 1890s. In fact, they were not even called the “pilgrims” until the 1870s. I thought it important to mention as well that only about 30% of those aboard the Mayflower were actually considered pilgrims. (James Loewen)

~The tune of “The Star-Spangled Banner” was taken from a British drinking song of the time.

~As much as the school history books talk about the great victory of the US over Britain in the Revolutionary War, it is rarely mentioned that Britain really wasn’t trying quite as hard as you would think. Only a small portion of their troops were even sent to the US to fight, as they were already fighting the French back home and in their other colonies. Quite frankly, it seems that the Parliament didn’t even have the American colonies very high on the list.

~The British outlawed slavery long before the US.

~Even though many more people know about this, I find it important to mention because I know that at least in the local school systems near my area, this has not been taught in at least 20 years. I checked around, and many, many people in the younger generations are completely unaware. If you knew already, just skip ahead, and I apologize. During WWII, the US imprisoned roughly 120,000 American citizens of Japanese decent in internment camps. More can be learned about this in a great book, Farewell to Manzanarby Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, which details her and her family’s experience in one of the camps.

~There is absolutely no historical evidence that Betsy Ross had anything to do with the American flag. It’s widely thought that her descendents came up with the idea in the 1870s to make a quick buck with a tourist attraction. (James Loewen)

Ok, since I got a bit carried away with the research on this and have enjoyed it a little too much, I will stop there.

The greatest obstacle to discovering the shape of the earth, the continents and the ocean was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. (Daniel J. Boorstin)

History teaches us that society is always at risk of losing its freedom and descending into tyranny because there are always people who wish for and actively seek to rule over others and profit at their expense.

With the separation of powers and checks and balances, western civilization has created systems, best exemplified by the United States Constitution, designed to prevent demagogues from gaining power. However, when people think the political system no longer functions properly, they will demand change, thinking that “anything else will be better than this.” At this point, a demagogue may convince them that he will fix the nation and bring prosperity to all with relative ease. These demagogues tell the people that all they need to do is vote for him and their problems will be solved.

Demagogues seeking to take over the government create or find an enemy to attack and blame. The demagogue informs the public that it is not their fault the economy is bad, they lost in a recent war, or that they are poor. Instead, it is somebody else’s fault. Hitler’s blamed Germany’s problems on both the communists and capitalists, with the Jews supposedly supporting both groups. Julius Caesar blamed the Roman Senate. The Communists in Russia blamed both the Czar and the democrats. With the recent economic weakness and increased partisanship in the United States and Western Europe, there has been a lot of blame bandied about, especially by politicians looking to win election.

Weak economies, a wide disparity between rich and poor sparking class warfare rhetoric, and the perception of a broken political system open the door for an eloquent demagogue to trick the people into voting for him, increasing his power, and paving the way for him or his successor to become a tyrant.

So it is possible for a Nazi-type takeover in the United States or Western Europe? Most certainly. In fact, we have already seen something similar happen just recently in Venezuela, which had been a prosperous western-style nation until the late 1980s when an economic crisis and political corruption paved the way for Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian socialism.

Fortunately, the Founding Fathers of the United States created a system specifically designed to prevent one man or faction from gaining too much power. Western Europe has largely copied that system, with some alterations. Additionally, our long tradition of liberty is not one that people will throw away lightly. However, an eloquent demagogue promising peace and prosperity at no expense amid economic and political chaos may, at times, be able to overthrow the delicate political, economic, and social system we have. This happened in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, ancient Israel, Russia in the 1910s, Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 1930s, and Venezuela in the 1990s, to name just a few of the most notable examples.

Only through eternal vigilance against demagogues, their false promises, and their scapegoating of minority groups can we prevent Nazi-type takeovers in the United States and Western Europe.

Michael E. Newton, KT3

– Michael E. Newton is the author of the highly acclaimed The Path to Tyranny: A History of Free Society’s Descent into Tyranny. His newest book, Angry Mobs and Founding Fathers: The Fight for Control of the American Revolution, was released by Eleftheria Publishing in July.

Defiance

LIKE ALL THINGS artful, style requires balance – in this case, between respecting the rules and blowing them off. Style believes in principles of color and cut, but would betray them in a flash to claim the room. And there’s a reason why this is especially true of men’s style: We become most exciting when we set our own course. When Fred Astaire used a necktie as a belt, he knew it wasn’t done, except for the fact that he did it. Style requires both a sense of custom and a sense of “screw you.” - (Taken from Men’s Health, Sept 2004 issue)

During my sophomore year of college, my roommate found a westerns marathon on some channel and I couldn’t get him off the couch for days because of it. More recently, I started watching John Wayne movies after seeing an episode of NCIS that had to do with a decorated Marine who fought at Iwo Jima during WWII. The wild West was won by defiant men. Their exact actions would probably not be condoned in today’s society but their spirit is certainly desired.

We’ve valued that same spirit in many ages. Leonidas and the names of the 300 Spartan warriors who battled at Thermopylae are the only names ever to be recorded upon a monument.The founding fathers of the United States whose powerful movement to take what they considered to be the domain of all men from the most powerful empire in the world at that time. Robert Falcon Scott who defied the horrendous cold conditions of Antarctica to find the South Pole. Bruce Lee refused to kow-tow to the insular Chinese population in America and taught kung-fu to whomever wished to learn.

Defiance is tricky. We don’t want to face it when it impedes our progress toward personal goals. The business manager doesn’t want defiance among his/her employees. Yet that business manager may have defied his/her previous employer and now at the helm of a business that models the reason for that very defiance. Without defiance, Chicago wouldn’t have Lou Malnati’s deep dish pizza nor would we have the Beatles because Decca execs were saying that “…guitar music is on the way out.”

Uh-Huh

Business must be very good for them to flip the bill on BOTH displays (one being held Saturday night and the other tonight).

I am past the feel-good, emotional BS about “God and Country”. I can no longer pretend that we are moral and that we are the world’s protectorates, when it is obvious that our intent is the exact opposite (no matter how brainwashed rednecks believe the rhetoric). I can’t feel any patriotism or honor for my country when it has become little more than what we actually rebelled and declared our independence from in the first place. What more does a person need to see than the latest Navy TV commercials that come right out and say that we are a “Global Force For Good“? Seriously, can anyone who knows anything about the Founding Fathers justify such an ideal that we should be a global anything? Much less the foolishness that we represent “good”. Makes me want to puke.

Seriously, if anyone actually takes the time to study what, exactly, the Declaration of Independence actually is, then they would know that our Founding Fathers were telling an empire’s leader we will not be a part of his kingdom and that a man’s freedom reigns. I cannot recommend the following Corbett Report audio link (and documentation also provided) enough:

Episode 193 – Philosophy of Freedom: The Declaration of Independence

(Nicely laid out for those who are trying to grasp what was meant and what has actually occurred instead. Especially the first 30 minutes or so)

It is a fact that we are brainwashed to believe that America is honorable and that the actions we take are for the world’s benefit. But any cursory view and real, honest evaluation shows this to be a sickening farce. We have become precisely what we rebelled from, yet, by and large, most Americans are too stupid or nationalistic to understand this very simple point.

So, how is it that we have become almost exactly what it was that we rebelled from in the first place? I suggest you read Steve Lendman’s latest piece, “Independence Day Hypocrisy” to get an understanding of how much bullshit you have been fed about the original rebellion and to learn the truth about just how far from prefect the founding of this nation actually was. In his article, he quotes from Howard Zinn’s 2009 piece, “Untold Truths About The American Revolution” to help us understand:

Was waging war then really worth it, taking perhaps 25,000 – 50,000 American lives, the “equivalent today to two and a half million (at the lower estimate) to get England off our backs.”

Canada ended British without war. So did Western Massachusetts farmers “driv(ing them out) without firing a single shot. They had assembled by the thousands and thousands around courthouses and colonial offices and they had just taken over (and) said goodbye to the British officials” nonviolently.

America’s revolution was much different, but who “gained what?” Most Americans were poor. “(T)he Founding Fathers were rather rich” with much different interests from ordinary people. “Do you think the Indians cared about independence” or Blacks held involuntarily as slaves?

“Slavery was there before (and) there after. Not only that, we wrote slavery into the Constitution. We legitimized it.”

“What about class divisions?” America was a racist class society then and remains one today to benefit elitist interests at the expense of working households, especially Black and Latino ones. “We try to pretend in this country that we’re all one happy family. We’re not.”

We all know this is true: that we are nowhere near one big happy family. And this is certainly by design. They never wanted ALL MEN to be free men or have the ability to vote and self-determination. The founders had an agenda, too, even tho there was “some” idealistic purpose beyond simply rebelling from a king.

Andrew at Failed Empire tells us the truth about the situation:

… Given all the atrocities that have been committed by Americans since the birth of our nation — the mass genocide of the Native Americans, the systematic suppression of African Americans well into the 20th century and beyond, the widespread exploitation of developing countries around the globe, the wars, the death, the torture — is there really any cause for celebrating the day that the U.S. came into being?

The question boils down to finding the balance between the benefits and the harm that we have brought into the world.  Have our positive accomplishments outweighed the vast destruction and oppression that we have reeked?  At this point in history, looking at our five concurrent wars, the Patriot Act, the very real likelihood of government complicity in the horrific events of 9/11, I would have to say no.  The United States, in spite of being founded on the noblest of principles of human rights and democratic values, has caused far more harm than good, and seems a blight on the face of the earth, a parasite leeching off the blood and wealth of the masses, hindering progress and development for all mankind.

The ideals for which we profess to stand, however, are worth celebrating, regardless of whether or not we actually uphold them.  If the great American Empire were to collapse tomorrow — which is not altogether unthinkable — I would breathe a deep sigh of relief, as I’m sure much of the world would do as well.  For the countless millions for whom life has been made intolerable by American military and economic oppression, the dismantling of our modern imperial empire would be a cause for jubilation, as the single greatest impediment to world peace and prosperity would have ceased to exist.

So, yeah, I will watch fireworks tonight, but I won’t be waving flags or patting service members on the back for “fighting for my freedoms”. I won’t be disparaging these same people, either. To each his own, but I will be telling anyone who will listen the truth about this day and the truth about what this country has become in face of what its intent was, even the bullshit intention.

People need to know the truth.

If you like what you see here at The Revolt, please subscribe via Email subscription or by the RSS Feed button found on the upper right hand corner of this page and/or hit the Share Button at the bottom of the post to share via various means.

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Here it comes as we all knew it would:

B a r a c k a c u s s t u s   C a e s a r

While all of America is distracted and focused on the death of Osama bin Laden, our President has been fast at work laying the groundwork for S. 679: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 to speed through the Senate and then make its way into the House and then to the President to sign. Brought to you by your Democratically Controlled Senat … Read More

via Voting American

Related articles

• Senate Bill S679 giving Obama the Power of a Caesar/Dictator (votingamerican.wordpress.com)
• Your Senate is Voting to make Obama an American Caesar! (ireporters.wordpress.com)
• Barackacusstus Caesar…..The making of an American Dictator (ireporters.wordpress.com)
• Senate Seeks to Create Caesar (destructionist.wordpress.com)
• “Bipartisan” doesn’t make S.679 right, just a two-partied wrong (ladylibertysmuse.wordpress.com)
• Streamlining Our Freedom Away… S.679 Must Not Pass! (ladylibertysmuse.wordpress.com)
• Senate Bill S679 giving Obama the Power of a Caesar/Dictator (via Voting American) (ireporters.wordpress.com)
• The Fundamental Transformation of America is Here (votingamerican.wordpress.com)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In modern usage, the term “dictator” is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly^{[citation needed]}. Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality.^{[citation needed]}

Obama’s Fundamental Transformation of America is just about complete.

On March 30, 2011, Senator Charles Schumer (D–NY) with 15 cosponsors, including the Senate Majority and Republican Leaders, as well as six other Democratic Senators, six other Republican Senators, and an Independent Senator,[1] introduced in the Senate the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 (S. 679). The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

 H  o  p  e  and  C  h  a  n  g  e

The Heritage Foundation

Related articles

• Senate Bill S679 giving Obama the Power of a Caesar/Dictator (votingamerican.wordpress.com)
• Your Senate is Voting to make Obama an American Caesar! (ireporters.wordpress.com)
• “Bipartisan” doesn’t make S.679 right, just a two-partied wrong (ladylibertysmuse.wordpress.com)
• Barackacusstus Caesar…..The making of an American Dictator (ireporters.wordpress.com)

Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 to speed through the Senate and then make its way into the House and then to the President to sign.

Like we have said here time and time again, with Obama you have to watch what the other hand is doing while being distracted by other Crisis’s elsewhere.

Here it comes as we all knew it would:

B a r a c k a c u s s t u s   C a e s a r

From the:  The Heritage Foundation

 The bill reduces the number of presidential appointments that require the consent of the Senate and establishes within the executive branch a Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations. Individuals nominated to senior executive offices suffer slow and detailed background investigations and mounds of duplicative paperwork before a President sends their nominations to the Senate. After nomination, many nominees suffer time-consuming inaction or time-consuming and excruciating action as the Senate proceeds (or does not) with consideration of the nomination. The sponsors of S. 679 have identified a valid problem, but proposed the wrong solution. Congress should not enact S. 679.

When the delegates of the states gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and wrote the Constitution, they distributed the powers of the federal government among two Houses of Congress, a President, and a judiciary, and required in many cases that two of them work together to exercise a particular constitutional power. That separation of powers protects the liberties of the American people by preventing any one officer of the government from aggregating too much power.

 The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate’s consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.

Where is the Media and why aren’t they reporting on this?

From Voting American we read:

Senate Bill S679 giving Obama the Power of a Caesar/Dictator

Related articles

• Streamlining Our Freedom Away… S.679 Must Not Pass! (ladylibertysmuse.wordpress.com)
• “Bipartisan” doesn’t make S.679 right, just a two-partied wrong (ladylibertysmuse.wordpress.com)
• Senate Bill S679 giving Obama the Power of a Caesar/Dictator (votingamerican.wordpress.com)
• Your Senate is Voting to make Obama an American Caesar! (ireporters.wordpress.com)