Vanishing Freedoms

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have… – Thomas Jefferson

The seeds of ‘Big Government’ were sown during the Woodrow Wilson and the Theodore Roosevelt administrations with the establishment of the progressive income tax, Federal Drug Administration, the Federal Reserve Bank and the League of Nations in the early 1900’s. Along with these events, a populist mentality was established that said government should and was the preferred entity to solve societal and world problems.

But during the Great Depression of the 1930s, a radical and fundamental change occurred that altered the nature of American society. It was called the “New Deal”. The Democratic controlled congress, along with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, instituted a huge array of federal social programs, entitlements, taxes and regulation that circumvented the boundaries of our Constitution by violating state sovereignty and private property rights.

When the Federal courts tried to intervene in stopping these intrusions into the states and individual rights, Roosevelt threatened to pack the court with like minded liberal justices who would advocate his policies, a tactic still used today to change American society when the majority of the general public opposes government policy. Instead of amending the Constitution seeking permission to grant the government additional powers or change established law, as the founders intended, it is simply given more authority through judicial activism and court orders by unelected judges who aren’t accountable to the American people.

Simply put, and so accurately espoused by Mark Levin, Roosevelt’s policies left the U.S with a legacy of massive, unaccountable corporation which has become the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider and pension guarantor, with more and more power given to the central government with every new program initiated. In turn, individual freedom and states authority are being reduced exponentially.

Sadly, the American people’s perception of this authority has fundamentally changed also. The basic founding concept that the “Central Government works for the people”, is being replaced with the false notion that, “Government has the ultimate power that dictates policy”, which in turn, grants freedom and benefits to all states and its people.

In reality, elected representatives and the Federal government are given their powers by the people, and it’s the people for whom they work for and serve, as stated in the Constitution.

However, big government controls more of our economy than ever, it controls more of our daily lives more than ever, and it is changing the fundamentals of our society at an ever increasing and alarming rate. In many ways these profound internal changes are more insidious and destructive than the outside threats of aggressor nations.

The additional threats we now face, are from within… gradual and incremental revolution conveniently cloaked in the flag and patriotism, thus fooling the unaware, ill-informed and un-informed populous. Many of these changes and actions are calculated and deliberately intended and designed to separate the people from their U.S. Constitution and the founding principles.

I tend to believe that the displaced socialist and communist remnants of the failed Soviet state of yesterday had found refuge in the modern U.S. progressive movement and the Democrat Party of today.

Big Central government sponsored “Nannyism” and “Collectivism” is replacing “Rugged Individualism” and “Capitalism”. And as many noted policy makers, historians and scholars have pointed out, once you lose freedoms, it’s almost always impossible to get them back, unless by force.

Now, we’ve all heard of Sonia Sotomayor, and some of her highly controversial remarks, but should those controversial remarks hold her from being confirmed?

Let’s first look at what her job would be. According to Wikipedia (which is sometimes useful):

“A supreme court, also called a court of last resort or instance, court of final appeal or high court, is in some jurisdictions the highest judicial body within that jurisdiction’s court system, whose rulings are not subject to further review by another court. The designations for such courts differ among jurisdictions. Courts of last resort typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from the lower trial courts or intermediate-level appellate courts.”

Note, that nowhere in that does it say that the court has anything to do with policy making, or law making decisions does it? Now, without getting into the dry, and long winded explanation from our founders as to what the Courts are for, let me sum it up in this: “The Court system is the 3^rd power in a check and balance system. It is to interpret the law regarding whatever case is in front of it.” Certainly, if we had 3 bodies in our government that could create policy and law, our system would be off balance. Thus, it is only Congress’s job to create policy.

I would think understanding your job, and the responsibilities of your job, would be critical to being hired; especially for such a powerful position. However, as shown in this video clip (and on YouTube) she obviously believes that it is her job to create policy. Now, this would be fine in some other country, but this isn’t how America is run. Obviously, she doesn’t understand her job.

You would think, that if you were interviewing someone for the highest court in this Nation, that you would want answers to crucial questions that she may face as a Supreme Court Judge. Yet when asked things that we, the America public, find to be hot topics, she avoids answering the questions. Now some may think that this is a minor issue, but would you hire someone who wouldn’t answer your question about whether or not they were a felon? Or had stolen from an employer? Or if they even supported the widgets that you produced and sold? Obviously she fears that her opinion will be out of step with what a majority of the American public believes, so she chooses to keep dynamite topics out of reach. She can’t risk a loud public outcry to stop her confirmation.

We’ve heard all these amazing stories about her past, how she grew up, her gender, and her ethnicity, yet do any of these answer the questions as to who she is and how she will rule on cases? No, they don’t. We hear about how she considers herself a “wise Latina,” yet why doesn’t even she say that she is a wise American? She wasn’t born in Puerto Rico, she was born in the Continental United States. She’s a citizen. She’s an American. So why the race card? Why the gender card? Why should we care what color/sex/height/weight she is and not just care that she is an American?

It is where she stands on issues, and what her character is that is most important, and I would have to assume that intelligent people on both sides of the aisle would agree with me on that. So why would we want to support someone who obviously believes that the law should FORCE all men to be equal based on race? Our country and government isn’t here to make all people equal, it is to treat them all as equals. What that individual does with the base of being treated like everyone else is up to them. When she withheld a promotion from all firemen, because there weren’t enough “African-American’s” that scored well on the test, she not only created a racial divide, but she withheld rights from men who earned that promotion. How equal and fair is that?

When one is called a bully by her peers and coworkers, even before she is appointed to be Obama’s first pick for the Supreme Court, you have to question her character. Is she really going to be fair and use sound judgment? Or will she coerce, and push here way through decisions and cases to get what her personal agenda wants? Even after the Supreme Court (the very court she is “applying for”) decided that the 2^nd Amendment is most assuredly a personal right that is not only federal, but extends to states as well, she ignored their decision and many decisions made before them in various cases, and “…held that the Constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms against infringement by state and local governments.”
When the 14^th Amendment specifically {imposed new restrictions on the States, forbidding them to abridge the “privileges or immunities” of American citizens or to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”} – RCP

So where does that leave us? We obviously have someone who believes their background, gender, and race should be of matter to her confirmation. She’s a bully who doesn’t understand the job she is eager to start, and has knowingly made decisions that are in direct violation of what the VERY COURT she is awaiting to be a part of. Remember folks, there is no term limit on Supreme Court Judges. Once they are in, they are in until they choose to retire. Is this really the type of person we want hearing the most important cases in this country? Or do we as the American people deserve a judge with less personal agenda and bias? Or do we want someone who knows the duties of their position, and interprets the law with a clear, and un-biased mindset.