Categorized | News

   

Patriotic Politicians

Posted on 14 June 2013 by kevin

Patriotic Politicians More often than not these two words would NEVER be used together, or in the same sentence for that matter, when discussing elected officials of the federal U.S. government. Very few individuals involved with big government are worthy of even being identified as potential candidates for the title of patriotic politicians. Make no mistake, I use the term patriotic politicians lightly, and loosely, since there isn’t a single one of them capable of complete honesty or transparency. In fact the overall majority of them are little more than soul selling spawns from the depths of Hades.

We have some up and coming younger senators who publicly exhibit the characteristics that cause me to consider them as possible patriotic politicians. Two of these junior statesmen have the moxie, the mojo and the will and determination to buck the traditional system. This fact alone makes them worthy of being considered patriotic politicians. The two senators I speak of are Rand Paul from Kansas and Ted Cruz from Texas. Both of these individuals happen to be Republican, which provides a glimmer of hope for the 2016 election, should they happen to join forces and run on the same ticket. Right now they are the two best choices we have that are representative of what patriotic politicians should embody.

Breitbart:

““When the Senate rushed through a last-minute extension of the FISA Amendments Act late last year, I insisted on a vote on my amendment (SA 3436) to require stronger protections on business records and prohibiting the kind of data-mining this case has revealed,” Paul continued. “Just last month, I introduced S.1037, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act, which would provide exactly the kind of protections that, if enacted, could have prevented these abuses and stopped these increasingly frequent violations of every American’s constitutional rights.”

Mr. Paul has a plan, one that aims to provide additional protections against corrupt government practices, instead of attempting to circumvent our rights to meet their own misguided desires. It’s actually no big surprise this amendment wasn’t voted on or passed, hell it would establish another barrier for the federal government to leap frog in order to continue acting out of control. They can’t have patriotic politicians in the mix, it goes against the grain.

Breitbart:

““The bill restores our Constitutional rights and declares that the Fourth Amendment shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United States government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause,” Sen. Paul concluded.

Last month, Paul’s bill was to “protect” the 4th Amendment. Today, the legislation is to “restore” it. I don’t think that’s the change most Americans signed up for with Obama.”

200 years ago our forefathers foresaw this type of event taking place. They acted accordingly, penning an amendment to protect future generations from the tyranny they had fled.

Mediaite:

“Speaking on the Glenn Beck Show Thursday night, Texas Senator Ted Cruz unfurled a list of violations that he says shows “a pattern of this administration not respecting the Bill of Rights and not respecting the Constitution.””

I know there are some that will view this statement as nothing more than bipartisan bickering between political parties, it isn’t. Ted Cruz is just another of the patriotic politicians who understands the excessive abuse displayed by those in power.

Mediaite:

““Every American,” Cruz said, “conservative or liberal, should be concerned when the federal government arrogates to itself so much power that it admits no limits under the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.””

I’d say Mr. Cruz placed the head of the hammer in direct contact with the top of the nail and drove the spike home for all to be heard. These are the types of patriotic politicians we need to hold higher offices once America has been resurrected from the ashes of the Obama administration!



2 Comments For This Post

  1. randy Says:

    Sad that only 2 of 535 politicians in Congress are constitutional+-. And neither are as constitutional as Ron Paul was.

  2. Martin Kinnaman Says:

    My question for Rand Paul; Why is it necessary to make more legislation to counter legislation that apparently usurped the 4th Amendment??? Does it not take an Amendment process to alter or remove or enact an Amendment?
    The “play” of politics here is disgusting! The belief, that politics usurps law is the fallacy that was started before the ink had dried on the parchment of the Bill of Rights.
    I understand why the “self evident” statements of the Declaration of Independence could not fully be realized. Hell, society of that time had women with little to no legal status, institutionalized slavery throughout half the colony’s, and a religious mentality that promoted these paternally elitist concepts. But is this still the case? Are we still that primitive in our beliefs, that we cling to obvious predjudices?
    The reason “The Law” as the Founders referred to it was not codified was that it could not pass the societal belief structure test. That is not the case anymore. As corrupt as the system has become (and not as much worse than then, just that there is no more frontiers to conquer so the corruption must settle within and feed upon itself) the system for self correction is still in place.
    1) Codify LAW. We need a base code for Law. The Bill of Rights were never intended to be a base code of law for the electorate. These were rules/laws for the Federal Government, their employees and contractors. Never for US. We had “The Law” which was similar to what Bastia said in his little book “The Law” in several paragraphs or what Richard J. Maybury says in 17 words, ie: “Do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons or their property”. Codify this or something akin to it and have each “Jury of our Peers” judge each case based on LAW and not some political rule.
    2) Hold our “leaders” to their Oaths of Office!! The reason the Oath is to the Constitution was to hold these A-holes to “the chains that bind them” (Jefferson) by their swearing or affirming (a legal and binding contract with the electorate) that they would do their duty as clearly and plainly written (enumerated powers) and nothing more.
    3) Jury’s must come to understand that Law is not legislation. Legislation are rules. Law is higher. We live in a society that believes rules usurp law. This is politics. The game of politics is to see who gets to feed from the public trough first. A pecking order game?? Civilization?? How ignorant and arrogant must we be?
    We can still vote (although it is questionable whether it is counted correctly with the machines and process we have allowed). It would take six years to completely change our “leadership”. During this time, if we educate people to understand that Law is not rules. And not allow rules to usurp law or allow the “leaders” to violate their Oaths by legislating beyond the Bill of Rights. We can effectively “change” the course of the country without the revolution that so many seem to cavalierly cry for. This battle would be fought in our homes. Our children will not read of it, they might not survive it. Imagine the example we could set for all of time, if we can come from this level of world wide corruption and re-establish the “All Men Are Created Equal” principle without burning up the world. Would it not prove we are worthy of existence?
    The Constitution and Bill of Rights were set up to mitigate the fallacy of the “Better Management Theory of Government” that has been in the mindset of people for so many thousands of years. People are going to be people. They will try to protect their interests and consolidate power. That is the role of party’s. America was to have limited government over individuals and groups. The government was to be tasked to provide a Law abiding environment for the free actions of people and society. Living “within LAW” was not a bunch of hokey rules but LAW!
    Imagine if you will indulge, society in which every snot nosed new adult had to at least be able to do all they have agreed to do (honor their contracts and think about what they were agreeing to {caveat emptor} and do not encroach on other persons or their property (if it is not yours, it is not yours!! {your grandmother taught you that}). Most people live by the law anyway, it is inborn and naturally taught. Probably only 5% of the population believes that they have a “right” to harm others or take their shit. Let’s codify LAW so that the bully’s and the Tyrants have to watch out for law, not the rest of US! Almost all the problems are created or empowered by making rules that usurp Law. Government is force. To not respect that and fear that is foolish in the Nth degree. Our politicians and even the “freedom movement” is fragmented by “issues”. But the real and basic issue is freedom of choice and thought. The COMPROMISE is that I must respect your freedom as you respect mine and visa versa. Are “We The People” ready for this? Is it not obvious that the political wrangling and fighting over who’s Right and who’s Wrong is never ending? If “Right makes might” then “Might makes Right”. Who decides? Isn’t this what the jury of our peers concept is about? “Do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons or their property”. Live within the law and have a wonderful time. It would be interesting, but peaceful.
    Most of the “hot button” issues are not really political (if examined in the light of law), but Legal issues between affected party’s. Allowing the court system (civil) to handle most of this regionally or locally was the reason for the Federation of Sovereign States in the first place. This is why democracy was for the villages and townships, maybe the districts, hardly ever for the states and never for the Federation. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for lunch!
    Einstein said that fixing a problem can’t be achieved by the same level of consciousness that created it. These “times” have been predicted for over 4,000 years by every religion and prophet worthy of his funny little hat. What would a social “new consciousness” look like. I’ll bet it starts with enshrining LAW. That which is Common (or “Natural”) to all. Whether an individual, club, group, business, corporation, religion, or government,,, all have the RESPONSIBILITY to behave within Law. And, if behaving within law, then ALL can not be legally screwed with (socially will be another matter. But at least the legal teeth that create the black markets and inequity’s will not be there). Does the current system with the “government” in between the victim and the perp no smack of “The Kings Peace” from old feudalism? How is it working?
    The “Invisible”hand spoken of in The Wealth of Nations is based on a Common Law that allows those harmed to sue and simply prove the harm. (frivolous suits would be considered assault so that would be self correcting). Self Government does not mean electing “officials” to control our behavior, it is governing one’s Self. While most have much higher standards than simply doing all they have agreed to do and not encroaching on other persons or their property, this base code would allow for a wide range of beliefs and practices. All must be voluntarily entered into.
    The “fix” is simple, profound, and doable. Don’t confuse simple with easy. This will obviously take a while (several generations) to work out. But codifying law, holding our “elected” officials to their already sworn Oaths of Office, and educating our jury’s to not buy into the Statist notion that rules usurp Law, would be the groundwork upon which the American Ideal could be realized.
    ps. If you don’t like racism, homophobia, sexism and such. Define PERSONS (that will be an interesting and revealing debate) to get that monkey off our back. The 14th Amendment was designed to correct this flaw in the Constitution but has resulted in the mistaken belief that the Amendments are Law for the electorate and not just more rules to protect us from the government. (I thought the Amendments had to have 3/4ths of the States ratify them to be put into “law”. 14th?, 16th? Hmm)

Leave a Reply

 

Free Republic Newsletter!

Sign up to our newsletter and get weekly updates about the news you need to know.

Share it, re-post it, forward it... Let the world know that we a re watching and the revolution has begun!

Advertise Here
Advertise Here