A Discussion

Lee A. Heilig Just because she hasn't been grabbing headlines in recent months, do not hold the mistaken assumption that the she-beast has dropped off the radar. In addition to joining the hostile world community in pushing a binding UN law to ban various small weapons -- a move which egregiously violates our Second Amendment -- Hillary is now blathering pronouncements of Federal lawsuits against an American state. As Secretary of State, she has no business meddling in the issue of Arizona's legislative initiative to stop illegal immigration from overrunning their state. Why is she doing this? Hillary smells blood in the water. With the "Chosen One's" approval numbers at 41% and dropping, there is a growing sense that Barry Soetoro Barack Hussein Obama (mmm-mmm-mmm!) may not even run for a second term. The pant suited she-beast will not go quietly into the night. Hillary Clinton is relentless, and she will pursue the land's highest office like wolves hunt their prey.

Joan Respect for all humans is not a waste of our energy, Lee. She-beast? You are better than this my dear friend.

Lee A. Heilig The gloves are off, Joan. This cabal of anti-liberty, anti-life miscreants who infest Washington seek to destroy everything this once "Shining City on a Hill" used to be. Until they force me to go underground or incarcerate me for exercising my First Amendment rights, I will label them for what they are. Statist, fascist, and dictatorial, this new group of Progressives shamelessly presume what is best for us ordinary proletarians, while reserving unto themselves the exemptions they believe they deserve. Hillary, like Obama, Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Timothy Geithner, et. al. ad nauseam are systematically destroying the last vestiges of a truly free Republic and are replacing it with an unrecognizable police state where freedom is wrested from the individual and is concentrated in Washington. I will not stand by idly and silently while I have breath to call them on it. Believe me, I would love nothing more than to sit on overstuffed sofas and sip herbal tea while having an 'adult and meaningful' dialogue with people like them. Trust me on this -- they are not interested in my, or your, point of view. As such, I will be as profane as I have to be to get my voice heard. We are fighting for the very survival of our nation.

Mean-spirited? Perhaps. I've spent decades enduring the oh-so tolerant Left's 'genteel' treatment of persons for whom I have cared. The Left has spent a lifetime trying to revile patriots who have toiled in the name of freedom. "The Founding Fathers were slave-owning racists. Ronald Reagan was a bumbling actor. Judge Bork was a monster. Sarah Palin is an ignorant bimbo. Dick Cheney is an evil puppeteer. George W. Bush is a moron." Unable to engage and prevail in the arena of ideas, the Left has mastered the use of ad hominem attacks and non sequitur diversions to sway an uneducated mass of American voters.

I pay attention to these statists. It is important to know what the enemy is up to. Therefore, I have paid attention to Hillary Clinton. From her collegiate days at Wellesley where she chose Saul Alinsky as a topic for her senior thesis, to her midnight paper shredding sessions at the Rose Law Firm while the body of her "dear friend and colleague Vince Foster" was still warm from his apparent suicide, to her secretive attempt to capture and nationalize one-sixth of the American economy (which Obama has now affected), to her self-aggrandizing and lying remarks of "dodging sniper fire" and being "named after Sir Edmund Hillary," -- shall I continue? This opportunistic shrew of a woman is blinded by the acquisition and maintenance of power for power's sake. She acted so terribly hurt and betrayed by her philandering husband who disgraced the whole of the country on the world stage; but, actually she was only angered that Bill was CAUGHT. NOTHING is going to derail Hillary from achieving her ultimate goal of power, except (prayerfully) the American people. Trust me, Clinton is not alone.

There are two basic camps of people in America -- in the world for that matter. Oh, sure, there are nuances and flavors within each, but people in our Republic fall into two basic categories. There is the camp that believes that freedom and rights are the results of the benevolence of government. It is a mindset that says that people are unable to live in liberty; and, they must be shepherded by a ruling class in their daily lives for their best interest. Then, there is the side that believes rights and liberty are granted solely by God, and that governments are instituted by men for the purpose of protecting those rights -- not limiting them. I know that Hillary has cast her lot with the former. I cast mine with the latter, and countless other Americans who preceded me or live today without whom we would not be having this dialogue.

Joan We need your brain power solving problems. You and I may be cut from different bolts of political thinking, but we (you and me) are America. And are we going to fix our problems or simply lament them? This mud slinging, mean-spirited or otherwise, diverts brain power from the solution camp!

Lee A. Heilig Joan, again, I would love to have a meaningful dialogue with those on the Progressive Left who have co-opted our government. Those who hold a majority in Congress and occupy the White House are wedded to an agenda that will not allow divergent thought or ideas. They campaigned, in part, on vowing “to keep the most transparent government ever.” Yet, government watchdog organizations report the exact opposite. From the very president who campaigned that all legislation will have sufficient numbers of days for American public review before vote or signing, the Health Care Act was ram-rodded through Congress with arrogant haste and total disregard for the citizens. This same president who vowed to close Guantanamo Bay has totally shelved the idea, with no revisitation in sight. He is also reserving unto himself the executive authority to authorize assassinations of AMERICAN citizens who may be deemed a national security threat. LET THAT SINK IN. This is what the KGB did for decades in the Soviet Union! No writ of habeas corpus, no Fifth Amendment due process. Also, there is a bill in the U.S. Senate that, if passed, would effectively give Obama a 'kill switch' for the Internet. Proponents of the bill will say it is needed for the protection of children and homeland security. These would be the very same individuals who derided President Bush for being heavy handed in his application of post-9/11 security policy. (You might be surprised to know I tend to agree with those who criticize the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. I believe it is yet another onerous, wasteful, and potentially repressive layer of bureaucracy that at the end of the day does nothing to enhance American security – and it may lead to dissolution of cherished freedoms.) The so-called ‘kill switch’ has nothing to do with the aforementioned reasons. It has everything to do with shutting down dissenting points of view.

(continued next column)

(continued)

Until recently, the Left has had a multi-decade virtual monopoly on media and journalism. With today’s cable news outlets, talk radio, and countless bloggers on the Web, however, the Left’s stranglehold on media has been shattered. They are chafing at the idea that so many new sources of information and formerly suppressed news elude their control. That is why there is a fevered new effort to re-enact the previously failed (and wrongly labeled) ‘Fairness Doctrine’ for radio programming. The Left has failed miserably at talk radio programming. You may recall the abysmal “Air America” with the deplorable Al Franken. In spite of ill-received funding and heavy Hollywood endorsements, “Air America” went bankrupt. Why? Because it was the message – a message of statism over liberty, of bigger government over the individual rights of man. Therefore, those who would impose a new ‘Fairness Doctrine’ will do so only because of the effectiveness of conservative talk radio and the concurrent failure of liberal radio programming.

Joan, this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg with this group in Washington. I could recite chapter and verse numerous additional threats to our individual freedoms posed by this administration and Congress. Do not misunderstand me. A statist is a statist. I do not care if s/he has an ‘R’, ‘D’, or other label behind the name. This danger transcends notions of Republicans versus Democrats or even conservatives versus liberals. I reiterate that those who hold power today are marching toward a new government whereby they command the economy and even the behaviors of individual citizens.

A quick for instance… Just who do they think they are that they should capture, through the implied application of brute force, 17% of the nation’s private economy in the name of health care? We’ve heard all the whining, baseless excuses that people were dying in the streets for lack of care. We all know that no one, by law, can be refused care for inability to pay in hospitals. Fully 86% of Americans said in repeated polls that they liked their health care plan THE WAY IT WAS. Now, under penalty of federal fine and/or imprisonment, this Congress and administration will force us to buy insurance that will – mark my words – devolve into a single-payer government-run plan. It is also a plan that the members of Congress and the administration have exempted themselves from using. Is this a group of benevolent lawmakers and “leaders” who sound as though they have our best interests at heart, or are interested in listening to the will of the American people?

We can hold hands in big circles while wearing Birkenstock sandals and munching granola bars in big ol’ happy focus groups. ‘Community organizers’ love that sort of thing. However, at the end of the day, these people are the least concerned for our opinion on how we should be governed. This moneyed, perpetually re-elected ruling class believes they are above the laws they force on the American people. Again, I have outlined a mere fraction of the dictatorial behaviors this government is exhibiting. I challenge anyone to factually refute them. If we, you and I, as rational and intelligent persons can agree that these threats to our liberty exist, then where does that leave us? If you still believe this is “mud-slinging,” then we have no foundational premises by which to discuss the current state of affairs.

I acknowledge that many of my Face Book postings are punctuated with, shall I say, ‘colorful’ statements. I do not apologize for them. I use them to help illustrate the absurdities that abound in our government, hoping that in some small way I call effective attention to the growing threats to our liberties – before it is too late and we awake in an America that resembles Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia more than the beautiful, blessed Republic that was founded a scant 234 years ago. I encourage you to visit my website at raptorrepublic.com. There you can read among my many postings a more polished and sober assessment on the issues of self-governance I welcome your thoughts on this.

Joan We the people are going to progress when we begin to act and solve problems at where we are -- at the grassroots level -- AND position ourselves to have a government we hold accountable regardless of which party holds sway at the moment. This country is failing to the degree that heads are buried in the sand, people won't go out and vote or appear for jury duty, and great minds stand on the sidelines griping. That's what I mean when I say you (and I) are better than this!

Lee A. Heilig I agree with the notion that action at the local level is vital. Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the most effective proponent of conducting government closest to the people, as it inherently demands the greatest accountability of those who purport to lead on our behalf. After all, monsters like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid must spawn from SOME place, right? (Oh, GASP! There's that horrid name calling again!) Do you think for one minute, though, that their brutish, arrogant legislative behaviors would be tolerated at the Jacksonville City Council level? Of course not! They would never be given the elective light of day to act like the dictatorial statists they are in Congress, where re-election percentages hover around 95% (historically).

If some people are apathetic and abrogate their responsibilities as citizens, it is because government-run school systems have failed to teach them the uniqueness of their birthrights as Americans, and/or they have become disillusioned at the growth of the size and power of government at all levels -- leaving them feeling helpless to affect change.

Once again, at the risk of sounding redundant, I must make the distinction between the fundamental approaches to how men govern themselves. Our Founding Fathers entrusted our fledgling nation to the care of an educated, and essentially Christian, citizenry. The Constitution was brilliantly conceived as a set of negative liberties to protect the freedoms of everyone. Those negative liberties meant that there were enumerated laws which forbad government from assuming powers that were reserved to the States’ governments or to the People themselves. We were the first and only government which boldly proclaimed that rights were apportioned by God – not men – and that our guiding documents limited the powers of government – not people.

The Progressives of today seek to expand the misnamed idea of “positive rights.” While sounding good on the surface, it is a prescription for ultimate tyranny, for positive rights detail those political and social benefits that government would bestow upon the People. This is sophistry, in that Government cannot bestow anything to anybody without first taking something from others. This simple truism is fundamental to the whole debate on self-governance. If we the people cannot agree that government should exist only to protect the individual liberties outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and NOT exist to redistribute the wealth of individuals against the will of the same, then our brash experiment in self government is over – and it has failed. As Lady Margaret Thatcher has said so eloquently, “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples’ money.”

I exhort you to read an essay I prepared on this topic, as it cuts to the very core of how we view ourselves as Americans. Entitled “It’s Not Yours to Give,” it is a treatise built upon the wisdom and actions of American icon Davy Crockett. You will find it in the archived section of my website. In the essay, you will see a quote from a friend of Crockett’s which brilliantly highlights the subject. Horatio Bunce told Crockett, “The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.” Bunce continued to explain his profound wisdom on the subject in greater detail; and, subsequently, forever altered young Crockett’s understanding of limited government. Should you chose to do so, please read the entire article for the full understanding of this foundational principle.

Joan Thanks, Lee. I'm looking forward to reading your essay! I'll post back after I have. In the meantime, please consider the mindset that supports easy dualities shortchanges the chance to see the genuine complexion of humanity, which is essential to the spirit of problem solving.

Lee A. Heilig Please do not confuse what you deem duality for simplistic thought. As a student of political systems, I have researched many complex governmental forms and the nuanced variations within them. The trouble with looking at the myriad of “sides” to issues of governance is that it can lead to a paralysis of action. This line of thinking can easily disintegrate into a nihilistic realm where there are no knowable truths. Furthermore, this path leads to an embrace of relativism that suggests many forms are equally good and equally valid. This political thinking process mirrors our spiritual consciousness. Do we as Christians believe that all other religions are equally valid and good? Do we earnestly accept the notion that there are many paths to God? If so, then we deny the truth of our own faith, Jesus’ death and resurrection are irrelevant, and Scripture is nothing more than meaningless, powerless literature.

I see political systems in a similar light. To start, though, we must accept certain foundational premises. I would accept axiomatically that the greatest expression of political freedom and individual liberty ever devised by man was in the form of the United States of America. Exceeding even the boundaries of democratic government found in the city-states of ancient Greece, the American experiment is singular in its manifestation of freedom for the individual. If the premise is accepted, then it should follow that there are no other existing governmental forms in practice or theory today that exceed the desirability of the original American form. However, if a reduction of individual liberty is believed to be a preferred path, then our premise is rendered invalid, and all bets are off for debate of other systems.

Our second premise lies in the concept of man’s relationship to his government. The Founding Fathers broke from millennia of precedence with the radical idea that man can live with great personal liberty consistent with the rule of law. They believed the greatest path to self-expression and freedom was through a political system that severely restricted the power of government, with codified law, federalized governmental layers, and a system of checks and balances that could keep generational restrictions on the power of that government. To them, principled self-interest was a virtuous condition. Coupled with political and economic theories gleaned from John Locke, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke, the framers of the Constitution devised a brilliant set of negative liberties designed to maximize political equality and self-actualization. Never did they attempt a social or economic egalitarian construct that would provide equality of outcome, for they knew that as uniquely individual human beings are, there could be no provision of economic equality without the tyranny of government redistribution. Marx, Lenin, and Stalin have dealt with those ideas quite nicely.

You are probably asking, “Where is this all leading?” Once again, I refer to the duality of political thought in contemporary America. My oft mentioned ‘Rogues’ Gallery’ of political operatives in Congress is thoroughly given over to the notion of “positive liberties.” What you disdain as simple dualism is piercingly fundamental to all discussions of our society today. Without this premise, there can be no intelligent discussion with anyone on the topic of self-rule. I suggest that simply identifying a need for talking with one another to solve problems is pollyannish at best. We have forums for that very thing already. They are called Congress, state legislatures, city councils, town hall meetings, and more.

So, we ask ourselves, “What, then, are the solutions?” I will proffer another premise. Would you not agree that if a political and economic system, while not perfect (after all, it still IS the ultimate conception of men who are fallen entities) has provided the best form of governance in the history of mankind, that it follows that those factors that created the freedom and unrivaled prosperity it provided should be emulated whenever possible? Those factors of which I speak are in the purity of our founding documents – especially the Constitution. Maximum individual (not minority or special interest group) freedom consistent with law and order. The ‘Rogues’ Gallery’ I mention seeks to turn this entire ideal upside down with the statist imperative of “positive rights,” also known as government control. They have identified themselves and their goals for what they are. They do not attempt to obfuscate their intentions anymore, so to agree with their self-assessment is a matter of fact, not opinion.

What is needed, if a restoration of good, responsive government is to be realized, is a total cleansing of the national government, from the White House, the entire Congress, and the Byzantine network of the bureaucracy. All statists must be replaced with citizen legislators, like Davy Crockett of the early 19th Century, who will revere personal liberty and detest the oppression of government. Fealty to the original, true and unmistakable meaning of the Constitution should be the first priority for any person under consideration of elective office. Finally, I would repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. The Progressives (a.k.a. socialists and Marxists) installed the Sixteenth Amendment in a boldly successful move to grow the federal government far beyond its mandate and to repress the ordinary citizen through taxation. The Seventeenth Amendment is a reduction in the role and power of delegated powers to the individual states. An amendment that would obligate congressmen to personally abide by any legislation they formulate and another to limit congressional terms would be of service, too. These are just beginning thoughts on how to affect restoration of the Republic.

There are other elements to the American renaissance which I seek. The Founding Fathers, in spite of revisionist historian denials to the contrary, were largely a Christian group of men. Their example lives today as, in spite what Barack Hussein Obama declares, America overwhelmingly regards herself as a Christian nation with a foundational Judeo-Christian ethic. This is not to be interpreted as a theocracy. Only anti-religious zealots who are frightened of the concept of a nation steeped in Christian principle would argue that today’s American Christian seeks a theocratic government. But the Founders knew that the citizenry must exhibit personal temperance born of Scriptural truths – a temperance which minimizes the destructive impulses of man. And, they believed that education in the ways of self-determination and liberty must be given if the lamp of freedom were not to be extinguished.

Lee A. Heilig