by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired
As I look forward to the coming election cycle, I am not very optimistic. We have the greatest leap forward in our Nation’s history towards totally and completely altering our form, and the progressive side of the electorate is ecstatic over this change. At the same time, the conservative side seems to have chosen to trust in “the system”, the party system, once a “guide” as to what candidates stood for, now a commission which determines who may be the candidate, and I am left wondering where our “rugged individualism” is, where our willingness to take risks, rise to challenges, and why we haven’t chosen to confront the definitively criminal changes made, but decided we’d just go along with the party and select someone “electable”.
Last week, the editor of a conservative journal suggested one of the remaining candidates on the podium assume the stance and principles of Ron Paul, because the editor suggests we can’t do anything to stay the progression of our Nation to the left without taking radical and immediate measures, doing things to end the debt, taking measures to reduce the budget next year by a trillion dollars, by not allowing the debt ceiling to rise, and forcing government to operate under revenue generated.
His stance is based on the idea one of the other candidates can beat the illegal incumbent, but only the Constitutionalist has the ideas which are necessary to save our Nation. I have to wonder how someone who has lived in the ideals of “constitutionalism” for more than forty years and has provided a rational plan for ending our deficit spending, paying off our debt, and restoring the rule of law over government, can have all these great ideas, yet someone else, someone without those ideas, and someone who does not have them etched on their heart and soul, could possibly be more passionate, more enthusiastic, and more effective in selling these revolutionary ideas better than the man who lives them each and every day.
At the same time, the news reports the implementation of obamacare is actually going to cost “almost twice” the estimate made originally by the Congressional Budget Office, based on the information they were given. It seems some of the expenses were left of the sheet, and the collecting of taxes to pay for it would start two to three years before the actual implementation of it, so we will be paying taxes on it for some three years of no benefits, while the cost was figured on the provisional basis of a ten year plan.
We also get the news that since “reproductive care” was not directly funded in the bill, as a concession to those who find paying for abortion immoral, instead, a one dollar “fee” will be added to everyone’s monthly cost for obamacare, to fund “reproductive health care”, so it was kept out of the bill called obamacare that was signed into law, yet re-inserted in the bills and amendments which had to be added to finish funding what was less than funded.
I remain standing four square on the premise the leftists, the Bolsheviks, the progressives, the social democrats have not only completely infiltrated our system, but have substantially altered it by increments, such that we no longer have any real and direct control over our government if we follow the same old system of selecting our elected representatives, and we must take radical measures to restore our control of our Nation, or we must be willing to accept it gone forever, if we refuse to stand up and fight.
For three years, more has moved, more changes made that substantively alter our government, than decades of under the table dealing, and we all have had the privilege of watching the changes, while listening to the commentary of those promoting the changes.
These people, the ones who have given us our choices, would have us believe Bush was evil, Clinton was good, after all he left a balanced budget for Bush, according to their history, Bush senior was evil, and Reagan was part good and part evil. They take this last stance only because Reagan still holds the hearts of many, and they would label him evil, but don’t want to alienate “swing voters”.
What none will state is all of these, even President Reagan, have helped the U.N. move the world closer to the day they would be the basis for a world government.
As long as America remains an Armed People, as long as we legally retain our Constitution, our titular “form” of government, and our National Creed, The Declaration, our existence as a Nation destroys any possibility of a rationalizing of world government, within the natural laws and the self evident facts we founded our Nation upon. The moment those principles; “the government under rule of law, bound down with the chains of the Constitution”, that man is born equal, and by this, all are born with certain unalienable rights, and men form governments for the explicit purpose of securing those rights, and it is not only a right, but a moral obligation to alter or abolish such government which fails in this purpose, so that posterity can equally enjoy rights won once, and not needing to be lost and won again, the moment that is removed from this world, the last moral standard which rationally and logically denies any possible legitimate world government has been put out the back door, and nothing stands before the U.N. which cannot be overcome by force.
Do we not have a moral obligation to those who fought and died so we could have what we have all enjoyed to various degrees, to do exactly the same for our own posterity, and those before us had, to ensure we, their posterity, received what they paid for? Do we not have the moral obligation to our posterity, as our founders considered their duty?
If we don’t believe in “rights”, if we don’t believe that government should be bound under the rule of law, if we don’t believe government to be a construct of men for the purpose of securing rights, and not only doing so, but in so doing, brings with it a moral obligation to those who have benefited from such form and function, to maintain it for the benefit of posterity, we can easily be said not to be deserving of rights, secured, we don’t deserve to have choice in establishing and maintaining government, but saying this not only confers subjugation on a generation unwilling to fight for its rights, but on future, innocent generations, and if we have no care for our descendents can we call ourselves a “civil society?”
copyright March 2012 by Gulf1