They intrinsically have a major penchant for the liberal progressive way of life. Becoming a politician of course is the perfect soft landing for the often stoned hippies of the sixties. The way these folks lead on the left side of our government convinces me that the weed has great staying power in the brain.
What conservative would not have predicted that when these demented and charred progressive minds became successful in gaining more power in governments at all levels across the nation that they would be pushing marijuana to become either the National Flower or perhaps even the National Bird? Have the Rose and the Bald Eagle served US well enough?
The Constitution would never have been completed by 1817 if Madison knew about the 20th century loco weed, attempts at its legality, and its potential affect on future leaders of America.
Whenever I read early American history, I am very impressed that so many great men, with truly brave souls and strong hearts were able to come together to create this great country. I am sure they had their faults and none were angels, but they were good men, nonetheless. They sacrificed much to come to America to avoid British tyranny, and they risked their lives to create our nation as a union of the states. To make it all work, of course, there needed to be a limited central government and the states would hold the bulk of the power.
They founders understood that there were evil doers from their personal experiences in the old world. I am sure it would break their hearts to find that the almost perfect government that they had created has been handed over to a bunch of spoiled brat hippies from the '60's. This new power group has little regard for how hard the founders worked to keep America for the people for eternity.
When you read the founding documents, you can sense the mistrust that the founders had for all leaders, especially those who they never met, who would come long after them. Freedom and liberty formed their core beliefs and the founders' objective was to frame a government that by its very nature would have checks and balances so that future generations of Americans could not lose their freedoms to an unjust government.
The founders believed that in order to keep America strong, and of, by, and for the people, among other things, in case the government went bad, the population needed to be armed.
The second amendment was not written so that Americans could enjoy the recreation of hunting or find pleasure in target practice. The right to bear arms is one of the founding principles for both self-protection and for the ability of the citizenry to resist an oppressive government. The founders knew that imperfect humans would in time; try to snatch their "more perfect union" from the people. So, they worked hard to save us from that eventuality. The right to bear Arms gives all people an opportunity to fight back when government begins to get too grabby.
One can define an oppressive government as a government that takes from the producers and gives to the non-producers. So, which way do you think our 2012 / 2013 redistributive President and our progressive Democrat former hippie leaders stand on the Second Amendment? Bob Costas, the only wise man left from the Magi, can tell you in an instant. The founders worried that despite their solid framework, including separation of powers and a Constitution that favors the people, a government of unscrupulous leaders might someday take over. That day has arrived. The last thing Americans should agree to do is to give up their arms.
James Madison, our Fourth President and a valuable member of the founding team, is given credit for writing our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He was the primary author of both historical documents. The overriding principle for the nation was limited government and power of the people, for the people, and by the people. By all standards, Madison was a conservative. He was not aware that about 150 years later, new age hippies and Bob Costas would be creating issues with his work. Otherwise, this articulate patriot would have created specific verbiage restricting hippies and former hippies from ever engaging in any government leadership activity. Unfortunately, we are stuck with them now, since they already run the country.
Madison had a negative view of taking from the treasury of the people and giving it to anybody. Conservatives today wish some leader would emerge with similar thoughts. John Boehner has proven countless times not to be that man. An example of Madison's conservative views was when he rejected a request to subsidize some 1800 era US fisherman with funds from the public treasury. Here is what he wrote:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare...in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
There is no doubt that James Madison was against social welfare. As the main architect of the Constitution, Madison intended that which is yours to continue to be yours and that which is mine to continue to be mine. With Madison, charity, a desirable attribute in all, is an individual thing, not a government thing. How could a conservative of today not again vote for Madison for President? Davey Crocket, known for his last fight in the Alamo, was a member of the House of Representatives when he said, "Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
Another famous Madison quote comes right to the point: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Today, at least two-thirds of a $2.5 trillion federal budget is spent on what Madison would call the "objects of benevolence." That is why we are broke.
The well-to-do hippies of today, a.k.a., our finest politicians living in their golden years in gated communities far away from the people, would love to undo the Second Amendment along with many other freedoms. The more powerless they make the people; the more powerful this new breed of corrupt politicians can become. The higher in government they get, the more they attack the entire Bill of Rights.
After their disdain for the Second Amendment, the First Amendment is well within their sights. For socialist progressives, it is tough running America on the brink of socialism with the First Amendment hanging out there like a big sore on the backs of enlightened progressive leadership. What is in the First Amendment to the Constitution that annoys progressive politicians so much and that places it in jeopardy today?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
That is it folks in its entirety. Is there any part of Amendment One that progressives think is valid? The First Amendment is not a lot of words but it is very clear. Free speech is essential for freedom and liberty to exist. Freedom of the press can be considered a subset of free speech. Yet, the founders were so concerned about the press being a major voice in government that they gave it its own mention in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Consequently over the ages, journalism schools in our finest universities taught that the primary purpose of journalism is to hold power to account. It is not good enough to merely be free to speak. The implication is that (honest) journalists have an obligation to confront the government when it strays from basic US principles in any way. Wouldn't that be nice if it were the way journalists behave today?
The notion of a free press came about at the same time that America came about. It was a part of our government from day one. It was deliberately constructed by the framers of our Constitution to instill the spirit of self determination as a consummate, essential ingredient in the building, continuance, and the durability of a free society. A strong and free country and a strong free press were deemed forever inseparable.
The founders and the early patriots were fully tuned into the value of a free press being essential to the Republic. John Adams; from an essay written for the Boston Gazette cautions new Americans in this writing:
"Be not intimidated, therefore, by any terrors, from publishing with the utmost freedom whatever can be warranted by the laws of your country, nor suffer yourselves to be wheeled out of your library by any pretense of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."
How to govern a sovereign nation is a topic that the most famous historical leaders have grappled with at one time or another. We can learn a lot from Napoleon Bonaparte, for example, though he never lived in the US. He deeply feared, yet respected, a free press:
"A journalist is a grumbler, a censurer, a giver of advice, a regent of sovereigns, a tutor of nations. Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."
Benjamin Franklin was a staunch advocate for religious tolerance and a free press. He firmly believed that human beings had a right to control their own lives and had an unshakeable faith in the wisdom of the common man. Here are some cautions about a free press from one of America's finest patriots:
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech." and " "No tyrannical society can long exist when it cannot control the flow of information."
Franklin in these passages was advocating that Americans and the American free press be able to continue to posterity the right to speak or write with impunity.
Thomas Jefferson was another believer in the freedom of the press:
"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."
Abraham Lincoln is revered as one of the founders though he was born after America was well established. Nonetheless, he too had a proper perspective on freedom of the press:
"Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe."
Democratic Leadership in recent years has become very progressive and consequently, they do not see eye to eye with the founding principles, including freedom of expression. This is a big problem and this essay in its four parts explores the value of the free press and offers solutions for dealing with the problems with the press (media) today. Many, including your humble author believe the press in general today is corrupt. With a press as established in the boardrooms of secret corporations always favoring a progressive agenda, we the people today are not free; nor is our press.
Before we move on, it is noteworthy that there have been regimes in history that have feared the press because they (the regimes) preferred to operate in secrecy and to keep the people in the dark. Here are two quotes from two separate world leaders of the early 20th century. In their time, these two were very powerful and neither were about to be bullied by the press for any reason. Both of these leaders offered very negative opinions on the right of the existence of a free and powerful press.
They both understood that the great power of the press could persuade people to insist on correcting the failings of rulers, no matter how powerful. Thus, as rulers, they knew they could not tolerate a press that was free to speak the truth. They also knew that as an aid to maintaining their power, if they were able to compel the cooperation of the press to serve the ends of the state, it would be a great asset to their continuance as powerful leaders.
"Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinion calculated to embarrass the government?" Nikolai Lenin circa 1920
"The organization of our press has truly been a success. Our law concerning the press is such that divergences of opinion between members of the government are no longer an occasion for public exhibitions, which are not the newspapers' business. We've eliminated that conception of political freedom which holds that everybody has the right to say whatever comes into his head." Adolf Hitler circa 1939
Think of a world in which these men ruled autocratically with no constraints. And contrast that with Winston Churchill below:
"A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny. ... Under dictatorship the press is bound to languish, and the loudspeaker and the film to become more important. But where free institutions are indigenous to the soil and men have the habit of liberty, the press will continue to be the Fourth Estate, the vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen."
I highlighted the founders and the origins of the free press in America to demonstrate how essential extremely bright people believe it is for the continuance of liberty and freedom, and the avoidance of totalitarian regimes. If the founders and the patriots believed America would never face the possibility of a tyrannical government, they would not have been so careful in the crafting of their documents. Their objective therefore was to capture forever our precepts of life, liberty and individual ownership of property.
We no longer have this patriotic founding government from the 1820's in place. We have what we have. Over the years, our leaders have drifted off the path the founders had outlined, and they have weakened the fundamental precepts of our Republic including the notion of a free and independent press. Historians do not argue that this has happened to US. Some think it is for the better. I think it is for the better for only the most powerful, the elitists, the government, and the huge news corporations. It is not good for the people upon which and for which this great form of government was originally crafted.
The free press died in America in the 20th Century. Somewhere between the 1970's when the liberal media hung President Nixon out to dry for a cover-up in which nobody died; to today when the liberal media, run by the crazed and illogical hippies of yesteryear, permitted the President and the Secretary of State to cover-up four American deaths in Benghazi; the free press was killed dead without a whimper. Nobody honest was left to write about it. Bye Bye Miss American Pie.
None of this is funny or cute. I am convinced that if the hippies from the 60's believe they have the power, or they can pretend to the Republicans that they have the power, we will see social calamity in the short term in the name of social justice. Republicans will weep for their defeat rather than try to win as it seems that is their new nature.
Even with a press that is dominated by liberal corporations and is no longer free, people can still communicate with each other better than when Nikolei Lenin and Adolph Hitler dominated the messages in their regimes. The difference now is that many Americans do not believe that anything bad can happen to America and so they are not alert to the imminent danger. The Russian and the German people did not believe their good lives would change either. But, they learned otherwise when it was too late.
Can freedom be a right that can never be taken away when the people willingly vote in regimes whose major interests include doing away with their one-time inalienable rights? The un-free press of today, which I simply call the corrupt media, has become the left's major conduit in its fight to change the nation fundamentally from America into something that looks more like Saudi Arabia. That is why I write so many essays.
The founders and even Napoleon present valid arguments that an independent media, a free press, is critical for the very existence of an informed democracy. Today we find the corrupt, bought and paid for corporate owned media in bed with the economic and political powers they are supposed to watch. Unfortunately, it seems that only Fox is watching the chicken coop! Repeat that to yourself a few times and you will see how silly it is. Fox is the only media group guarding our precious country, and it does it with hands tied behind its back. .
Conservative Americans are a big force in American politics today but we cannot last much longer if we are represented only by one media source. As good as it may be, Fox News, the group that claims it is fair and balanced, is simply not enough to sustain liberty and freedom for US all. We must do better.