Beyond the Cusp

September 2, 2017

Free Speech Has Real and Legal Limits

 

Most of us past the eighth grade understand that one cannot legally scream “Fire” in a crowded dark movie theater as doing so causes a threat to human life. Another example of restricted speech is one would be advised not to scream or even whisper in an audible voice “Kill the President,” even if it be the current President. Speech calling for the overthrow of the government or the Constitutional form of government would also get you placed before a judge rather quickly. One is not permitted speech which threatens to do physical bodily harm, cause irreparable harm to one’s personal property, to incite other forms of harm including financial, to make false accusations, make false crime report, make slanderous accusations or commentary, and a number of other forms of speech which have been specifically named as illegal due to damages or threats they relate. These are obvious forms of speech which are not permissible. But these are all spelled out in criminal and other codes and are not what all the screaming, yelling and protesting is all about now, is it. So, what idiocy can we add to these discussions? Well, let us see what we can come up with. Freedom of Speech is easily defined that universally, all sides and views will have equal access to the media and to all forms of communication with the same identical application of law prohibiting talk of revolution, violence, harm to any group, public safety and protection of the governing entities. That is the easy definition and it only gets complicated when a society passes from total free speech to limited free speech where they now disallow hate speech.

 

Our look into this phenomenon will use the United States as the basis for the attempt to use speech codes as a weapon. This has already been going on for quite some time but we will try and be brief. The attempt to use speech as a weapon has long been a known manner of taking over the political system. This type of takeover has been covered in science fiction with books such as 1984, where history and language were redefined in order to support the state and Fahrenheit 451 where all knowledge of books was banned and the title is the flash-point for paper where it will spontaneously combust. In both of these literary masterpieces, the governance was fascist though they would never admit it but were very happy to define their enemies as such. The limitations for the good of the people as to what speech is approved is a common thread in the imposition of a dictatorial fascist state upon the people and it almost always starts either with a military styled coup and the assassination or execution of all the political leadership which stood in opposition or with the takeover of the language and the history rewriting both to favor the new leadership and to exclude any and all other groups placing them beyond the protection of the language enforcers.

 

1984 and Fahrenheit 451

 

First, we will examine the wordsmith limitations where the dictatorial fascists start by defining terminology in order to limit and frame permissible debate. This is initially done once the elementary education has been placed in the control of the group initiating a political takeover. At this phase, the limitations on language are framed as making conversation polite and the removal of hate-filled words and terms. The teachers are taught a new and “better” teaching method which will make students learning ability improved and their education more productive. This new and better system replaces phonics where students are taught the sounds made by individual letters and then sound out the worlds using such sounds. The exceptions such as “enough” pronounced “ih-nuhf” are then taught by use of whole word recognition. This method the student learns to recognize certain exceptions and adds others as they are encountered and otherwise has a means to learn any word they see through the application of phonics. The new method is called Whole Word Recognition where every word is taught as a set of meaningless symbols randomly chosen to represent the word. Spelling is considered less important as it is only important that you have you own representation with which to identify each word taught. This method will limit the majority of students vocabularies to a large percentage of the words they are taught and they will have little if any ability to learn new words with any ease as they will be unable to sound out new words thus their spelling will have no real meaning or purpose other than to differentiate the word from other words. This limitation on vocabulary is the first and largest step to control of language as if certain words are not taught, they cease to be within the lexicon of the language and become unusable and, when used by more learned people, they are meaningless as either the spoken or written word.

 

A corollary to whole word recognition is that these words approved for teaching also will only have the definitions that are taught when the word is introduced. The use of these two simple steps accomplishes two of the goals of the language fascists, the debate can only be made with the terms taught if it is to make sense, and certain thoughts become obsolete if their terms are not introduced. How can one defend what many consider a simple and basic idea in governance, “liberty” if the word itself is never taught and no definition is given outside reference material? With the word not taught, as an example, then it will not find much use on social media, the place where the debates now are engaged. Once excluded from there the word “liberty” becomes a high word used only by the most erudite and educated amongst the population. When they use the word, they must then define the term if their readers are to understand what the term, a strange and foreign term, means for its use to make sense. Such a restriction on that one word will lead to even the educated avoiding its use because of the clumsiness its use entails. Thus, Whole Word Recognition has established a limitation on debate and a limit on knowledge. Now the rest of the debate and language modification can proceed.

 

Once the vocabulary has been modified and restricted comes the next step, a direct challenge to the definition of free speech. Now freedom of speech will be transformed into freedom from offence. This is where defining “hate speech” becomes the central field of battle in the war over language. With the usable words now limited, this debate will favor the leftist or fascist dumbing down of language, whichever group is committing this, in our minds, crime against the society. The initial entry into hate speech is usually initiated by those attempting to limit debate and redefine concepts making those they disapprove of forbidden or even made illegal for use. Initially they target obvious hate speech often going after supremacist groups, Nazis and known hate groups. They restrict terminology often defining terms using a single letter such as the n- word or the l-word. These words become unacceptable in society and with little fuss. Now that the easy to disallow words are ostracized and cut from acceptable use, they will go after other words and make them unacceptable until they reach a point where they have entire concepts refuted from use. Such terms today would include “Islamic terrorism” which must be removed, as it is Islamophobic and hateful to peaceful Muslims.

 

Why it is offensive to people ,as it is obviously not being applied, is never explained; the thought police simply make the claim and scream from the highest heights making any use of the term unacceptable even when it actually applies. This removes entire thoughts from acceptable debate. How does one debate even “radical and extremist Islamic terrorism” if the entire thought of Islamic terrorism is disallowed. If there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, then there actually cannot be radical or extremist Islamic terrorism as that would be a form of Islamic terrorism. Now it must be considered to be radical extremist terrorism and no singular group is responsible, just radical extremists. The next step is to define those groups who are opposing the leftist ideas as radical and extremist such as has been done to religious Christians and evangelical Christians. Now when there is an act of terror, those making excuses for Islamic terrorism can shift the debate to which group is likely to have committed each individual act of terrorism? By the time an actual group has been identified, if it is not to the likings of the leftists, meaning it was committed by one of their protected groups, then that act of terror is old news and no longer needs to be discussed. If the terror was committed by one of their target groups then it remains news of the day for as long as humanly possible and is brought up then every time there is any reference to their protected group as proof that there exists other groups amongst the unprotected who do the same thing.

 

This type of debate framing and representative exacting is a form of deception that has long been used against Israel. There are, and we are not going to give them the dignity of reference, a relative few number of Israeli Jewish terror attacks which have been perpetrated over the years. Unlike the heroes martyrdom welcome that the Arab Islamic terrorists (we are anything but PC here at BTC) receive after their murder sprees, we do not name youth camps, streets, parks or soccer tournaments after these criminal elements, we try them and place them in prisons for extensive lengths of time. We disapprove of such acts and they are known to be an anathema to our society. Still, in any discussion with the protectors of the Arab murderers of Israelis, and not all their victims are Jews despite their care to make it such, these few exceptions are almost always waved as evidence that the Israelis, often simply referred to as the Jews, commit terror as well. These exceptions get so much play that they become well known acts while the terrorism against Israel becomes so common that it stops being news and is accepted by the left wing media as normal. That is how this part of one debate has been stretched into absurdity.

 

The next step is to control the media such that reporting is limited to the useable word list. What many do not know is that there is an actual word list of approved terminology for use by print media and is also applied often to spoken media. This list is compiled by our good friends at the New York Times and is utilized almost industry wide. With the media now toting the new speech codes which disallow hate speech, reporting becomes political. Now no terror attack can be considered to have been perpetrated by a Muslim but must be attributed to every other extremist group until proven to have been committed by a Muslim. So what if the assailant is seen on YouTube screaming “Allah Akbar” while stabbing people in a mall, this is not proof of anything as the perpetrator could be a fanatical Christian trying to make Islam appear violent. After all, we all know that Islam is the religion of peace and presumably, Christianity is the religion of violence, Crusades being the proof we hear incessantly. Once the media and entertainment have been brought on board with the new language, it is time for the final battle for speech regulation, forbidding hate speech.

 

Should hate speech be illegal? Well, actually it already is but the definition is to narrow for our friends on the left. It is against the law to threaten other groups with violence, damage to property or other extreme harms. Basically, one may not threaten an illegal act. There is your objective and straightforward definition of hate speech. But we can do better say the purveyors of approved language, we can make language so benign that it will never offend anyone, and there you have the switch from “Freedom of Speech” to “Freedom from Offense.” This is where things get tricky as now we need to define what exactly hate speech is. We soon learn that Islamic terrorism is hate speech and Jewish terrorism along with Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and virtually every other religious terrorism is not hate speech. That is an extreme example and of course should it be proven that an act of terror was committed by a Muslim, then the person will be described as mentally unstable and not representative of Islam. President Obama often explained that the Islamic State was not Islam. President George W. Bush initiated the widespread use of defining Islam as the religion of peace. Both of these instances were examples of how to frame speech to control thought. It is also an example that leftists come from both major political parties in the United States. One needs remember the political lines which can be used to represent political thought, the falsified “left vs. right” against the more honest “statist vs. individualist” as shown below. The formal name used by many Republicans is “Compassionate Conservative” which means Progressive individual or leftist.

 

Political Spectrum Taught Versus Actual

 

The problem with banning hate speech is, who gets to define what is and is not hate speech. The leftists tend to reserve that right to themselves and will suggest a panel of academics from respected English Studies departments. This is a fraud as these departments are almost without exception leftists themselves and has been proven in study after study that college and university professors contribute almost exclusively to the Democrat Party and not the Republican Party. The only exception is often in the hard sciences where occasionally balance can be found, if such actually does exist. The controversy in the United States only recently was brought to a head and by the person at the center of all the controversy, President Trump. The new President unlike anyone before him has torn the lid off of the partisan media and academia and thrown open the debate on whether or not these leanings are healthy for the United States in specific and the Western World as a whole. President Trump revealed how the news was massaged and often completely turned upon its head to support a leftist worldview and how the media would go so far as to invent stories to support their leftist politics. The problem is after President Trump this tear in the disguise will be sewn closed and made to appear that what occurred was but a hiccup, a blip in the reporting and the world will be lulled back to sleep. Well, that is what these leftist controlled groups are praying will happen, we will need wait to see.

 

In the end, once one side controls the media, entertainment, academia and social media then they have the youth and thus the future. There is a flaw in their plans and it hits every protected and coddled youth eventually, it is called life out in the real world. The initial shock to these coddled youths come when they find out their college degree will often only earn them a starting salary of $35,000 per year. Many were expecting a much larger payout as their professors painted for them a world where their special nature and specific wonderfulness would be treasured and their special nature would be seen by all and they would be lauded with money receiving a six or even seven figure income. What a shock, and then there is always that first paycheck where there are all these terms such as FICA and other taxes and healthcare deduction and the paycheck has a net salary which is quite distressing. This shock comes to those who did not hold summer jobs or need to work after school as many did from my not so exclusive neighborhood. We had seen our pay eaten up by government asides and taxes. These muggings can make one think that maybe there are other things the professors lied about. Life is a great wake-up call which eventually gets to most of us and makes some of us think, often for the first time.

 

Still, if the leftists can force making their definitions of hate speech stick and be illegal, which they are very close to succeeding, then the war will be almost lost. With limits on permissible speech placed by law, then conservative talking points will be defined as hate speech. This has already begun as we see every holiday season where it is not Christmas but the winter holiday and similarly it is not Easter but the spring holiday. St. Patrick’s Day has been made into a fun study of Irish history, and a pleasant glossing over of the reality behind the holiday which celebrates the bringing of Christianity (Catholicism) to Ireland and the presumed taming of the land and bringing forth from barbarism and paganism. Again, the presumed advancement of civilization by Christianity in Europe and Islam across the Middle East, North Africa and into Europe and Asia were both conducted by the definition of language to depict all who were not of the faith as evil, uncivilized and requiring saving by bringing them into the religion unquestioningly. From those times to the present both religions have attempted to frame the debate in their favor and with the current adoption of the Islamic line by the leftists, they are feeding their own destruction in this war of the words for eventually the words are dropped and the sword deployed.

 

St Patrick’s Day Montage

 

There is one final point which need be made. That is the definition of Fascist and Fascism. The first definition given in a dictionary was, Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. The one addition we would add is that such a system can also have elections as long as the fascists control the vote counting, which they would in almost every case where they have gained power. Often the appearance of choice is required to enslave, North Korea or Venezuela are two prime examples. These leftist we have been referring to in the article claim they are fighting fascism and against fascists. This was why pegging their opposition at Charlottesville as Nazi fascists was necessary before this assault on language and the society of the United States could be executed. They are now in a frenzied approach because they know there is a limit to the time that the hate in Charlottesville can be used as a bludgeon to silence their opposition. Once they succeed, and they will, as they will continue to try until they win, one of the tools of Progressive Fascism is determination never quitting, as complete power is the only acceptable result. This is why the loss by Hillary Clinton has been such a detrimental blow, as they cannot permit power to slip from their grasp, so for now they must do whatever is required to disembowel Trump and prevent him fulfilling his campaign promises as that would set them back a decade or more. Fascist target language as a means of control and hate speech is the most convenient of terms as all they need do is hold protests against any phrase or idea until it becomes classified as hate speech as why else would people take to the streets over a phrase? This is the secret behind the enormous efforts against President Trump and to paint all conservatives as Nazis or white supremacists despite knowing that this is a lie, a fabrication to silence the right. The rioting on campuses to prevent right leaning speakers from presenting ideas to their minions attending college, and that is how the left sees these college age kids, as mere minions to serve their cause. Immediately as any student shows signs of thinking freely they are ridiculed and derided hoping to intimidate them back into the fold. It is all about power and control, nothing more, nothing less. So, our suggestion is learn phonics and watch your word lists and vocabulary grow and along with it, your mind and your understanding of life and everything it will throw your way.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

August 5, 2015

Iran Deal Delivers Donations for Disaster in Death

Filed under: Absolutism,Administration,Amalekites,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Appointment,Ayatollah Khamenei,Ayatollahs,Binding Resolution,Blood Libel,Breakout Point,Cabinet,Calaphate,Civilization,Conflict Avoidnce,Coverup,Defend Israel,Dhimmi,EMP Device,Equal Responsibility,Equal Rights,Equal Treatment,Equality,European Historic Anti Semitism,European Union,Executive Order,Fascism,Foreign Funding,France,Germany,Government,Government Controlled Media,Great Britain,Hassan Rowhani,Hate,History,IAEA,ICBM,International Politics,Intifada,Iran,Iranian Military,Iranian Pressure,Iraq,Islam,Islam,Islamic Pressure,Islamist,Israel,Israeli Interests,Jewish Leadership,Jewish State,Jews,Jihad,John Kerry,Leftist Pressures,Mainstream Media,Media,Michigan,Middle East,Military,Military Advisors,Military Option,Missile Attacks,Mohammad Javad Zarif,Munich Accord of 1938,Muslim Expansionism,Muslim Invade Europe from the East,Muslim Invasoin of Europe from the West,Muslim World,Neville Chamberlain,Nuclear Program,Nuclear Sites,Nuclear Weapons,Nuclear Weapons,P5+1,Plutonium Production,Politicized Findings,President Obama,Remove Sanctions,Russia,Russian Pressure,Samantha Power,Sanctions,Saudi Arabian Pressure,Secretary of State,Secular Interests,Shiite,Smiling Cheshire Man,Sunni,Supreme Leader,Susan Rice,Syria,Taqiyya,Terror,The Twelfth Imam,Threat of War,Threat of War,Tribe,Troop Withdrawal,Turkey,Twelvers,United Nations,United Nations Ambassador,United Nations Presures,United States,Uranium Enrichment,Valerie Jarrett,Weapons of Mass Destruction,WMD,World Opinion,World Pressures,World Without Zionism or America,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 2:08 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

The one-hundred-fifty-billion dollars of unfrozen funds which will near instantly over-fill the coffers beyond their capacity and even beyond Iran’s wildest imaginations. Oil and pistachio sales will assist in keeping those coffers healthy with a steady influx of monies. Proof of the extents to which this sudden wealth has provided Iran becomes obvious with the sales of arms made viable to Iran even before the ink dried on the papers. The set of sales, when taken at their entirety, reveals that Iran has just purchased the equivalence of an entire Air Force minus pilots. This set of deals comes replete with one-hundred tanker aerial refueling aircraft, one-hundred-fifty sophisticated air-combat jet fighters with Israeli avionics and finally the two-hundred-fifty highly-advanced heavy-fighter-bombers already set for delivery to Iran by Russia and China. Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Iran herself will suffer from the results of this deal. All the predictions of gloom and doom are purported to be in this deal come from the publically released deal. As horrific as the realities of the publically declared sections of this deal have proven to be as their ramifications are flushed out and deciphered may be, these predicted disasters are simply the results of the publically released Iran Nuclear Agreement 7/14/2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, yet there exists another wholly secreted away part of the Iranian deal made without Secretary of State Kerry’s knowledge or participation and has been secreted from review yet will be put into enforcement simply as a result of the signatures placed on the publically revealed deal. How many more disastrous consequences will come into review as our focus becomes fixated on the inferences, implications and machinations resultant on the secreted deal which for all we know will include as yet undetermined and yet to be decided terms left to be fulfilled as the needs arise and simply left to Iran or the IAEA to make future decisions independent of review. If we are to be honest, the reality is that we have absolutely no idea of exactly the deal made with Iran defines and what restrictions on inspections or implications which make even developing nuclear weapons immediately and while remaining a member of the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) as the secret deal might even permit Iran to have their determination altered and defined as a Recognized Nuclear Weapon State Acceders, with equal or potentially superior rights to China or France, within the framework of the NPT definitions pertaining to nuclear powers.

 

The reality is that the revealed and awful deal we and even the members of Congress, the Ambassadors of the nations in the Security Council of the United Nations, the other sitting members of the P5+1, and even the negotiating team from the United States including the Secretary of State, very likely the State Department and everybody other than the selected leadership of Iran and whoever was the negotiator of the secret treaty and a remote possibility President Obama actually know what is included in the super-secret deal made with Iran. Now for our little bit of conjecture; this editorialist, if forced to make a guess, suspects that United States Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, Presidential Security Advisor Susan Rice and Special Advisor to the President Valerie Jarrett whose assistance in such matters is unmeasurable as she was Iran born and speaks Farsi and thus may be the only people from the United States Administration of President Obama and only person outside of Iran and the top members of the IAEA, if even them, who knows what was included in what we suspect is a massive giveaway super-secret agreement with Iran which will remain concealed with portions becoming known as their results are felt. Beyond altering the standings of Iran pertaining to the NPT there is likely little which could have further reaching ramifications, but that prediction too is made while in complete ignorance of the actual terms which are hidden within this ancillary section of the treaty which the world is discussing despite the unknowns of the hidden agendas and stipulations. It is entirely possible that the secretive parts of the agreement actually nullify the publically released portions and that the only knowledge Secretary of State Kerry has about the treaty equals yours or mine. The briefing that Secretary Kerry received may have been simply telling him he would be better off not knowing and that he had no determined need and that for security reasons he was not to be trusted with such knowledge and Secretary Kerry would interpret that as being an in depth discussion of the secret treaty of which he knows little to nothing.

 

 

General Amano, IAEA Secretariat, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, President Rouhani aka Smiling Cheshire Man, Lead Negotiator Zarif and Da Bomb from Dr Strangelove

General Amano, IAEA Secretariat, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, President Rouhani aka Smiling Cheshire Man, Lead Negotiator Zarif and Da Bomb from Dr Strangelove

 

 

In all honesty, the unknown and concealed dealings between some Administration official or team who have President Obama’s complete trust, some official or officials from the IAEA and the Iranian leadership reached and somehow is tied to and included in its entirety to the P5+1, Iran deal thus receiving ratification alongside the P5+1, Iran nuclear agreement. All of this is performed despite being without any discussion except for those discussions before the United States Senate where its secrecy and existence were stated, and nothing more, with Presidential Security Advisor Susan Rice, who testified to have read, if not assisted in shaping, and Secretary Kerry, who claims he has been told of its existence and has been briefed but is either unable or unwilling to share his extent of knowledge on the secret agreement. The concept of secretive agreements in which most of either government and next to none of the nations’ peoples have any knowledge or are thought to even have the need to know or right to know is anything but an original concept. This situation was the norm in all the history of nations where the people even having rights without title was also unknown until quite recent times. Most of the world today lives under governments which operate in just this manner and it is appearing that none exist where such is not the case.

 

What sets the United States apart is that the people have the right to insist to be included and be knowledgeable of all the workings which take place within the government with the exception of those limited items deemed so sensitive that the people may be kept in the dark for the time being but even those items come into the light eventually. What may be found distressing is that the United States, the supposed bastion of freedom and citizens’ rights has slowly but inexorably been sliding down that slippery slope to the bottom where all the dealings of the government beyond the dictates of laws imposed on the people are kept in secret as the people are deemed of such limited capabilities that they are better off allowing their bettors, those in the government and working as enforcement officers for the government to run things and take care of the weighty issues that the government and only the government is permitted to be privileged. Should this be continued to progress and the United States fall into the darkness of tyrannical governance, then what hope does the rest of the world have where tyrannical governance has been the norm for as long as history had been written and before? There is one simple reason such a state of affairs takes hold of governance, and that is size of government. Apparently when any government reaches a certain size it then expands its scope and domain, often at the expense of lower decentralized governances such as the individual states of the United States. As the central government grows and assumes more and more powers the state, municipal, and local governments suffer and eventually become enforcers for the central government and nothing more. This is where the every size fits all governance becomes the norm and anybody who has resided in one of the major metropolises such as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Dallas or the others and also lived in a small, and I do mean small town such as Paw Paw, Mich; Emmetsburg, MD; Loveland, Colo; or any of the hundreds of thousands spread blanketing the United States knows, one size never works well in the smallest of places where some of the best and nicest people live and where most people actually know their neighbors. We can only hope that the flame which when it shines brightest allows the individual person to have rights and the government to be at their beck-and-call and never looming over the ‘little people’ as in a true and good governance there are no little people, only little government, as little as proves to be absolutely necessary. Nowhere has such existed successfully where there are sufficient people spread over an area such that they know not those who run their governance and many have become so dejected and separated from their governance and believe it to be beyond any real and actual control that they do not participate or care who their representatives may be. There were stipulations in the original government set up by the constitution of the United States which need being returned as with this modern age such is actually and finally doable and perhaps such could be an article coming to you soon right here at Beyond the Cusp. Until them, hang in there friends.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

June 13, 2013

President Obama and the United States Constitution

President Obama has made his disdain for the United States Constitution well known. He complained before his first term as United States President in an interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM in 2001 that the United States “Constitution is a charter of negative liberties” and not of positive liberties. He further explained that the Constitution “says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” Keep in mind that this interpretation comes from a man who as a Professor taught courses in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, so he presumably knew what he was talking about and understood the reasons the Constitution was crafted in the manner of limiting government. Apparently Professor Obama, and we can assume President Obama, vehemently disagree with the founding fathers and their vision of limited government allowing for maximum freedoms and liberties for the people. So, perhaps we should look into the consequences of President Obama’s view of positive liberties against the founder’s ideals of negative liberties, or more accurately compare President Obama’s view of empowering government against the founder’s ideas of empowering the people.

First we will summarize the philosophies behind the founding fathers Constitutional limitations on government and how that impacts the people. The founders were strong believers in the ability of man’s capability for self-rule without having to rely on having to be ruled by their supposed betters. They were also mostly strongly religious and this enhanced their view as mankind as a noble being different from the animals and having a divine spark, a divine spirit. They believed that the Creator gave man life and with life certain rights which could not be denied by government or other men if society was to be free and have maximum liberty. As such they placed mankind above government and judged government as being a necessary evil which was best when kept as powerless as possible. Government was to only be permitted to wield those powers requested and permitted by the people. Even then, the layers of government were to have limited power by making each layer removed from the people dependent on the next closer level for its powers. Thus the people requested and allowed a set of powers to be transferred to government at the most local level which then assumed these powers and would also be tasked with adjudicating differences between contesting individuals. This local level of government would in turn permit some of these powers which were beyond their capabilities to be granted to the next level of government along with the adjudication of differences between any competing local governments. This level of the government then passed along those powers beyond their scope to the next level which also adjudicated any contentions of the lower governments. This continued until the least amount of power would be vested in the Federal Government which also adjudicated between the State Governments. Any adjudication could potentially have a judgment appealed to the next higher authority until reaching the final level of adjudications, the Supreme Court. The founders believed that all power comes from the Creator and the most powerful entity was the individual. This also implied that the individual along with the most freedoms and liberties also carried the most responsibilities. Thus, the higher up the government tree one climbs, the lesser powers relegated to each governmental level until reaching the Federal Government which would have the least power and the greatest restrictions on its powers and responsibilities of adjudication. Thus, under the United States Constitution the people are to be vested with maximum powers being permitted all responsibilities, abilities, powers and decisions with the minimal exception as listed within the Constitution. The best description was probably framed within the Bill of Rights, more specifically the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment reads:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

President Obama does not believe that the government should be limited in its powers but instead believes that the government should dole out limited powers, responsibilities and options to the people while retaining maximum control at the highest levels. President Obama believes that the Constitution should empower government and dictate what it is that the government is required to perform for the people. This results in the government deciding what rights it is willing to remit to the people and what privileges it will grant to the people. As a result, the people only receive the privileges which the government determines they may be allowed and any power thus vested with the people may also be taken back by the government at their slightest whim. In President Obama’s world, the people are only granted the rights and responsibilities which the government determines or believes they are capable of while the remainder of power is retained by the government. Furthermore, the Federal Government also determines what responsibilities and powers the States are permitted who in turn decide the same for local government with the final determination of what the people are allowed granted at the local level. Since government passes down the powers, rights, responsibilities and all functions in life with strict limitations retaining the bulk of available oversights and control with itself at every level, the people are basically power starved.

The difference between the United States Constitution and President Obama’s ideas of governance are stark and somewhat counter-intuitive. When President Obama speaks about his disdain for the limitations of the constitution, he speaks that he believes that people would have more power if instead of limiting government the constitution should insist that government perform expressed function for the people. Despite intuition might have one believing that if government is commanded to provide enumerated functions for the people that the people will have more privileges and rights, the United States Constitution actually grants the people far greater flexibility, rights, powers, liberties, and responsibilities. Where President Obama’s idea of government permitting certain services to the people as demanded does allow for the people not to have to assume many, if any, responsibilities as that remains with the government as they are granting items while retaining the real control. With the Constitution written by the founding fathers begins by leaving all responsibilities with the people and as such also gives all powers, freedoms, liberties, and abilities also with the people and the people decide that which they will permit the government to possess. So, if you desire to be responsible for your own actions and taking care of your own needs and expressing yourself however you please while standing by your words, then the United States Constitution was designed for such as you. But if you wish to have all decisions and consequences taken care of by a greater power that gives you that which it decides is in your best interest and requires minimal responsibilities or efforts from you, then you would love President Obama’s world of unlimited government granting you, the people, what is best for you, well, actually granting you what is best for government.

Beyond the Cusp

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.