Memorial Day thoughts….

Posted in Michael's thoughts, Political Opinions, Ranting on May 29th, 2017 by admin

Today is Memorial Day.  In America that means hot dogs, burgers, the end of school and the beginning of pool season.  It might even mean a mini-vacation and a host of cold libations contrasting the sudden heat of summer.  And that is sad.  Some of you at least attempt to appreciate the intent of the holiday and might fly a flag.  You might go to a parade or visit a local DFW lodge or even visit the gravestone of someone you knew who served.

While these latter items are indeed noteworthy and no doubt appreciated by those so initiated, it still misses the intent of the holiday for me.

To remember is a start, I think the important part of the holiday is not just remembering but it is about reflection.  We must in our hearts contemplate and appreciate those that supported, in many cases with their lives, the ability to enjoy the freedoms we have.  We must honor them and the ideals they held.  We must carry on and defend those that attempt to circumvent, tarnish or destroy those goals of ideological perfection first documented over two hundred years ago.  We must stand guard, stalwart and unwavering to these principals of liberty, of equality, of righteousness.  They are constantly under threat not just with foreign nations both envious and intimidated of our success but internally as well where despotism, greed, injustice and apathy attempt to decompose that which is unequivocally right for that of personal gain.

The founders of this nation were clear in their intent.  We were to be a free nation, comprised of free men and women with minimal governance which was empowered by the people to which it was indebted.  These people were assumed to be devout in terms of their intentions and responsibilities to this nation.  There were not to be burdens placed on individuals that were not expressly and without hesitation condoned by some sort of great power that looked over and protected people.  It was not the government but to God that people owed their freedom through a set of natural laws.  They consummated this deep acceptance in this conviction in a simple bold statement where they “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.  Today we are not governed so with overbearing regulation, rights infringed upon instituted as a means of some better good as envisioned by a set of elitist who no longer serve at the will of the people but empowered nevertheless through coercion, concessions and a camouflage of intent.  As such power is consolidated it is fortified and its foundation difficult to breach.

It is this that the framers did fear as they know man is flawed even if spiritually pure.   The concern was to be mitigated by the concept of not only equal rights in representation (e.g. voting) but also in the alignment and separations of powers.  While the latter was effectively initially, greed, bias and conspiracy loomed large as steps were taken to eliminate these protections of the citizenry and instill a power based unfettered.  This was achieved over time through backroom deals, bribes and deceit as foundations of power, the guards of our freedom, were manipulated and instilled (starting with a non-equitable Supreme Court).  Without the checks and balances of this structure, it became difficult and impossible to guaranteed that original promise that Mr. Jefferson so eloquently penned both in our original declaration but repeatedly for its citizens.  He spoke and pleaded repeatedly that “the principles on which we engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the laws of our being, and we but obeyed them in pursuing undeviatingly the course they called for. It issued finally in that inestimable state of freedom which alone can ensure to man the enjoyment of his equal rights.”

Today, these rights are not equal.  There is a disproportionate amount that some say favor the rich.  And indeed, those with wealth have some advantages to common life but they fundamentally do not have expressed extensions of rights over other men except in cases where their influence has obtained that via the government.  The poor are said to have less rights and again, this is an exaggerated parable.  It is not less rights they have, it is less wealth, less means to potentially pursue happiness.  Again, this is a morally flawed argument in that wealth does not insure happiness or vice versa.  Happiness today and what was meant 200 years ago are at odds.  Happiness then was the ability to make your own decisions, to be able to change your job, your religion, your place of residence.  It was not about owning an iPhone or being able to take vacations.   The citizens of the past understood and lived under the pretext that they – not the government – were responsible for themselves and hence their happiness.  The level of effort they put into their work, good and bad luck and the willingness to sacrifice when necessary were fundamental to achievement of that goal.  The government – and as an extension its people, did not owe you anything except opportunity.  It was not responsible for you but simply had a responsibility to you.  It had one vision that again, Mr. Jefferson states clearly ‘”The freedom and happiness of man… [are] the sole objects of all legitimate government.”  Today, progressives use these words and others from that period such as “the only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it.” To legitimize their efforts.  Again, the point here is missed (or discarded) by inferring this mass represents numbers solely.  The inclusion of “associated under it” enforces the concept of citizenry in generally.  So, the passage really means simple that the government is there to ensure the principals of all with those principles again being the inalienable rights so enthusiastically adopted by the country.  Any doubt of this should be eliminated by further examination of text by its author “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”  Again, it was a different world and one where expectations and behavior were indeed for the betterment of man, not the betterment of a few men so selected and classified by an unrepresented government.  Jefferson, like many others at that time, including his ideological foe John Adams, agreed that efforts (or government) which tend to restore to man all his natural rights [are] convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.  In other words, contribute to the ideals of the government so it’s protections of your rights remains strong.

Today’s poor do not accept this.  Dependence on the government is now considered a right.  There is no need to work, to contribute to society or any other principal of ethical decency.  As power was consolidated, it decided the winners and losers, not the people.  And, to maintain that power, it has taken to bribing those that ensure their continuance.  The few that resist have become powerless and it is downfall of this nation.  The powerful use weapons of words, guilt and deception to leverage this power.  We reached the tipping point many years ago with Franklin Roosevelt and it blossomed with Presidents such as Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama.  They each doubled down on this concept.  The Republic was supposed to be able to withstand such things as mob rule but over time these protections have been eroded.

Back to Memorial Day…. So I reflect constantly on the original intent of this nation, its greatness and its empowerment of rights I believe to be self-evident, even if under attack.  So, it is also a day that is critical to establish a bridgehead in our fight to take back the nation.  It is not a simple task as the majority is satisfied with the status that is.  This is no doubt because of the inequities that the progressives have instituted in wealth redistribution, taxes and such where the few, provide for the rich.  Conceptually, this would not be a bad system IF and this is a huge IF, the few that provide for the many had control over the many.  This is not an attempt to institute some form of servitude but simply a reflection on that if we are to take that which belongs on one, they should get something in return for it.  Progressives like to talk about the wealthy benefits one has.  That is fine.  Let them have the benefits.  They earned them.  Others can earn them to.  If I work hard, I deserve the rewards.  This is a lost concept for many that cling to extreme liberalism.  They put little stock into the how.  They simple want part of the result.  They do this to embolden their base.  Take 1 million dollars from a rich person (who can cast only 1 vote) and give a thousand dollars to a thousand people with no strings (but in mass a 1000 votes), you an very well build a base of supporters quickly.  And they have.  As it stands today, 47% of the population pays no income tax. That means, that roughly half of the country is legally stealing from the other half.  This has to stop but the means to do so is difficult with such a voting disadvantage.  However, we have to try and as such I consider it a responsibility to myself, my children and those that gave me this right to start with by their service to this country.