Factions -- The Chains of Oppression - Part III
The Greatest Obstacle to Restoration of Constitutional Government
Outpost of Freedom
August 25, 2011
This is Part IIII of IV Parts
Illegal immigrants: It is often said that the first impression is the most important impression that you will make upon others. Suppose that the first impression that you make is an unwillingness to abide by the rules/laws of the host, when you are a guest; suppose someone came, invited, or not, into your home and started telling you that the wall colors were wrong, that they didn't like the pictures you had hung, that they didn't like carpeted floors, or that you should prepares them a meal and a bed. It would not be surprising if you caused them to exit your home, and assured them that they would never, again, have entry into your home. That impression that they gave was not what is expected of the guest, and any reaction you had to that belligerence is justified, even if force is necessary to remove them.
We are the collective owners of the country (our collective home), and, as such, have established rules/laws for entry into that home. They were enacted in accordance with the Constitution and are, as such, the law of the land. Those who enter with their first step being a violation of those rules/laws have, as the unwanted guest in your house, established an impression that is lasting, and totally unacceptable.
Those who wipe their muddy feet on your clean carpet are not a part of any acceptable class of people, visitors, or those here by right. They have, by their actions, spit in the face of what this country stands for. It is not a melting pot for the entire world, nor was it intended to be destroyed from within, by a cancer that grows at astronomical rates, and, quite often, at the expense of our own depleted treasury. Each person that enters illegally, or overstays their permitted visit, is a greater threat to the future of our country than any military threat, from any other country, without comparison. The military threat, we have proven, cannot prevail against us. This insidious intrusion, however, eats away at our country's soul with every day that they remain.
Illegal immigration advocates: Those who would advocate forbearance in dealing with these intruders are not adherents to the Principle Faction, nor are they adherents to the laws, concepts, traditions, manners, customs, nor anything else, that we hold dear -- and must continue to hold dear, if we are to survive as the United States, our birthright.
These people, though they may otherwise not be in conflict with the Principle Faction, and may even be of the class of "We the People", or "citizen of the United States", are, by their support of violation of the law of the land, in conflict with the Principle Faction. They have denied the concept of assimilation, and have thereby provided a means of destruction of the entire purpose of the Founders and Framers, for the creation of this great nation.
Anti- religious groups, Atheists, Agnostics: When we understand our heritage, we recognize that the Founders and Framers were religious, though perhaps not pious, men. Both Washington and Jefferson had problems with organized religion, as many of us do today. Regardless, they had beliefs founded on both Old and New Testaments, and adhered to the Christian moral values, without question. Never did they challenge the concept that was, eventually, embodied in the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court Building (built 1932-35) in Washington, D.C., contains over a dozen depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandment, sculpted in stone, and permanent not only in that building, but in the hearts and heritage of this country. Congress begins each daily session with prayer, and has done so from their first gathering. President's have called for days of prayer and thanksgiving, in official proclamations, throughout our history.
However, there are those advocates who have challenged the right of a state, a county, school, or even a small town, to begin with prayer; display the same representation found in the Supreme Court building, or erection of seasonal displays of Christian holidays on public land.
And, in a somewhat surprising response, they have found proponents of their advocacy in those very halls of government mentioned above. All under the guise that such actions and displays are "unconstitutional".
How can that be unconstitutional which was practiced by the very authors of that document, and those who ratified it? Their practices and beliefs were not in question then, and there is the more serious question as to whether even an amendment to the Constitution would be Constitutional if it abrogated the First Amendment.
Surely, we cannot even begin to consider that we may remain as even a vestige of the United States if we allow the denigration of those practices considered by most to be fundamental to the establishment of the country -- by those very people who caused to be carved in stone the underpinnings of the moral compass by which we found our course.
So long as they adhere to the Principle Faction, and otherwise meet the requirements of class, and distance themselves from those who advocate to the contrary, they may be considered to be of the Principle Faction.
Those who continue to advocate legal sanctions, removal of displays, or any other means of undermining that which has stood so long, are in conflict with the Principle Faction, and have no place in this country, since they choose not to assimilate, rather to change that which is our heritage.
Homosexual rights groups: Some will argue that homosexuality is a disease, others that it is a lifestyle choice. Each is a diversion from the crux of the matter. It is considered by the Christian moral values adopted by this country, 220 years ago, to be immoral. Though with the exception of some local jurisdictions, and some states, it has not been considered criminal -- just immoral.
Even when criminal, it was seldom prosecuted, since it was conducted between consenting parties, in private circumstances. To intrude on that privacy was as much a crime as the behavior itself, at least under the principles of the Constitution. However, if we look at a few of the steps taken to endeavor to assign legitimacy and morality to the practice, we will find an excellent example of the destructiveness of factions. The common terminology used to describe homosexuals was often "queer" (which is rather what their behavior was considered to be), or the more objectionable "fag" or "faggot" (a derogatory term).
As late as the fifties and sixties, homosexual, or, queer, bars and clubs were not uncommon. Their public behavior was normal, and their private behavior, in such facilities, was, to use the expression of the time, "done in the closet". And, very few had objection to such behavior, so long as it did not "spill onto the streets".
There was an effort in California, back in that period, to establish a homosexual community in the village of Alpine, in the High Sierra. Even then, there was no general outrage, since the village would be their own 'closet'.
Next came a change in terminology. A word that was frequently used to indicate jovial, happy, light, was adopted by the homosexuals. Back then, people would go to a "gay party" meaning that it was going to be sitting around in a light and humorous atmosphere, perhaps telling jokes and stories. However the theft, yes, I mean theft, of that word, which had only positive connotations, was a move to give an air of legitimacy and acceptance to a behavior that was, heretofore, considered immoral. A major coup by this faction managed to change the image of the homosexual, and to remove from usage a word that was commonly used, even then.
Since that time, this once frowned upon group has managed to use the courts and legislative process to provide special protection and special privileges from what was, through most of our history, a subject unworthy of discussion. They have taken a word, "marriage", with millennia of understanding of the definition, and still recognized in US Code as between a man and woman, and have managed to steal that word for their own uses and economic gain.
They have successfully lobbied for legislation that forces the government schools to encourage such behavior, contrary to the wishes of the parents who are clearly among the Principle Faction, and are advocating a moral degeneration of our society.
Those advocates of homosexuality are in conflict with the Principle Faction, and have no place, with the exception of the closet, in our country.
Black rights advocates: As explained in the "We the People" series (linked above), a second class of citizen was established by the Fourteenth Amendment, and confirmed by a subsequent amendment and decisions of the United States Supreme Court. However, through a subtle process of indoctrination, beginning in the late fifties and early sixties, the intent of that Amendment has been converted to an application that has generated havoc, loss of property, and even loss of life.
The "civil rights" movement of that period moved us from a society that recognized the Principle Faction (basically, a fundamentally white culture) to one that has legislated, encouraged, and enforced against, that society, undermining it, in favor of granting privileges to those citizens of the United States, as well as other without such standing, under the guise of equality, greater even than that afforded to "We the People".
Society, itself, had moved in that direction, at the rate that was warranted by the people, not the government. Whether Jackie Robinson, Nat King Cole, or Fats Domino; acceptance of negros as a part of our culture, was in the works. Society, itself, was approaching a degree of equality, voluntarily.
Instead, it turned to demonstrations (not the preferred form of legislative influence), by both sides. And, since those early days of civil rights demonstrations, they often turned to violence, instigated by both sides. America has been in a near constant state of turmoil, since the time that the government stepped in and tried to privilege the second class even above the first class. And some of that violence, today, perpetrated by those who believe that "change has not come fast enough", is nothing more than rioting and thievery, perpetrated under the guise of equality, couched in phrases about social and economic 'justice'.
These, groups, relying upon judicial intimidation and violence, have proven that their methods and goals are in conflict with the Principle Faction, the Constitution and its principles, and our way of life.
Woman's right advocates: Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams, is probably the best known advocate of women's rights. However, as much as she discussed the subject in correspondence with her husband, he never did advocate such a change in the legal relationship of women within that society.
Over the years, the nation evolved, not turning against the Founding principles, rather, in a social or societal form, with Wyoming being the first to enact women's suffrage laws. Rights of ownership of land and/or inheritance were becoming common, and barriers were falling, as well as advancing women in the society, without intervention by the federal government.
Finally, in 1920, with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, the federal government intervened in an area that was reserved by the Constitution to the states. As with the Fifteenth Amendment (race suffrage), the right of the states to determine who could vote in elections, both state and national, as protected by the Constitution, was now being assumed by the federal government.
Not that it was a bad move, rather, that it was the abrogation of the right of the states to make such a decision, that was so appalling. It was just seven years earlier that the right of the states to be represented, by senators chosen by their respective legislatures, in Congress, was removed by the Seventeenth Amendment. This was, effectively, the end of states' rights.
As contrary to the original construction of the Constitution as this was, it also opened a means of the presumption of federal authority in manipulating the society to the will of the powers in Washington, D.C., and those who influence such social change.
Over time, unconstitutional legislation has resulted the reduction of the male to a subordinate position in our society, where lawsuits and intimidation work in only one direction, to the detriment, and at the expense of, one half of the society.
Our society, which was based upon rewards for performance, was converted to one where rewards are mandated by quotas, with little regard to ability and performance. This denies to society the making of the choices that were assured and protected by the Constitution.
The advocacy of federal intervention, as opposed to the normal evolution of these norms in our culture, is in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and is inconsistent with the Principle Faction.
Christian militia: Militia, the right to collective self-defense, is embodied in the Second Amendment, and has been a part of our heritage and culture since the Magna Carta. Since 1215, that right has existed, and, since that time, the Militia have always been subordinate to civil authority and have been geographic in their composition. From the Shires of England, to the counties, townships, villages and plantations of the seventeen hundreds, participation in the militia was a right and was a duty. The only exceptions were exclusions for certain people because of vocation, and those that were "inimical to the cause of American Liberty" (Tories). To exclude people who do not claim to be of the Christian faith is contrary to the Constitution and the principles upon which it was founded.
Christian militia are inconsistent the Principle Faction
Islamic groups: Islam is not just a religion. Islam, in its current manifestation, is a social and political system, as well. It is a social system that includes a number of practices that are considered abhorrent, by our culture. Its social/judicial system manifests extreme punishments for what our culture might perceive to be a minor transgression or no crime at all.
Though two hundred years ago, "Mohametmen" simply practiced as a religion, and were accepted as a religion by the Framers, their character has changed to be anything but just a religion.
We can look to Europe and see the consequences of the intrusion of Islam into a society. Eventually, the demand for change or legal reform to comply with their social/political system takes many forms, including physical abuse against people that oppose them; and the obstruction of roadways so that they can hold collective prayer absent a facility for such service; exercising their form of justice, including capital punishment, contrary to the host country's laws, and often exempt from prosecution for crimes that would otherwise result in incarceration, or worse.
Much like the illegal immigrants, members of the Islamic faith come here with a total disregard for our laws, our culture, and our society. They come with the intention of forcing change, by intimidation, by their numbers, or any means that suits them. Their presence in the country, under their present manifestation, is contrary to the Constitution and its principles, and contrary to the Principle Faction.
The Congress: Congress, especially after their vote for the Debt Ceiling Increase, has demonstrated that they are a faction unto themselves, without regard for the Constitution or the will of the people.
The Congress acts in conflict with the Principle Faction of this country.
The Executive Branch: The Executive Branch, tasked with enforcing the laws of the land, has continued to ignore existing laws regarding immigration, and when forced into enforcing such laws, does so with a leniency that is more encouraging to the violation of the immigration laws than deterring them.
The Executive Branch has declared that Tea Party members; Constitutionalists; Gun Rights (Second Amendment) advocates, combat veterans, and others, who fall well within the Principle Faction as "terrorist".
The executive Branch of the government is in conflict with the Principle Faction of this country
The US government: The government "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance", to lie, steal and even murder, members of the Principle Faction, and has done so with immunity from prosecution.
The Administrative Branches of government are in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and the Principle Faction.
State governments: State governments, with rare exception, do not defy federal intrusions against the Principle Faction, and often participate in the enforcement of unconstitutional polices and laws, receiving compensation from the federal government for the submission to its assumed and unconstitutional authority.
The state governments are acting in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and the Principle Faction.
Of course, within each of these factions are members who are adherents to the Principle Faction and the Constitution, though they may be facilitating that faction in opposition to the Principle Faction. Rather than suffering guilt by association, they would be well advised to understand that adherence to the Principle Faction and assimilation is imperative.
This article can be found on line at Factions -- The Chains of Oppression - Part III