er_giveaway_banner.jpg (39000 bytes)

Do You Think Your Vote in November Will Restore Freedom?

HOW MANY ARE PREPARED TO WALK THE LONG ROAD BACK?

by Ron Ewart

Is each vote actually counted? Are voting machines constitutional?

(Sept. 23, 2010) — “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” – Thomas Jefferson

Way too many Americans dwell in la-la land, on either side of the political spectrum.  Naiveté is the rule rather than the exception.  Truth is all but obscured by lies and propaganda from both parties.

It took over 100 years to destroy freedom, from “carry a big stick” Roosevelt, to “16th Amendment” Wilson, to the ”New Deal” FDR, to the ”Great Society” Johnson, to the “inept and outright mentally challenged“ Carter, to the “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton and now to the ”Great Socialist Transformation of America” Obama.  Does anyone think that one vote in one election cycle can restore liberty?  If they do, naive isn’t a strong enough word to define their mental state.  It’s a start, but it is a long road back to freedom.

Even if the Republicans take back the House and the Senate in November, what will that change?  The lust for power in a Republican is just as strong as the lust for power in a Democrat.  That’s human nature.   The only thing that can offset the lust for power in a politician is the greater power of the “Consent of the Governed” who demand freedom.

How many unconstitutional laws that have been passed in the last 100 years, will be repealed in the next session of the Congress, if the Republicans do take back both Houses?  And can they override a presidential veto?  Probably not.  Obama won’t stand for wiping out his socialist agenda and legacy, while he remains president.

How many U. S. Supreme Court decisions in the last 100 years can be overturned, decisions that acted contrary to literal constitutional interpretation? Will the decision in the 1880′s by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and the Dean of the Harvard Law School, that changed constitutional adjudication from strict interpretation of the Constitution, to adjudication by evolving case law and court precedent, be overturned?  A draconian decision, in-aptly named “Positivism”, that turned the Constitution into a “living document” instead of a fixed set of principles for the foundation of liberty.

Will the Republicans be able to repeal or de-fund Obama care?  Will they open up America’s energy resources to truly get us off foreign oil?  How many bloated bureaucracies will they disband?  Will they kill, repeal or dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency that has designated CO2 a pollutant, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act that takes 30 pages to define a ladder, or the Endangered Species Act that has decimated private property rights, or UN Agenda 21 policies that have sent freedom into the scrap heap, or the Department of Energy that has a $24 billion annual budget and 16,000 employees, or the Department of Education that has taken public education out of the hands of local jurisdictions and placed it squarely in that seed of corruption, Washington, DC?  Will they repeal treaties that act contrary to the Constitution?   Can the Republicans restore freedom with legislation?  Hardly!

But the bigger question is, can any politician or group of politicians be able to break apart the structures of industrial and financial power that have been built up around a powerful government?  Can they for example, limit the power of corporations and the giant industrial complex?  Can they roll back the power of the unions?  Can they ward off the power of the national and international money changers and power brokers that influence government decisions?  The answer of course, is no.  Only the people, en masse, can undo that power, if they are of one mind.

The road back to freedom can only be taken by those Americans who demand freedom, no matter what the cost.  If elections won’t restore freedom, are there other peaceful ways to reclaim our Constitutional Republic, when the nation is so divided between the millions who want something FROM government and those other millions who want to be left ALONE by government?  Can freedom be restored without violence?  We teeter on the brink of enslavement and revolution.  An ill wind could determine which way the teeter totter will fall.

And even more complicated than the method to restore American freedom, is to define what freedom really means in the year 2010, when over 300,000,000 Americans now reside in the 50 states.  In our first revolution to establish freedom, there were only about 3,000,000 people in 13 loosely-knit colonies who claimed to be Americans and wanted to BE Americans, not British subjects.  And even just a small portion of those 3,000,000 were willing to take up the sword and the gun against the dictatorial rule of King George III.  That small portion won liberty for all Americans.  Will a small portion of our 300,000,000 people again be required to restore freedom?  And will that small portion be enough to override the power of the masses that now demand all kinds of goodies FROM government, paid for by the fruits of production and those that are responsible for that production?

It must be realized that our enemy is not so much the tyranny of government, as it is the scourge of dependence on government.  With dependence comes strings.  With strings comes enslavement.  To be free of government tyranny we must be independent, self-reliant, self-sufficient and responsible for our actions.   Secondly, if we want to be able to trust government, we must become trust worthy ourselves.  History has proven, time and time again, that a people and a government devoid of honor, will fail.

So no!  One election victory this November will not restore freedom.  Only a collective realization by millions of Americans that freedom has evaporated and must now be reclaimed by whatever means, will start us on the road to freedom.  The damage that has been wrought against freedom must be unraveled.  The mindset of those Americans who find themselves dependent on government and are satisfied with that dependence, must be altered.  To be free of government, we must be stronger than government and we must be of one mind in our determination to break the shackles that government has placed upon us.  Freedom is a powerful stimulus and it can be infectious, if freedom is the engine that drives our souls.

Yes, we encourage all freedom-loving individuals to vote this November, but that one vote will mean nothing unless those individuals then make a parallel commitment to continue the battle to restore our Constitutional Republic and regain the great spirit that thrives under the umbrella of American freedom and exceptionalism.  The fate of a free America is in the hands of those who cherish freedom and are willing to go the extra mile to secure it.

——————————-

Ron Ewart is President of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO)

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Editorials

19 Responses to Do You Think Your Vote in November Will Restore Freedom?

  1. NUTN2SAY

    Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM

    The “five” is a split decision! The rule needs to be changed to be either a six/three or a unanimous. We are talking about the U.S. Constitution and I think the Constitution should have more consideration then it gets now. Isn’t the general rule for a first degree murder conviction that the jury must be unanimous in their decision? Well I think the Constitution should get that kind of consideration and more so.

  2. Robert Laity

    Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 6:26 AM

    We still HAVE a “Constitution”. Technically,it is blueprint on paper. One must be proactive with regard to making sure the blueprint is followed. This involves dying for the cause,if necessary,in order to secure the blessings of liberty for those who come after us. As our ancestors did for us.We must do for our kids.

    It’s a tough concept but freedom has never BEEN “Free”.

  3. Robert Laity

    Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 6:22 AM

    Yes, education IS the answer. Currently,there are battles in several states regarding the inappropriate revisionist attempts to “Change” the history books and indoctrinate our kids.
    Obama DID,after all, promise “Change”. He just failed to elaborate on just what he had in mind.

  4. Robert Laity

    Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 6:18 AM

    Many people DO “Comprehend” the meaning of “Natural-Born”. Many have consiously decided to ignore that comprehension.

  5. Robert Laity

    Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 6:16 AM

    The Supreme Court was established by Article 3,Section 1 of the Constitution:

  6. Robert Laity

    Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 6:13 AM

    In a group of nine justices,five IS a “majority”. The Supreme court is vested with the Judicial power of the United States. It was Marbury v. Madison that set the precedent that SCOTUS had the power to interpret the Constitution. The entire set up of our Constitutional Democratic Republic was a compromise. In a representative government the majority does not always rule and thank God. Minoritues would be relegated to being second class citizens bullied by the majority.

    In the case of the Justices, there are currently nine individuals who are entrusted by our government to interpret the Constitution and see to it that the line that separates tyrrany from freedom is not crossed.

    Sometimes, a SCOTUS ruling does not sit well with many people. I have always criticized the (7) Justices who ruled that it was OK to murder a baby in the womb,at the whim of others. Certainly a rulling that is “Repugnant to the Constitution” as outlined in Marbury.

    One of the “Blessings of Liberty” IS “Life”…”for ourselves AND our POSTERITY”. Our posterity means our kids. They have the RIGHT TO LIFE.

    In any event,it may be unrealistic that nine people anywhere gathered will come to a unanimous consensus. Our system is not perfect. But it IS extraordinary.

    The court system starts with lower courts,usually having one judge presiding. Appeal courts are available also.At one point the number of Judges presiding go up to (3) or more.
    The process becomes exponential ending with SCOTUS having nine Justices.

    There was a point in History when it was suggested that the number of SCOTUS Justices be increased to (15). It is always an odd number,for a reason. While there have been several unanimous SCOTUS decisions,it is not the norm.

    If a unanimous decision was required EVERY time,we would have a situation in which the interpretation of the laws enacted by Congress would be subjected to “hung” SCOTUS
    deliberations.

  7. NUTN2SAY

    Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 1:11 AM

    Thank You GM Scott,

    You have said it (the American #1 problem of them all)…..IS OUR AMERICAN CONSTITUTION’S Article 2 Section 1 the RULE of LAW FOR THIS NATION OR NOT!

  8. GMScott

    Saturday, September 25, 2010 at 4:23 PM

    ABSOLUTELY AGREE with NutN2Say’s 9/24 6:23 pm statement!

    Until and only until this issue is resolved, nothing else matters or makes a difference.

    The U.S.A. is NO more without the U.S. Constitution, and everybody seems to just want to go on & on with all the diversionary issues.

    Is our U.S. Constitution, including Art II, Sec. 1, the Rule of Law for this nation or not!?

  9. peggy

    Saturday, September 25, 2010 at 1:01 PM

    the scotus is formed under an illegal 17th amendment….. the scotus is approved by the ceo and the executive chosen senators.. read up

  10. Bryan

    Saturday, September 25, 2010 at 7:01 AM

    I’d like to restore the Federation created by the Articles of Confederation, rather than the monolithic Nation/State created by the Constitution. The Federalists were, in fact, Nationalists, and the Anti-Federalists were, in fact, the true Federalists. Practically everything the Anti-Federalists feared as a result of the Constitution and National government, has come to pass.

  11. NUTN2SAY

    Friday, September 24, 2010 at 6:23 PM

    In America, at this time, there should only be one discussion! ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1! For the moment the subject of immigration along with some other problematic social issues America is having must be temporarily set aside! When Obama came along bringing with him this deliberate unanswered interpretation of Natural Born Citizen (of which there are many examples on the U.S. historical record that say mother and father both must be U.S. citizens), he superseded all other issues of the day! When Obama became a candidate for the presidency, he along with the democrats, republicans and the MSM because of their defaulting on the vetting process that wasn’t, but should have been….A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WAS BORN! To this day this Constitutional Crisis goes deliberately ignored by those who have sworn oath to serve and protect the U.S. Constitution! Until this Constitutional Crisis is properly addressed, resolved and the people of America have been educated to the fact that Barack Obama was a Constitutional mistake and should have never been allowed to be a presidential candidate…THERE IS NO U.S. CONSTITUTION AND WHEN THERE IS NO U.S. CONSTITUTION…..THERE IS NO FREEDOM!

  12. peggy

    Friday, September 24, 2010 at 2:39 PM

    is this a joke,, vote for what the same party in play….. the organic constitution has been suspended….has voting really mattered… is obama a bush.. but worse .. there is your hope and change.. the fix is in the 13th .. 14th.. and 17th amendment must be abolished.. the ACTS.. THE TREATIES ..THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS MUST GO.. and FORE MOST.. THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT vote ………..do dead people vote… or thumb drives in TENN…?PERHAPS illegal aliens

  13. Megan

    Friday, September 24, 2010 at 11:28 AM

    We had a state representative give a speech at a tea party meeting. He pointed out that it will take at least three elections to turn the country around: 2010, 2012, and 2014. That’s a lot of work ahead, so we cannot get tired or discouraged, or beaten down. Stay the course, and demand more than the GOP has said in its Contract with America. They need to reduce spending way beyond that of 2008 spending–not enough GOP. We need more than that.

  14. NUTN2SAY

    Friday, September 24, 2010 at 9:44 AM

    You know something Mr. Laity, you just touched upon one of my many pet peeves! When a SCOTUS makes a split decision, how do I know if it is Constitutional or not? Everyone knows these days that split decisions are based on political party lines and not based on the Constitution as it should be. I don’t know who made the SCOTUS rule that split decisions are acceptable but in my opinion they are not! When we Patriots take back America from this current group of thieves, thugs and heathens one of the changes to be made high on my priority list is to change that stupid rule. I would prefer a unanimous decision but will settle for a majority if other people see things different. But split decisions from the SCOTUS most certainly have got to go!

  15. HighlanderJuan

    Friday, September 24, 2010 at 7:23 AM

    @Nutin2say, I’d be happy if 51% understood, but sadly only about 10% ‘get it’ now. But, you know, the more we discuss the issue, the more educated the citizens will become.

    I have followed the issue of Obama’s ineligibility for two years, primarily on Alipac.us, and I see a decided improvement in the knowledge level of many people, and that’s a good thing.

    We’ll get there – it’s just a matter of time.

  16. HighlanderJuan

    Friday, September 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM

    Ron,

    Excellent article.

    The people are ignored by Washington because the federal government, the political parties, and the unelected ruling elite do not represent the interests of the people, and even worse, the federal government hardly represents the interests of the states.

    Note that the lawlessness and corruption we see rampant in both of our major political parties and in the federal government is often overshadowed by the lawlessness and corruption within our own state governments, and that must be fixed as well – maybe before we are able to fix problems in the federal government.

    The state governments also have much more power and control over the federal government than the individual voter, and I’m waiting for the Tea Party folks to march on their own state capitals and demand that the sovereign state governments perform according to their own constitutions, and to exert the necessary control to correct their own federal government.

    These problems of unlawful actions by the feds will be best fixed by the states as Arizona is now doing, although, in my opinion, Arizona could be taking a much harder stance on its issues with the feds.

    This article discusses the issue of state sovereignty from an historical perspective and in greater detail.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/12/state-sovereignty/

  17. Rachelle Hamlin

    Friday, September 24, 2010 at 7:08 AM

    Absolutely right on. Each person has to become totally committed to freedom of their own soul, and the souls of their children.

  18. Robert Laity

    Friday, September 24, 2010 at 6:06 AM

    “Naive” to think that “one vote…can restore liberty”? Not in the least “Naive”.
    One vote by one SCOTUS Justice could change a 4 to 5 ruling heading left to a 5 to 4 ruling going right.

  19. NUTN2SAY

    Thursday, September 23, 2010 at 6:38 PM

    NO!… JUST TO BE CLEAR I WILL SAY IT AGAIN! NO! NO! NO! UNTIL EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA FULLY COMPREHENDS WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT BY NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IN ORDER TO BE A U.S. PRESIDENT ………..ALL FREEDOM IS ON HOLD!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>