★America Explained

Liberty, The United States Constitution, and The Role of Government
Jeff Dumas

There is a war of philosophies going on right now, and though I believe most Americans have a vague, “instinctual” understanding of where they each personally stand with regard to liberty, they haven’t for the most part really thought about what they think. To get a better understanding of the war that is raging beneath the surface we have to talk about and understand the difference between “negative” liberties and ““positive” liberties. In an important, much talked about, but little understood statement that Barack Obama made in a 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM, Barack Obama said the following:

“…If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. 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. And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …”

This is important to understand because Barack Obama was a Constitutional law professor and he understood completely what he was saying, most people, I believe, do not. The problem is that his statement is in direct conflict with the clear intent of the Founding Fathers. I am carefully and deliberately using the words “clear intent” here because it is important that you understand what he meant and to understand that you have to understand what a “negative” liberty and a *positive” liberty is and the philosophies behind these ideas.

Barack Obama was correct in stating that The Constitution is “a charter of negative liberties”, it is, but what does that mean? To understand that we must first understand what liberty is.

Liberty Explained in about eight minutes

You owe it to yourselves (if you’re an American, that is) to read a bit about the ninth amendment and why the Warren Court (The Supreme Court under Justice Warren) was considered radical. The Warren Court did a lot of good stuff, but what Obama was talking about when he made the reference was that judges should be “activist” in forcing a redistribution of wealth. He mentions coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. These are frightening words to me and it troubles me that a man with this philosophy is the president.

Here are some great videos for you guys.
America Explained Part 1
America Explained Part 2
America Explained Part 3

Federal Reserve Fraud Part 1
Federal Reserve Fraud Part 2
Federal Reserve Fraud Part 3
Federal Reserve Fraud Part 4
Federal Reserve Fraud Part 5

The Rothschilds & The Federal Reserve

G. Edward Griffin on the Federal Reserve System

David Horowitz on how radical professors indoctrinate students.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8

A worthwhile discussion we should be having. I’m posting this because I recently saw Ben Stein’s “Expelled”. Darwin was brilliant, but it seems to me that intelligent design should be discussed and not ignored. I believe there is some intellectual dishonesty on the part of strict evolutionists.
Creationism vs. Darwin
Questioning Evolution Theory

Related ideas dealing with eugenics. Population Control
If you guys were to look into this further you might find some “bothersome” connections and parallels with the “Progressive” movement (Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, F.D.R., Hillary Clinton, Obama) and the Nazis. I find it ironic that much of what Obama believes has it’s foundation not only in eugenics, but flat out racism.

In an unrelated, but related topic I’d like to hear some thoughts on the Chariots of the Gods
Now, I believe that “ancient astronauts” is a fascinating topic. There are lots of fascinating things here. I used to think of Egypt’s civilization as being old, but Tiahuanaco is about 17,000 years old. Dare I say it…. fascinating.

It is really laughable to me that Richard Dawkins , one of the most vocal athiests out there who absolutely refutes the idea of “intelligent design” would say this. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

I would love to hear some thoughts from you guys regarding the relationship of the ego and intellectual dishonesty. This has been on my mind lately because I see (and when I use “I” here I’m doing my best to keep my own ego in check) so much intellectual dishonesty these days in political discussion and science. Our schools and universities are ripe with it. Whatever happened to honest discussion and debate? I used to have a sweatshirt that said “God is dead! Nietzsche” and right below that it said “Nietzsche is dead! God”. I wish I could find it!!!

Here’s another video I like dealing with indoctrination and political correctness. Indoctrination

Here is a discussion of Redistribution of Wealth. It has eleven parts and is pretty long, but it is definitely worth watching the whole thing.
Redistribution of Wealth Part 1

The Federalist Society