0 comment Wednesday, December 3, 2014 | admin
March 2 this year will mark 175 years since Texans declared their independence from Mexico, and founded the Republic of Texas.
At the link, you can read the entire Declaration, and note its parallels to today's situation.
''When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.
When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness.
Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our grievances is therefore submitted to an impartial world, in justification of the hazardous but unavoidable step now taken, of severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the earth.''
The declaration was written hastily, as the Lone Star Junction article indicates, because the Alamo was under siege at the time. The document is credited to a committee of writers, but it is generally thought that most of it came from the pen of George Childress.
I feel the need to call attention to the fact, mentioned in the Declaration just after the section I excerpted above, that the Anglo-American colonists were invited to settle in Texas. They did not 'invade' or 'steal' anything from Mexico, despite what people today claim or ignorantly believe. The writers of the Declaration note, too, that the colonists were promised the same degree of liberty they had enjoyed as American citizens, and they were promised they would live under a republican government. Of course these promises were not kept.
Towards the end, the writers say
These, and other grievances, were patiently borne by the people of Texas, untill they reached that point at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. We then took up arms in defence of the national constitution. We appealed to our Mexican brethren for assistance. Our appeal has been made in vain. Though months have elapsed, no sympathetic response has yet been heard from the Interior. We are, therefore, forced to the melancholy conclusion, that the Mexican people have acquiesced in the destruction of their liberty, and the substitution therfor of a military government; that they are unfit to be free, and incapable of self government.
The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees our eternal political separation.''
I hope that today's generations, like our forefathers, recognize that self-preservation is indeed the first law of nature. Many today seem never to have thought about that most primal need.
At the link, you can read the entire Declaration, and note its parallels to today's situation.
''When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.
When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness.
Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our grievances is therefore submitted to an impartial world, in justification of the hazardous but unavoidable step now taken, of severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the earth.''
The declaration was written hastily, as the Lone Star Junction article indicates, because the Alamo was under siege at the time. The document is credited to a committee of writers, but it is generally thought that most of it came from the pen of George Childress.
I feel the need to call attention to the fact, mentioned in the Declaration just after the section I excerpted above, that the Anglo-American colonists were invited to settle in Texas. They did not 'invade' or 'steal' anything from Mexico, despite what people today claim or ignorantly believe. The writers of the Declaration note, too, that the colonists were promised the same degree of liberty they had enjoyed as American citizens, and they were promised they would live under a republican government. Of course these promises were not kept.
Towards the end, the writers say
These, and other grievances, were patiently borne by the people of Texas, untill they reached that point at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. We then took up arms in defence of the national constitution. We appealed to our Mexican brethren for assistance. Our appeal has been made in vain. Though months have elapsed, no sympathetic response has yet been heard from the Interior. We are, therefore, forced to the melancholy conclusion, that the Mexican people have acquiesced in the destruction of their liberty, and the substitution therfor of a military government; that they are unfit to be free, and incapable of self government.
The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees our eternal political separation.''
I hope that today's generations, like our forefathers, recognize that self-preservation is indeed the first law of nature. Many today seem never to have thought about that most primal need.
Labels: American Heritage, American History, Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Texas History
0 comment Saturday, September 20, 2014 | admin
These Are Not Negotiable
''...it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those principles that form our "line in the sand" and that we will not surrender under any circumstance. Either that, or we must admit to ourselves that there is nothing�no principle, no freedom, no matter how sacred�that we will not surrender to Big Government.
Here, then, are those principles that, to me, must never be surrendered. To surrender these liberties to Big Government would mean to commit idolatry. It would be sacrilege. It would reduce us to slavery. It would destroy our humanity. To surrender these freedoms would mean "absolute Despotism" and would provide moral justification to the proposition that such tyranny be "thrown off."
[...]
God separated the Nations (Genesis 11). Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we Americans maintain our independence and national sovereignty. We simply cannot (and will not) allow ourselves to become part of any hemispheric or global union.''
Many of you may have read this piece already, or discussed it elsewhere. It's by Chuck Baldwin.
He lists what he considers the absolutely essential principles, the ones we would never compromise or give up, as free people.
He starts out, wisely I think, with the right to bear arms. I think many of our Founding Fathers considered this right basic, and the only sure means of guaranteeing our other freedoms.
Please read the whole piece, and the list of Pastor Baldwin's essential principles.
On further considering the list, I think the last right, that of living as an independent and sovereign people, is central.
Pastor Baldwin mentions, importantly, that in the Christian view, the nations are and must remain separate, not blended together as in the arrogant attempt to unify the world at the Tower of Babel. The nations are meant, at least in part, as God's checks and balances. If the world were unified under one system, and that system were, or became, corrupt and tyrannical -- which would be likely -- there would be no alternative, no escape, no haven of refuge.
This is the way things are shaping up in our time: as this proposed 'global governance' takes on the air of inevitability, where will any dissenter go to opt out of such a regime? My ancestors were able to flee to this continent and build a new society here. And even now, where can we go to flee the global multiculturalist regime? Its tentacles are everywhere. There is nowhere to go.
One more reason why our sovereignty, or any people's sovereignty and independence are important to freedom: it is only by means of a kindred population of equally freedom-loving people that you and I can hope to enjoy any degree of liberty. Our Founding Fathers stated that only a people who were essentially moral, sharing common ideas of God-given rights and freedoms, could even establish, much less maintain a free republic like our original America.
Introducing a mixed multitude of people from drastically different stocks, people with differing priorities and different proclivities, disparate ideas of how to live together, guarantees the failure of liberty and freedom.
Only by having a closely-connected group of people with a common store of traditions, and agreed-upon beliefs about rights and freedoms and morals, can we have a free and peaceful home. We cannot have a mixed-multitude nation (otherwise known as ''diversity'') and have our sovereignty and independence.
On my list, if I were to make one, I think I would put Pastor Baldwin's last item as the first.
What about you?
''...it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those principles that form our "line in the sand" and that we will not surrender under any circumstance. Either that, or we must admit to ourselves that there is nothing�no principle, no freedom, no matter how sacred�that we will not surrender to Big Government.
Here, then, are those principles that, to me, must never be surrendered. To surrender these liberties to Big Government would mean to commit idolatry. It would be sacrilege. It would reduce us to slavery. It would destroy our humanity. To surrender these freedoms would mean "absolute Despotism" and would provide moral justification to the proposition that such tyranny be "thrown off."
[...]
God separated the Nations (Genesis 11). Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we Americans maintain our independence and national sovereignty. We simply cannot (and will not) allow ourselves to become part of any hemispheric or global union.''
Many of you may have read this piece already, or discussed it elsewhere. It's by Chuck Baldwin.
He lists what he considers the absolutely essential principles, the ones we would never compromise or give up, as free people.
He starts out, wisely I think, with the right to bear arms. I think many of our Founding Fathers considered this right basic, and the only sure means of guaranteeing our other freedoms.
Please read the whole piece, and the list of Pastor Baldwin's essential principles.
On further considering the list, I think the last right, that of living as an independent and sovereign people, is central.
Pastor Baldwin mentions, importantly, that in the Christian view, the nations are and must remain separate, not blended together as in the arrogant attempt to unify the world at the Tower of Babel. The nations are meant, at least in part, as God's checks and balances. If the world were unified under one system, and that system were, or became, corrupt and tyrannical -- which would be likely -- there would be no alternative, no escape, no haven of refuge.
This is the way things are shaping up in our time: as this proposed 'global governance' takes on the air of inevitability, where will any dissenter go to opt out of such a regime? My ancestors were able to flee to this continent and build a new society here. And even now, where can we go to flee the global multiculturalist regime? Its tentacles are everywhere. There is nowhere to go.
One more reason why our sovereignty, or any people's sovereignty and independence are important to freedom: it is only by means of a kindred population of equally freedom-loving people that you and I can hope to enjoy any degree of liberty. Our Founding Fathers stated that only a people who were essentially moral, sharing common ideas of God-given rights and freedoms, could even establish, much less maintain a free republic like our original America.
Introducing a mixed multitude of people from drastically different stocks, people with differing priorities and different proclivities, disparate ideas of how to live together, guarantees the failure of liberty and freedom.
Only by having a closely-connected group of people with a common store of traditions, and agreed-upon beliefs about rights and freedoms and morals, can we have a free and peaceful home. We cannot have a mixed-multitude nation (otherwise known as ''diversity'') and have our sovereignty and independence.
On my list, if I were to make one, I think I would put Pastor Baldwin's last item as the first.
What about you?
Labels: Ethnonationalism, Freedom, Globalism, Liberty, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, One World, Sovereignty