Is Anarchy and Tyranny knocking at the door?

In reading Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments, I know that I have fallen off discussing the proposed Amendments to which I will return to them soon, I stumbled upon a curios passage Levin quotes of John Adams. The passage appears in Chapter Eight: An Amendment to Protect Private Property (p 139-140):

"Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet, " and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."

John Adams wrote that passage originally in "Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States." The United States is a Republic and not a true Democracy a concept that retards the Progressive ideals; unfortunately it doesn't eliminate them. Despite living in a free society, governed by representative rule, liberty and protections of private property are eroding. The erosion isn't a recent occurrence; yet it has been kicked into overdrive in recent decades.

Our National Debt has topped $17 TRILLION! A number trivialized by Progressives and Big Government Spending Conservatives while ignored by the vast majority of journalist ( a term I use loosely). One must hand it to Big Government types though. While Mr. Adams crafts precepts restraining the poor, idle, vicious and intemperate, Big Government has crafted precepts more enterprising; entitlements. The current continuing resolution calls for the United States Federal Government to spend $3.4 TRILLION of which, roughly, $2.5 TRILLION is entitlement spending. That $2.5 TRILLION earmark does not include the subsidies dolled out for ObamaCare.

The foundation of a free society is the right to private property free from government intervention and seizure as well as protected by the same said government from others in society. Taxation, entitlements, and willful idleness are all elements causing the erosion of ones right to private property. The rich have the means to relocate while the Middle Class and poor do not. What happens when the Rich are no longer an option? Anarchy and Tyranny will take hold - That is the legacy the Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y leave for those born in the 21st Century.

Ben Carson illustrates the fallacy of marriage debate perfectly

Recently Andrea Mitchel hosted Dr. Ben Carson on her show Andrea Mitchel Reports. Andrea Mitchel quizzed Dr. Carson on his view of marriage. Unfortunately for Andrea Mitchel and MSNBC the line of questioning did little to rattle Dr. Carson's conviction on the definition of marriage. It was actually Andrea Mitchel that appeared to be flustered as her follow up questions were terrible. I bring this up as Dr. Carson lays out a great argument on the definition of marriage. Dr. Carson even hints to the abuse by the Federal government in restricting people the freedom of assembly via utilizing marriage as a vessel to transfer assets and death benefits among other aspects. In fact the Federal government has 1,100 laws on the books that abuse marriage in similar fashion. As an aside, this exchange illustrates the fallacy in the thought process of Progressives have in regards to marriage equality as marriage is not a Civil Right. Marriage, as Dr. Carson puts it, is rooted in God and the Bible not society. Take a look for yourself at the interview.

 http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/29/ben-carson-takes-on-msnbcs-andrea-mitchell-on-the-definition-of-marriage/

 Hopefully people will start to realize that marriage should be left to God, and other Dogma, and demand that Government remove itself from this sacred rite.

Campaign Financing - Foreign Dollars in play

Progressives were up in arms after the United States Supreme Court ruled that Corporations have the right to run ads for or against candidates as well as contribute money to Super PAC's. The Citizen's United case paved the way, and the recent ruling by the SCOTUS this past week, for a large influx of money and energy to be poured into every campaign in the United States. A prime example is the recent recall attempt of Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

The recall election saw pro-Scott Walker camps outspending anti-Scott Walker camps nearly 8 to 1. Progressive pundits claimed that the large difference in money spent was the main contributor to Governor Walker remaining in office. Progressives are upset because their Union coffers no longer give them an advantage with the decision of Citizen's United.  One of the fears discussed after Citizen's United was the influx of foreign cash into campaigns.

To date the Democrat National Party has raised over $335M while the Republican National Party has raised over $320M. PAC's have raised, collectively, just as much as both parties. Unfortunately I couldn't find a breakout of the PAC's based on who they backed on the Federal Election Commission website (www.fec.gov). All this being said, George Clooney will be assissting President Obama in Geneva, Switzerland to raise "euro-cash" for re-election. http://www.fec.gov/disclosure/partySummary.do?cf=phome

First, Progressives rail against the lost monopoly of Union warchest with the upholding of Citizen's United. Now, Progressives are bringing in foreign dollars and influences which they said Conservatives would do with the Citizen's United decision. When will the Federal Election Commission rule that no money but a small stipend from the Federal Government may be spent on elections? Even though I contend that every American has the God given right to voice their opinion in favor or against a candidate, I do draw the line at foreign influences. I do acknowledge that both sides are guilty too.