.

xxx

Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 16, 2014

APOTHEOSIS OF WASHINGTON



Liberty-Pac: Apotheosis Of Washington  a fascinating piece of art work located in the eye of the US. Capitol rotunda. The painting depicts Washington rising to the heavens in glory and surrounded by Mythical Gods and Goddesses. By: Constantino Brumidi in ( 1865 ) NOTE: (The word "apotheosis" in the title means literally the raising of a person to the rank of a god, or the glorification of a person as an ideal; George Washington was honored as a national icon in the nineteenth century.)

kids.clerk.house.gov Quote: “Constantino Brumidi painted The Apotheosis of Washington on the ceiling of the Rotunda, the center of the Capitol, in 1865. He used a fresco technique in which water-based paints are applied to freshly spread plaster.

The subjects shown in the dome mix individuals from American history, gods of Roman mythology and personifications—abstract concepts illustrated as a person. This mixture of history and myth was a common way to show abstract ideas in art in the 19th century, and would have been easily grasped by viewers at the time.

The center of the painting shows George Washington rising into the heavens in glory. Female personifications of Liberty and Victory or Fame are at his sides. Thirteen maidens, symbolizing the thirteen original states, circle the three central figures. The groups around the perimeter of the main scene illustrate important aspects of America, and tell the viewer what the nation prided itself in during the 19th century. Innovation and industry are important recurring themes.” End Quote

Reference: http://kids.clerk.house.gov/high-school/lesson.html?intID=40
Reference: http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/other-paintings-and-murals/apotheosis-Washington







Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Fifty or One


By: Rob James | December 26, 2011

“Is it better to have Tyranny from THE STATE or Tyranny from A State? Do you want one way or fifty ways to have your rights violated? Do you want one dictator or fifty? I ask these questions so that you'll think about the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution, and how we should define States' Rights. In the 9th Amendment it states: 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." 

In the 10th Amendment it states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In the Declaration of Independence, it speaks of things like 'Laws of Nature', 'unalienable Rights' and 'free People'; but how do we apply these things to the Constitution, or more specifically, with the Bill of Rights? If the primary purpose of government is to protect the rights and property of a free people (those who have given it the authority to do so), and individuals have rights that are unalienable and partially defined in the Bill of Rights, would a state have any more authority to control the lives of an individual than the Federal government does? No, states are entrusted with the same protective authority as the Federal government, they exist to protect the rights and property of it's people. So if it is wrong for THE STATE to infringe on your rights, it would also be wrong for A State to do the same. A state operates as a mini-republic within the Union, with the same responsibility for protecting your rights as the Federal government.

That being said, what decisions are left for a state to make under the 9th and 10th Amendments, that are not 'reserved by the people"? Who you can associate with, who you can marry, what you can do with your body, what you can put in your body, what you can do with your property (and other personal decisions like this), do not belong to any level of government, they belong to "the people"; and the only reason for any level of government to get involved with these personal decisions, is when the actions of one individual infringe on the rights of another individual. So when someone says that the individual States (not the Federal government), should decide issues of marriage, drug prohibition, etc, they infer that the States have the authority to violate your individual rights.”



Wednesday, July 6, 2011

RON PAUL REVOLUTION


United States Congressman Ron Paul, leading the charge for a return to Constitutional Government in these United States.

RON PAUL 2012

Monday, February 21, 2011

The Patriot - Act - The Anti-Fourth Amendment

By: Rob James | February 19, 2011


“Whenever I think about the Patriot Act, I get angered and I feel an acidic bile of disgust rise in my throat. This legislation should anger every patriot, but unfortunately most Americans have become the obedient, blind, scared sheep, that our government has worked so hard to train and domesticate.I believe that the Patriot Act should be renamed the 

Anti-Fourth Amendment Act. It is blantently, in your face, look-at-me I'm violating the law of the land, UNCONSTITUTIONAL! 


It says we are not secure in our houses, papers, and effects; it says we are not protected against unreasonable searches and seizures; it upholds the belief that we are Guilty until proven Innocent; it shows that our government believes that it has the power to bestow, or take away, the rights of a person.

The 4th Amendment of the Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The oath of office for elected government officials states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Every politician that votes for the Patriot Act, votes to attack your Liberty and votes against the 4th Amendment, thereby violating their oath of office. Every politician that violates their oath of office, should be considered a treasonous domestic enemy and removed from office.

In case you're not sure what it is about the Patriot Act that is so vile to me, it includes provisions that authorizes the FBI to use roving wiretaps on surveillance targets, it grants the government access to “any tangible items” of individuals under surveillance, and allows the surveillance of individuals and groups not connected to identified terrorist groups.

Everyone that believes that the Patriot Act is needed, is acting out of a fear that is generated and reinforced by our politicans and the Main Stream Media. I believe as our founding fathers did, that Liberty is much more important than Security, and I for one, am not willing to trade one for the other. For those who support this detestable legislation, you are supporting slavery...your slavery, my slavery and the slavery of every American, and for this, you are an enemy of liberty. I will defer to the words of Samuel Adams, who said: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

The Patriot Act is a hypocritical gesture from our politicans who claim to be spreading freedom across the world and defending Liberty, while they strip away the rights and liberties of their own people. I will end with the words of Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Read Here

2011 USA PATRIOT ACT REAUTHORIZATION *ROLL CALL* VOTE