Braveheart: A Lesson in Politics

I 'm aware that Braveheart is not exactly true to history, but it is a great movie. What if Braveheart was a commentary on the current political two party system in the United States? Who would the major players be? What political philosophy would they hold to?

King Edward I Longshanks would represent the Democratic Party, specifically President Obama. I am not saying that the Democrats are ruthless people, I am pointing out that they and Longshanks are both for BIG government.

The Republican Establishment would be the nobles. This is NOT because they are noble by any means. It is because they fight over the scraps from Longshank's table, pretend to be for the people and cater to themselves and the wealthy.

Ron Paul would be William Wallace. Hear me out on this. Wallace is Scottish like the nobles but he sees hypocrisy in their big government leanings. They will not fight for personal freedoms and so he must.

Wallace wants simply to be left alone, but cannot when an oppressive government overtakes his personal liberties. The "right" of the government to sleep with a new bride was the final straw. Wallace did not want to lead, but chose to anyway when the nobles wouldn't step up to the plate. He even told Robert the Bruce that he would follow him if he would simply lead them to freedom.

Paul is no different. He will fight for freedom until another will lead the charge. So far Mitt Romney and President Obama have not made liberty a priority.

The interesting characters in Braveheart however could represent you. Princess Isabella (a big government person her whole life) came over to Wallace's side because of her admiration for his integrity and consistency. Robert the Bruce eventually left the "establishment" and led the charge of freedom when he understood the passion that drove Wallace.

Who are you? Could you be a Princess Isabella or a Robert the Bruce?

Here are some memorable quotes:

William Wallace: There's a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it. 
__________________________________________
Ron Paul: The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George...Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security.
__________________________________________


Princess Isabelle: The king desires peace.
William Wallace: Longshanks desires peace?
Princess Isabelle: He declares it to me, I swear it. He proposes that you withdraw your attack. In return he grants you title, estates, and this chest of gold which I am to pay to you personally.
William Wallace: A lordship and titles. Gold. That I should become Judas?
Princess Isabelle: Peace is made in such ways.
William Wallace: Slaves are made in such ways. The last time Longshanks spoke of peace I was a boy. And many Scottish nobles, who would not be slaves, were lured by him under a flag of truce to a barn, where he had them hanged. I was very young, but I remember Longshanks' notion of peace. 
__________________________________________


Ron Paul:  Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.
__________________________________________


Robert the Bruce: Lands, titles, men, power, nothing.
Robert's Father: Nothing?
Robert the Bruce: I have nothing. Men fight for me because if they do not, I throw them off my land and I starve their wives and their children. Those men who bled the ground red at Falkirk, they fought for William Wallace, and he fights for something that I never had. And I took it from him, when I betrayed him. I saw it in his face on the battlefield and it's tearing me apart.
Robert's Father: All men betray. All lose heart.
Robert the Bruce: I don't wanna lose heart. I wanna believe as he does. 
___________________________________________


RonPaul: The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free. 

The Arizona Shooting is Palin's Fault (at least from the media's perspective)

In the days since the shooting in Arizona there has been a whole lot of blame cast around.  Most of it has been at Sarah Palin.  This is probably the most ludicrous connection I have ever seen.  In fact to suggest it borders on evil.  

How dare the media twist and contort a tragedy to create imaginary villains in a case that deals with real families experiencing pain!  Yes, Sarah Palin made an ad that had cross-hairs on the districts that they were targeting for change.  So what!  It is figurative.  She is known as a hunter and it goes well with her persona. If there was a shooting at a Target store would the media blame the store for inviting the massacre since there is a target on the front of the store.   When the media relates elections to long hard fights and even use the rhetoric of round 2 and so forth are they inciting politicians to get into a literal fight.  The argument over whether the ad was in poor taste was fought back in the election.  It has nothing to do with this situation.

I have watched many in the media (ahem, CNN) ask questions of conservatives and liberals with the intent to demonize Sarah Palin on this issue and it is infuriating.  Though I am not a fan of Sarah Palin and have never been, she does have the right to free speech and to be free from defamation of character.  

I want to review the REAL facts of this case: 

1. The shooter Jared Loughner cannot stand the government

2. He believes that our government uses mind control

3. His community college would not let him return until he had had mental evaluation

4. He is an atheist

5. Two of his favorite books are Mein Kampf and The communist Manifesto. 

The bottom line is that atheistic, communistic, fascist leaning individuals are not even remotely followers of Sarah Palin.  In fact they are the least likely people on the planet to take her up on shooting anyone even if she out right asked for it.

Should we blame atheists, or communists?  No, this guy is crazy.  Just a quick search of his videos on YouTube will show you that he is unstable.   If we want to blame someone let's blame the shooter.  If we need to debate whether a person should have a mental stability test before owning a gun then let's have that conversation.  But I would not be surprised if that test quickly became political with questions relating to views on abortion and homosexuality to determine whether one is mentally sound.  

Maybe the criminally insane should not get a pass after the fact.  If the legally insane get the death penalty then it will automatically cut down the murder rate since everyone nowadays is insane for at least the time of the murder.  However, this is a conversation for another day.  The media want Palin to beg forgiveness, admit guilt, and urge her followers to tone down the rhetoric.  Jared Loughner wasn't her follower, but even if he had been he was clearly nuts and would be so with or with out an ad from Palin.

  

Has God Been Removed from Declaration of Independence?

Wow! I am shocked! I just saw a video that I had to watch twice. President Obama spoke to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute 33rd Annual Award Gala on September 17. In his speech he quoted from the Declaration of Independence. The only difference was that he omitted the words "their Creator" in his speech. Could it have been an accident? I doubt it, because he was using a teleprompter.

I am not bashing our President. In fact I pray for him a whole lot. I am just pointing out how offensive the mere mention of the Christian God has become. Watch the video below. Let me know what you think of his decision to take God out.