Posts
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Letter to Editor The Kentucky Standard refuses to print
To the Editor:
It was interesting to read the account of Allison Grimes' campaign stop in Bardstown in The Kentucky Standard, May 18, 2014 edition. It was quite obvious that Grimes (and her small audience) accept the tired old Democratic canard that government can "create" REAL jobs as Grimes promised to "put people back to work" (something a US Senator has practically NO influence on). This comment coming from a candidate who has stated that she supports the Obama agenda, which has been the greatest job killer since the Great Depression, including an open "war on coal" which is devastating the job situation in much of Kentucky and the rest of Appalachia while driving energy prices constantly higher. The only jobs government can create require the taking of resources from the private sector (where REAL jobs are created) and putting people on the public payroll.
Grimes goes on to state that as Secretary of State, she has "worked to promote business development". If so, then I suppose she must be given credit for the recent loss of almost 2000 jobs in Kentucky from Toyota in northern Kentucky and Fruit of the Loom in Russell County to more business friendly locations and the inability to attract such companies as Remington Arms which was anxious to move from New York and already has facilities in Kentucky. Instead, those 2000+ jobs went to Alabama which had no prior ties to Remington.
The LAST thing we need in the US Senate is another Obama rubber stamp like Allison Grimes.
Sincerely,
Ronald D. Weddle, MD
Sunday, September 04, 2011
The Essential Question in Any Political Debate
Below is another outstanding essay by Mark Alexander in The Patriot Post. Unless we can re-establish the legitimate roles of the three independent branches of government under an absolute respect for the Constitution, as written and amended, with government officials respecting their oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" AS WRITTEN and AS INTENDED by the writers, then our republic is lost.
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, September 1, 2011, Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us)
The most important inquiry conservatives must posit in every policy debate: "What does our Constitution authorize and mandate?"
"The Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington
The most vital debate of the 2012 political cycle, indeed the essential question in any political debate, is one that you will not hear in public discourse unless you are in a state or district represented by one of the authentic conservatives1 who have carried the banner of the Reagan Revolution2 into the 21st century, or you are represented by one of those much-maligned Tea Party3 "radicals."
One unifying characteristic of the old guard and the new breed of senators and representatives is that they insist upon establishing the Essential Liberty4 and Rule of Law precedents as prerequisites for any political policy debate.
Our Constitution5, as written and ratified, stipulates in its preface that it is "ordained and established" by the People in order to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." To that end, it established a representative republic, not a popular democracy, which is to say it affirmed the primacy of Rule of Law over rule of men.
Our Founders understood that the Rule of Law enshrined in our Constitution6 was the fundamental guarantee to protecting and sustaining Liberty for their, and our, posterity. Consequently, they prescribed that all elected officials be bound by Sacred Oath7 to "support and defend" our Constitution.
For presidents, Article II, Section 1, specifies: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"
Likewise Article VI, Clause 3 specifies: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
However, in the current political era, the vast majority of those elected to national office have abandoned their oaths in deference to political expediency and constituency. For this they should be duly prosecuted, one and all, for breach of oath and trust.
Democrats8 deign to trace their party lineage to the father of classical libertarianism, Thomas Jefferson, yet they utterly reject questions about constitutional authority. So archaic do they believe such queries to be that when asked, they insist, in the words of Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "Nobody questions that9."
But if Liberty is to be sustained by ballots rather than bullets10, every conservative candidate must base his or her campaign platform upon restoration of our authentic Constitution11 and wholly reject the so-called "living constitution12 upon which Democrats have constructed their socialist empire.
For much of our nation's history, election cycles have been filled with rancorous political debates. Like today, many of those debates were focused on personalities and motivated by power seekers. The consequence has been an incremental erosion of constitutional authority, particularly by the Judicial Branch, which has amended our Constitution by judicial diktat rather than by the legitimate method prescribed in Article V.
James Madison wrote, "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." However, the "gradual and silent" erosion has been punctuated with periodic landslides. Today, tyranny is hovering on the immediate horizon.
In the decades following our nation's founding, many of the great debates were centered on Liberty. The notions of containing the power of the central government and promoting individual freedom were fervently tested. But four major events in the years after 1850 altered the political debate and, tragically, increased the power of the central government far beyond its constitutional limits.
The first of those events was the War Between the States which cost 600,000 American lives and annulled the authority of our Constitution's mandate for Federalism13. Unfortunately, today's "Republicans" tie their lineage to Abraham Lincoln14, the man who engineered that frontal assault on states' rights.
The second major insult to Liberty came during the Great Depression, when Franklin Roosevelt and his "useful idiots15" used the fear generated by economic crisis to implement his "New Deal," an explosive expansion of central government power that came at enormous offense to the authority of our Constitution.
The third colossal affront to our Constitution occurred under another Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who implemented his "Great Society" programs in response to fears about social and economic inequality.
The fourth and final nail in the coffin of American Liberty is being hammered in by Barack Hussein Obama and his Leftist cadres16. They are determined to replace our republican government with European-style Democratic Socialism17, and they have made significant strides toward that terrible goal.
The only way to re-establish the primacy of Rule of Law over rule of men and reinstate limits upon our government and its controllers is to restore the authority of our Constitution. Only then will we ensure that Liberty prevails over tyranny.
That authority was, and remains, clearly defined by our Founders who, though they might have differed modestly on the question of constitutional interpretation, universally agreed with George Washington: "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all."
Washington also wrote, "Should, hereafter, those incited by the lust of power and prompted by the supineness or venality of their constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to show, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other."
What did other Founders write about Rule of Law and the authority of our Constitution?
James Madison: "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. ... If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
Thomas Jefferson: "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. ... To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. ... The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. ... On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. ... [C]onfidence is every where the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy & not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power ... in questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."
Alexander Hamilton: "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. ... The Judiciary ... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. ... If it be asked, 'What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic?' The answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws -- the first growing out of the last. ... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government. ... [T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes -- rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments."
John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ... The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People. ... [T]hey may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. ... A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
Article VI of our Constitution proclaims: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
The definitive reflection on constitutional authority comes from Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, a Madison appointee, in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" (1833): "The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution. ... Temporary delusions, prejudices, excitements, and objects have irresistible influence in mere questions of policy. And the policy of one age may ill suit the wishes or the policy of another. The constitution is not subject to such fluctuations. It is to have a fixed, uniform, permanent construction. It should be, so far at least as human infirmity will allow, not dependent upon the passions or parties of particular times, but the same yesterday, to-day, and forever."
The last best hope for the restoration of our Constitution's original intent18 is upon us. Accordingly, a revival of its prescribed limits on the central government rests on the shoulders of those wise enough to educate themselves to the principles of Essential Liberty4 and bold enough to make constitutional authority the centerpiece of any political debate.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a citizen asked Benjamin Franklin what form of government the Founders had created. He responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." The question for American Patriots19 today: "Can we keep it?"
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, September 1, 2011, Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us)
The most important inquiry conservatives must posit in every policy debate: "What does our Constitution authorize and mandate?"
"The Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington
The most vital debate of the 2012 political cycle, indeed the essential question in any political debate, is one that you will not hear in public discourse unless you are in a state or district represented by one of the authentic conservatives1 who have carried the banner of the Reagan Revolution2 into the 21st century, or you are represented by one of those much-maligned Tea Party3 "radicals."
One unifying characteristic of the old guard and the new breed of senators and representatives is that they insist upon establishing the Essential Liberty4 and Rule of Law precedents as prerequisites for any political policy debate.
Our Constitution5, as written and ratified, stipulates in its preface that it is "ordained and established" by the People in order to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." To that end, it established a representative republic, not a popular democracy, which is to say it affirmed the primacy of Rule of Law over rule of men.
Our Founders understood that the Rule of Law enshrined in our Constitution6 was the fundamental guarantee to protecting and sustaining Liberty for their, and our, posterity. Consequently, they prescribed that all elected officials be bound by Sacred Oath7 to "support and defend" our Constitution.
For presidents, Article II, Section 1, specifies: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"
Likewise Article VI, Clause 3 specifies: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
However, in the current political era, the vast majority of those elected to national office have abandoned their oaths in deference to political expediency and constituency. For this they should be duly prosecuted, one and all, for breach of oath and trust.
Democrats8 deign to trace their party lineage to the father of classical libertarianism, Thomas Jefferson, yet they utterly reject questions about constitutional authority. So archaic do they believe such queries to be that when asked, they insist, in the words of Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "Nobody questions that9."
But if Liberty is to be sustained by ballots rather than bullets10, every conservative candidate must base his or her campaign platform upon restoration of our authentic Constitution11 and wholly reject the so-called "living constitution12 upon which Democrats have constructed their socialist empire.
For much of our nation's history, election cycles have been filled with rancorous political debates. Like today, many of those debates were focused on personalities and motivated by power seekers. The consequence has been an incremental erosion of constitutional authority, particularly by the Judicial Branch, which has amended our Constitution by judicial diktat rather than by the legitimate method prescribed in Article V.
James Madison wrote, "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." However, the "gradual and silent" erosion has been punctuated with periodic landslides. Today, tyranny is hovering on the immediate horizon.
In the decades following our nation's founding, many of the great debates were centered on Liberty. The notions of containing the power of the central government and promoting individual freedom were fervently tested. But four major events in the years after 1850 altered the political debate and, tragically, increased the power of the central government far beyond its constitutional limits.
The first of those events was the War Between the States which cost 600,000 American lives and annulled the authority of our Constitution's mandate for Federalism13. Unfortunately, today's "Republicans" tie their lineage to Abraham Lincoln14, the man who engineered that frontal assault on states' rights.
The second major insult to Liberty came during the Great Depression, when Franklin Roosevelt and his "useful idiots15" used the fear generated by economic crisis to implement his "New Deal," an explosive expansion of central government power that came at enormous offense to the authority of our Constitution.
The third colossal affront to our Constitution occurred under another Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who implemented his "Great Society" programs in response to fears about social and economic inequality.
The fourth and final nail in the coffin of American Liberty is being hammered in by Barack Hussein Obama and his Leftist cadres16. They are determined to replace our republican government with European-style Democratic Socialism17, and they have made significant strides toward that terrible goal.
The only way to re-establish the primacy of Rule of Law over rule of men and reinstate limits upon our government and its controllers is to restore the authority of our Constitution. Only then will we ensure that Liberty prevails over tyranny.
That authority was, and remains, clearly defined by our Founders who, though they might have differed modestly on the question of constitutional interpretation, universally agreed with George Washington: "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all."
Washington also wrote, "Should, hereafter, those incited by the lust of power and prompted by the supineness or venality of their constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to show, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other."
What did other Founders write about Rule of Law and the authority of our Constitution?
James Madison: "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. ... If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
Thomas Jefferson: "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. ... To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. ... The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. ... On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. ... [C]onfidence is every where the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy & not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power ... in questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."
Alexander Hamilton: "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. ... The Judiciary ... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. ... If it be asked, 'What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic?' The answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws -- the first growing out of the last. ... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government. ... [T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes -- rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments."
John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ... The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People. ... [T]hey may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. ... A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
Article VI of our Constitution proclaims: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
The definitive reflection on constitutional authority comes from Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, a Madison appointee, in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" (1833): "The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution. ... Temporary delusions, prejudices, excitements, and objects have irresistible influence in mere questions of policy. And the policy of one age may ill suit the wishes or the policy of another. The constitution is not subject to such fluctuations. It is to have a fixed, uniform, permanent construction. It should be, so far at least as human infirmity will allow, not dependent upon the passions or parties of particular times, but the same yesterday, to-day, and forever."
The last best hope for the restoration of our Constitution's original intent18 is upon us. Accordingly, a revival of its prescribed limits on the central government rests on the shoulders of those wise enough to educate themselves to the principles of Essential Liberty4 and bold enough to make constitutional authority the centerpiece of any political debate.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a citizen asked Benjamin Franklin what form of government the Founders had created. He responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." The question for American Patriots19 today: "Can we keep it?"
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Idiot and chief partisan appointed to Congressional "Super Debt Committee"
Talking points: "I believe this is, without question, the Tea Party downgrade." --Sen. John Kerry
Unfair and unbalanced: "The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual." --John Kerry, demanding that the Tea Party not be given the time of day
The above comments indicate that John Kerry is in actuality, an idiot. There is no more to be said about the issue. Unfortunately, Kerry is one of 3 Senate Democrats appointed to the "Super Debt Committee" charged with finding enough legitimate cuts in government spending to restore some sanity to that spending.
To make matters worse, one of the other 3 Senate appointees is Senator Patty Murray, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Guess just what her motivations will be? She will be attempting to raise money for the Democratic Senate candidates from the same lobbyists who will be trying to influence the "Super Debt Committee." Anybody see an ethical conflict there?
Hopefully the appointments of fiscal conservatives such as Pat Toomey and John Kyl will prevent too much damage from being done by this Constitutional abomination known as the "Super Debt Committee."
Unfair and unbalanced: "The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual." --John Kerry, demanding that the Tea Party not be given the time of day
The above comments indicate that John Kerry is in actuality, an idiot. There is no more to be said about the issue. Unfortunately, Kerry is one of 3 Senate Democrats appointed to the "Super Debt Committee" charged with finding enough legitimate cuts in government spending to restore some sanity to that spending.
To make matters worse, one of the other 3 Senate appointees is Senator Patty Murray, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Guess just what her motivations will be? She will be attempting to raise money for the Democratic Senate candidates from the same lobbyists who will be trying to influence the "Super Debt Committee." Anybody see an ethical conflict there?
Hopefully the appointments of fiscal conservatives such as Pat Toomey and John Kyl will prevent too much damage from being done by this Constitutional abomination known as the "Super Debt Committee."
A Proposal of U.S. Constitutional Amendment for Monetary and Taxation Reform
By W. L. Andrews · Wednesday, August 10, 2011
The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
The Congress shall make No Debt for this Union, or the several States, lest the monies be appropriated for the common defense, or the exigencies of War declared by Congress.
Money IS, and ought, and Shall Be the Common Currency of Commerce, Trade, and Law; the Common Denominator of the Commons Property; One of the fixed - Standard of Weights and Measures, metes and bounds, of the Common Wealth of We The People of the United States of America, and- All, Each, and None, of the People - Own the Money coined and issued in our Name, our Full Faith and Credit. By denomination, the Money possessed of each Person is equal; having the same consistent regulated value thereof.
Each Person, and Citizen, or Inhabitant: Possesses Stewardship, as though they shall Own, and for their exclusive purpose until use, that Money having been obtained by neither force or fraud, which is upon their own Person, or is otherwise in their possession, or upon deposit in their own Name at any bona fide federal or State chartered financial institution. And any or all such Money shall Not be seized, lest due process as proscribed by the fourth, sixth, seventh, thirteenth, and fourteenth articles of amendment to this Constitution; shall have been adjudicated. And no Person upon sole reason of accumulative debt shall be deprived of life or liberty.
Each Person or Entity, within the federal jurisdiction, is subject to, the Legal Tender User Fee; to be used as federal revenue for Constitutional [enumerated powers] purpose. The Fee, of three percent, is assessed and collected from both the Buyer and the Seller equally, six per cent total per transaction, at the time and place of any recorded transaction which shall exceed two dollars; except upon transactions of Demand Accounts on deposit at any financial institution, and these others which shall be exempt: Sustenance, Tithe, Charity, Care, and Pension. Also, upon any transaction, which shall be final after periodic payment transfers with interest; the Fee will be assessed and collected only upon the amount of and at the time and place of each periodic transfer. Each of the several States, may assess and collect in like manner, a Legal Tender User Fee, not to exceed the federal collection of each like transaction, to be used as revenue for Constitutional purpose.
The federal government in all transactions, shall receive the Fee portion of Five and one Half per cent, and shall retain the Fee portion of one Half percent of such Money in private interest bearing Investments for present or later supplemental application to the Care and Pension of all Citizens: retired, disabled, and feeble. And the Seller in all transactions shall receive a collection stipend of one Half per cent and shall retain the Fee portion of such Money in like Investments for present or later supplemental application to the Care and Pension of all employees: retired. The federal government urges each Inhabitant to obtain like Investments, which shall be free of any Fee or other Tax, for present or later supplemental application to the Care and Pension of: themselves, their heirs or dependents.
The Congress shall appropriate annually, Money sufficient to pay the Interest service, and an amount equal to two per cent of the total Interest service to be paid upon the National Debt. The President shall annually propose to the House of Representatives such expenditures from the Treasury as - he may deem requisite and responsible for Constitutional purpose.
Congress shall have sole un-delegated power, to regulate the standard Measure of interest by Class, Collateral, or Period, and the calendar Measure of periodic payment intervals upon borrowed money; and by annual resolution shall have sole un-delegated power, to issue coin and currency as legal tender Money and regulate the consistent value thereof, and to affix the appropriations of money for expenditure from the Treasury.
The Coining and issuance of Money being essential to Commerce, Trade, and Law; by annual resolution, the House of Representatives by a majority simple plus three, shall have the sole un-delegated power to annually resolve the quantity of coinage and issuance of Money from the Treasury, to be used as federal revenue and appropriated to Constitutional purpose. The quantity to be issued based: upon growth of population- calculated as subsistence necessary for each new Inhabitant, the growth of economic productivity- calculated as additional gross domestic product, and the interest charged upon borrowed money within the federal jurisdiction- calculated as the current annual quantitative money amount of interest collected. Such coinage and Issuance shall not exceed a quantity necessary to equal these basis, and shall require the advise and consent of a majority simple of the Senate.
Congress shall Not increase rates or forms; either by percentile or quantity, of Fee, or Tax, or of the Measure of Interest charged upon borrowed Money whether by Class, Collateral, or Period, -lest passed by two thirds of the members of the House of Representatives and by two thirds of the members of the Senate in separate session, and a subsequent vote of three fifths of the State delegations of both Houses in Joint session, each delegation having One Vote; except no increase of Fee or Tax shall be passed for a Term longer than six years.
The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
The Congress shall make No Debt for this Union, or the several States, lest the monies be appropriated for the common defense, or the exigencies of War declared by Congress.
Money IS, and ought, and Shall Be the Common Currency of Commerce, Trade, and Law; the Common Denominator of the Commons Property; One of the fixed - Standard of Weights and Measures, metes and bounds, of the Common Wealth of We The People of the United States of America, and- All, Each, and None, of the People - Own the Money coined and issued in our Name, our Full Faith and Credit. By denomination, the Money possessed of each Person is equal; having the same consistent regulated value thereof.
Each Person, and Citizen, or Inhabitant: Possesses Stewardship, as though they shall Own, and for their exclusive purpose until use, that Money having been obtained by neither force or fraud, which is upon their own Person, or is otherwise in their possession, or upon deposit in their own Name at any bona fide federal or State chartered financial institution. And any or all such Money shall Not be seized, lest due process as proscribed by the fourth, sixth, seventh, thirteenth, and fourteenth articles of amendment to this Constitution; shall have been adjudicated. And no Person upon sole reason of accumulative debt shall be deprived of life or liberty.
Each Person or Entity, within the federal jurisdiction, is subject to, the Legal Tender User Fee; to be used as federal revenue for Constitutional [enumerated powers] purpose. The Fee, of three percent, is assessed and collected from both the Buyer and the Seller equally, six per cent total per transaction, at the time and place of any recorded transaction which shall exceed two dollars; except upon transactions of Demand Accounts on deposit at any financial institution, and these others which shall be exempt: Sustenance, Tithe, Charity, Care, and Pension. Also, upon any transaction, which shall be final after periodic payment transfers with interest; the Fee will be assessed and collected only upon the amount of and at the time and place of each periodic transfer. Each of the several States, may assess and collect in like manner, a Legal Tender User Fee, not to exceed the federal collection of each like transaction, to be used as revenue for Constitutional purpose.
The federal government in all transactions, shall receive the Fee portion of Five and one Half per cent, and shall retain the Fee portion of one Half percent of such Money in private interest bearing Investments for present or later supplemental application to the Care and Pension of all Citizens: retired, disabled, and feeble. And the Seller in all transactions shall receive a collection stipend of one Half per cent and shall retain the Fee portion of such Money in like Investments for present or later supplemental application to the Care and Pension of all employees: retired. The federal government urges each Inhabitant to obtain like Investments, which shall be free of any Fee or other Tax, for present or later supplemental application to the Care and Pension of: themselves, their heirs or dependents.
The Congress shall appropriate annually, Money sufficient to pay the Interest service, and an amount equal to two per cent of the total Interest service to be paid upon the National Debt. The President shall annually propose to the House of Representatives such expenditures from the Treasury as - he may deem requisite and responsible for Constitutional purpose.
Congress shall have sole un-delegated power, to regulate the standard Measure of interest by Class, Collateral, or Period, and the calendar Measure of periodic payment intervals upon borrowed money; and by annual resolution shall have sole un-delegated power, to issue coin and currency as legal tender Money and regulate the consistent value thereof, and to affix the appropriations of money for expenditure from the Treasury.
The Coining and issuance of Money being essential to Commerce, Trade, and Law; by annual resolution, the House of Representatives by a majority simple plus three, shall have the sole un-delegated power to annually resolve the quantity of coinage and issuance of Money from the Treasury, to be used as federal revenue and appropriated to Constitutional purpose. The quantity to be issued based: upon growth of population- calculated as subsistence necessary for each new Inhabitant, the growth of economic productivity- calculated as additional gross domestic product, and the interest charged upon borrowed money within the federal jurisdiction- calculated as the current annual quantitative money amount of interest collected. Such coinage and Issuance shall not exceed a quantity necessary to equal these basis, and shall require the advise and consent of a majority simple of the Senate.
Congress shall Not increase rates or forms; either by percentile or quantity, of Fee, or Tax, or of the Measure of Interest charged upon borrowed Money whether by Class, Collateral, or Period, -lest passed by two thirds of the members of the House of Representatives and by two thirds of the members of the Senate in separate session, and a subsequent vote of three fifths of the State delegations of both Houses in Joint session, each delegation having One Vote; except no increase of Fee or Tax shall be passed for a Term longer than six years.
Talkradio, 2012 Candidates and Gun Laws
Talkradio, 2012 Candidates and Gun Laws
By John Longenecker · Wednesday, August 10, 2011
American Talkradio is an enormous success. It's secret is that it is in touch with the electorate where no one else is. This includes some segments of FOX News as much as Congress and 2012 Presidential Candidates.
What makes conservative talkradio succeed and liberal talkradio fail is in the light speed comparing of notes, and therefore the strong position to hear from listeners and to be in touch. Conservative, libertarian and independent hosts such as Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager and Dr. Laura are all good listeners and they resonate with listener values and with electorate life realities. This makes all the difference between elites and voters, movie stars and fans, recording artists and consumers, and others.
Talk show hosts are in a better position to live with the very same realities their listeners live with. Liberal hosts not only do not live with the realities of their listeners, but they also do not have to live with the consequences of their leftist policies. As one primary for instance, many liberal lawmakers are armed one way or another by carrying a loaded sidearm or hiring armed guards, and last year, California lawmakers had asked for latitude in concealed carry permits for themselves. Lawmakers have made California a second amendment hostile state while asking to be armed themselves. Is that out of touch, or what?
Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are two hosts who are just a little off when they talk about guns and regulation. I don't know if Bill O. has a concealed weapon permit, but we know that Hannity does. Lots of hosts and officials have a CCW, but they still miss a few things about the subject we have to live with here on the ground. Bureaucrats second-guessing the electorate.
First, the target of violence is the best first line of defense for self and for community. A target of violence has not only a right to self-defense, but also the legal authority to stop a crime in progress, and may use all reasonable force under the circumstances in the absence of police. The genius of concealed weapons is that thugs do not know who is armed and who is not, and this is a most redeeming societal safeguard when we are talking about violence and smaller government endeavors. Fight crime effectively and you can reduce the need for many bureaucracies which depend on violence to survive.
On this subject, so-called sensible regulation is enunciated by some hosts and some presidential candidates. Forty-nine states affirm the armed citizen and most states have no need for registration of guns. (They obviously believe that they -- as the government -- do not really need to know where the guns are after all.) For those values and societal safeguards to be cloned to work in states severely troubled by violence, there can be no such thing as sensible gun laws, and that means no such thing as reasonable regulation. For, the outcome is interference with the judgment and ability of the citizen to fight crime where it is fought best: at the scene of the crime, before it can be completed. “Regulation” interferes with the citizen's ability to carry where they like, carry what they like, and who may even carry.
You see, regulation interferes with the choices of America's most trusted citizens, and has no effect on America's most distrusted thugs. “Regulation” interferes with a woman's right to stop a rape in progress, a beating, or parent's ability to stop his child's abduction. Or, worse.
Oh, and one more thing about 'regulation': the second amendment is the lethal force which backs our sovereign authority as supreme. Any and all gun laws are a challenge to that authority and therefore reflect a very poor understanding of who is in fact the Sovereign under our system.
How many candidates can you count who will actually say that our authority is supreme in this country? I can think of three. The ability to stop a violent act is itself blocked by gun control, and this serves the bigger government, statist interests. Gun control needs to be repealed.
Lou Dobbs had me on his show to detail how the health of the second amendment is the primary indicator of the overall health of the nation. Lou Dobbs -- Mr. Independent -- understands the concept as one of independence. This is almost the entire point of the second amendment. Being independent of our public servants in personal safety greatly impeaches any other presumptions of purpose public servants want to propose in their immense transfer of wealth. Gun control facilitates such transfers of wealth.
Once you let servants believe you will delegate your personal safety to them, they understand rather clearly that you will delegate anything. Isn't this how we got to such a large government? Isn't this how they disrespect the people?
Talkradio plays an important role in self-rule. It broadcasts listener interaction unfiltered and is one of the best discovery processes of the electorate. With regard to the 2012 elections, the subject of the ubiquitous armed citizen as a peaceable means of reducing violent crime can mean smaller government, and not take as long as one might think. It will mean that candidates must stump on the promise of reducing the size of bureaucracies by the repeal of gun control as soon as possible.
Talkradio's success is that it is in touch with the electorate. Talkradio does not dictate to the listeners, it resonates with the listeners in values, integrity and purpose. It affirms our values as the Sovereign.
Wouldn't it be great if candidates were just as in touch with constituents? There's one way to find out.
John Longenecker shows the moral purpose and public interest between the ubiquitous armed citizen and the CPR-trained society in Even Safer Streets 2011 -- The Second Amendment as a Mainstream Value now available in paperback and digital formats.
By John Longenecker · Wednesday, August 10, 2011
American Talkradio is an enormous success. It's secret is that it is in touch with the electorate where no one else is. This includes some segments of FOX News as much as Congress and 2012 Presidential Candidates.
What makes conservative talkradio succeed and liberal talkradio fail is in the light speed comparing of notes, and therefore the strong position to hear from listeners and to be in touch. Conservative, libertarian and independent hosts such as Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager and Dr. Laura are all good listeners and they resonate with listener values and with electorate life realities. This makes all the difference between elites and voters, movie stars and fans, recording artists and consumers, and others.
Talk show hosts are in a better position to live with the very same realities their listeners live with. Liberal hosts not only do not live with the realities of their listeners, but they also do not have to live with the consequences of their leftist policies. As one primary for instance, many liberal lawmakers are armed one way or another by carrying a loaded sidearm or hiring armed guards, and last year, California lawmakers had asked for latitude in concealed carry permits for themselves. Lawmakers have made California a second amendment hostile state while asking to be armed themselves. Is that out of touch, or what?
Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are two hosts who are just a little off when they talk about guns and regulation. I don't know if Bill O. has a concealed weapon permit, but we know that Hannity does. Lots of hosts and officials have a CCW, but they still miss a few things about the subject we have to live with here on the ground. Bureaucrats second-guessing the electorate.
First, the target of violence is the best first line of defense for self and for community. A target of violence has not only a right to self-defense, but also the legal authority to stop a crime in progress, and may use all reasonable force under the circumstances in the absence of police. The genius of concealed weapons is that thugs do not know who is armed and who is not, and this is a most redeeming societal safeguard when we are talking about violence and smaller government endeavors. Fight crime effectively and you can reduce the need for many bureaucracies which depend on violence to survive.
On this subject, so-called sensible regulation is enunciated by some hosts and some presidential candidates. Forty-nine states affirm the armed citizen and most states have no need for registration of guns. (They obviously believe that they -- as the government -- do not really need to know where the guns are after all.) For those values and societal safeguards to be cloned to work in states severely troubled by violence, there can be no such thing as sensible gun laws, and that means no such thing as reasonable regulation. For, the outcome is interference with the judgment and ability of the citizen to fight crime where it is fought best: at the scene of the crime, before it can be completed. “Regulation” interferes with the citizen's ability to carry where they like, carry what they like, and who may even carry.
You see, regulation interferes with the choices of America's most trusted citizens, and has no effect on America's most distrusted thugs. “Regulation” interferes with a woman's right to stop a rape in progress, a beating, or parent's ability to stop his child's abduction. Or, worse.
Oh, and one more thing about 'regulation': the second amendment is the lethal force which backs our sovereign authority as supreme. Any and all gun laws are a challenge to that authority and therefore reflect a very poor understanding of who is in fact the Sovereign under our system.
How many candidates can you count who will actually say that our authority is supreme in this country? I can think of three. The ability to stop a violent act is itself blocked by gun control, and this serves the bigger government, statist interests. Gun control needs to be repealed.
Lou Dobbs had me on his show to detail how the health of the second amendment is the primary indicator of the overall health of the nation. Lou Dobbs -- Mr. Independent -- understands the concept as one of independence. This is almost the entire point of the second amendment. Being independent of our public servants in personal safety greatly impeaches any other presumptions of purpose public servants want to propose in their immense transfer of wealth. Gun control facilitates such transfers of wealth.
Once you let servants believe you will delegate your personal safety to them, they understand rather clearly that you will delegate anything. Isn't this how we got to such a large government? Isn't this how they disrespect the people?
Talkradio plays an important role in self-rule. It broadcasts listener interaction unfiltered and is one of the best discovery processes of the electorate. With regard to the 2012 elections, the subject of the ubiquitous armed citizen as a peaceable means of reducing violent crime can mean smaller government, and not take as long as one might think. It will mean that candidates must stump on the promise of reducing the size of bureaucracies by the repeal of gun control as soon as possible.
Talkradio's success is that it is in touch with the electorate. Talkradio does not dictate to the listeners, it resonates with the listeners in values, integrity and purpose. It affirms our values as the Sovereign.
Wouldn't it be great if candidates were just as in touch with constituents? There's one way to find out.
John Longenecker shows the moral purpose and public interest between the ubiquitous armed citizen and the CPR-trained society in Even Safer Streets 2011 -- The Second Amendment as a Mainstream Value now available in paperback and digital formats.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
The Next American Revolution
from The Patriot Post by Mark Alexander
The Next American Revolution
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, August 4, 2011
What is the Authority for Rebellion?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
(PUBLISHER'S WARNING: The following essay may cause heartburn and knee-jerk reactions, especially in those who are predisposed to "give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety." But as Benjamin Franklin concluded, they "deserve neither liberty nor safety." For such feeble souls, Samuel Adams advised, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" For those who are not cast among that faint-hearted lot, please read on.)
I receive hundreds of messages every day from Patriots across the nation. For the last three years, one thematic question has emerged with ever-increasing frequency. To paraphrase that question: "What is the authority to rebel against the central government?"
That question is most often asked by those who have taken their oath of allegiance to our Constitution, particularly active duty, reserve and veteran military personnel. Typical is this note from a disabled combat Patriot this week: "Please clarify for me when my solemn oath1 to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND [his emphasis] domestic,' kicks in."
Such questions were once deemed too radical and discordant for consideration in civil discourse. However, as Rule of Law2 enshrined in our Constitution has been all but completely usurped by the rule of men through the Left's so-called living constitution3, the frequency and tenor of questions about the future of Essential Liberty for our once-great Republic is propelling them into mainstream debate.
The unfortunate ascension of Barack Hussein Obama4 and his socialist cadres5 had a silver lining: It revitalized the spirit of American Patriotism6 in tens of millions of our countrymen. The imminent threat to Liberty posed by Democratic Socialism7 is the catalyst driving this great awakening and it is spreading.
To the question of the authority to rebel against government, we turn to the Constitution's guiding document, our Declaration of Independence8. It clearly affirms the "unalienable rights" upon which our Constitution was instituted, and those rights supersede the authority of the Constitution itself as they are the inherent rights of man.
This authorizing language reads as follows: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
So, is it time for another American Revolution?
The answer to that question depends upon the answer to a more fundamental question: Is it too late to restore authority9 of our Constitution? Moreover, will the current dire circumstances result in a sunset or sunrise on Liberty10?
In my enthusiastic analysis, the degraded state of the union presents a great opportunity for restoration of Rule of Law, and this sunrise on Liberty is already in progress under the broad heading of the Tea Party11 movement. Further, having been in close proximity to revolutions on foreign soil, I am intimately aware that restoration (or revolution without shots fired) is a far more desirable path than the violent one -- not that the latter must ever be excluded as an option.
But behind every sunrise is a sunset. As Ronald Reagan12 warned thirty years ago, when the "Reagan Revolution" temporarily restored our nation's course toward Liberty, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men were free."
Make no mistake; there are formidable obstacles to the restoration of Liberty. The most daunting of these impediments is complacency, the result of either a false sense of comfort, institutionalized ignorance or both. Nonetheless, I still believe that the ballot box is a viable alternative to the bullet box at this juncture. Every effort to work within what remains of our Constitution's framework to restore its Rule of Law, as outlined in The Patriot Declaration13 must be exhausted.
If the 2012 election cycle does not provide sufficient momentum toward the goal of restored Liberty, there are substantial measures of civil disobedience that can ratchet up the pressure -- measures which will find support among true conservatives in both the House and Senate.
Either way, we face a long, uphill battle. It has taken many years to degrade Rule of Law, and it will take many years to fully restore it.
As for timing, Obama has already dropped a debt bomb14 on our economy, the goal of which is to "fundamentally transform the United States of America." The greatest systemic risk to Liberty that this act of economic violence poses is the destruction of free enterprise by way of taxation, regulation and insurmountable debt. U.S. debt has now surpassed 100 percent of our annual gross domestic product (economic output).
It should, of course, be the highest aspiration of every Patriot to restore our Constitution's Rule of Law, a fundamental principle of which is the separation of economy and state. But is there still time, and are we sufficiently resolute?
Leading the forces arrayed against us are the statist extremists, the "useful idiots15" on the Left who now vilify as "terrorists" those seeking to restore Rule of Law.
In a closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting this week hosted by Veep Joe Biden, Demo Rep. Mike Doyle said of the recent budget negotiations, "We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money." Biden, to his everlasting shame, concurred: "They have acted like terrorists."
Biden, Doyle, and the Kool-Aid-drinking legions of the Left are formidable. But history shows that Barack Obama's model for prosperity16, is a blueprint for economic collapse, a model that is antithetical to prosperity17 and ultimately at odds with Liberty.
Patriots, we have an obligation to secure Liberty for our posterity, and in the words of John Adams, "Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives."
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison dated January 30, 1787: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. ... An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
Today, Tea Party "terrorists" should expect no such accommodation, as "honest republican governors" are few and far between.
That same year, Jefferson famously wrote more pointedly to John Adams's son-in-law, William Smith, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
Short of the bullet box, it is my fervent prayer that on 6 November 2012, an unprecedented army of American Patriots will use the ballot box to further alter the course of our nation toward Liberty and Rule of Law.
That notwithstanding, American Patriots remain well aware of both the authority for rebellion and more importantly the obligation to overcome tyranny, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. There may come a time to fight18, and our Founders wisely extended to us the means for rebellion19. We also fully understand the cost outlined in its closing: "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
We do.
The Next American Revolution
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, August 4, 2011
What is the Authority for Rebellion?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
(PUBLISHER'S WARNING: The following essay may cause heartburn and knee-jerk reactions, especially in those who are predisposed to "give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety." But as Benjamin Franklin concluded, they "deserve neither liberty nor safety." For such feeble souls, Samuel Adams advised, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" For those who are not cast among that faint-hearted lot, please read on.)
I receive hundreds of messages every day from Patriots across the nation. For the last three years, one thematic question has emerged with ever-increasing frequency. To paraphrase that question: "What is the authority to rebel against the central government?"
That question is most often asked by those who have taken their oath of allegiance to our Constitution, particularly active duty, reserve and veteran military personnel. Typical is this note from a disabled combat Patriot this week: "Please clarify for me when my solemn oath1 to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND [his emphasis] domestic,' kicks in."
Such questions were once deemed too radical and discordant for consideration in civil discourse. However, as Rule of Law2 enshrined in our Constitution has been all but completely usurped by the rule of men through the Left's so-called living constitution3, the frequency and tenor of questions about the future of Essential Liberty for our once-great Republic is propelling them into mainstream debate.
The unfortunate ascension of Barack Hussein Obama4 and his socialist cadres5 had a silver lining: It revitalized the spirit of American Patriotism6 in tens of millions of our countrymen. The imminent threat to Liberty posed by Democratic Socialism7 is the catalyst driving this great awakening and it is spreading.
To the question of the authority to rebel against government, we turn to the Constitution's guiding document, our Declaration of Independence8. It clearly affirms the "unalienable rights" upon which our Constitution was instituted, and those rights supersede the authority of the Constitution itself as they are the inherent rights of man.
This authorizing language reads as follows: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
So, is it time for another American Revolution?
The answer to that question depends upon the answer to a more fundamental question: Is it too late to restore authority9 of our Constitution? Moreover, will the current dire circumstances result in a sunset or sunrise on Liberty10?
In my enthusiastic analysis, the degraded state of the union presents a great opportunity for restoration of Rule of Law, and this sunrise on Liberty is already in progress under the broad heading of the Tea Party11 movement. Further, having been in close proximity to revolutions on foreign soil, I am intimately aware that restoration (or revolution without shots fired) is a far more desirable path than the violent one -- not that the latter must ever be excluded as an option.
But behind every sunrise is a sunset. As Ronald Reagan12 warned thirty years ago, when the "Reagan Revolution" temporarily restored our nation's course toward Liberty, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men were free."
Make no mistake; there are formidable obstacles to the restoration of Liberty. The most daunting of these impediments is complacency, the result of either a false sense of comfort, institutionalized ignorance or both. Nonetheless, I still believe that the ballot box is a viable alternative to the bullet box at this juncture. Every effort to work within what remains of our Constitution's framework to restore its Rule of Law, as outlined in The Patriot Declaration13 must be exhausted.
If the 2012 election cycle does not provide sufficient momentum toward the goal of restored Liberty, there are substantial measures of civil disobedience that can ratchet up the pressure -- measures which will find support among true conservatives in both the House and Senate.
Either way, we face a long, uphill battle. It has taken many years to degrade Rule of Law, and it will take many years to fully restore it.
As for timing, Obama has already dropped a debt bomb14 on our economy, the goal of which is to "fundamentally transform the United States of America." The greatest systemic risk to Liberty that this act of economic violence poses is the destruction of free enterprise by way of taxation, regulation and insurmountable debt. U.S. debt has now surpassed 100 percent of our annual gross domestic product (economic output).
It should, of course, be the highest aspiration of every Patriot to restore our Constitution's Rule of Law, a fundamental principle of which is the separation of economy and state. But is there still time, and are we sufficiently resolute?
Leading the forces arrayed against us are the statist extremists, the "useful idiots15" on the Left who now vilify as "terrorists" those seeking to restore Rule of Law.
In a closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting this week hosted by Veep Joe Biden, Demo Rep. Mike Doyle said of the recent budget negotiations, "We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money." Biden, to his everlasting shame, concurred: "They have acted like terrorists."
Biden, Doyle, and the Kool-Aid-drinking legions of the Left are formidable. But history shows that Barack Obama's model for prosperity16, is a blueprint for economic collapse, a model that is antithetical to prosperity17 and ultimately at odds with Liberty.
Patriots, we have an obligation to secure Liberty for our posterity, and in the words of John Adams, "Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives."
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison dated January 30, 1787: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. ... An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
Today, Tea Party "terrorists" should expect no such accommodation, as "honest republican governors" are few and far between.
That same year, Jefferson famously wrote more pointedly to John Adams's son-in-law, William Smith, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
Short of the bullet box, it is my fervent prayer that on 6 November 2012, an unprecedented army of American Patriots will use the ballot box to further alter the course of our nation toward Liberty and Rule of Law.
That notwithstanding, American Patriots remain well aware of both the authority for rebellion and more importantly the obligation to overcome tyranny, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. There may come a time to fight18, and our Founders wisely extended to us the means for rebellion19. We also fully understand the cost outlined in its closing: "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
We do.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Travel
- Copenhagen, Denmark
- Athens, Greece
- Heraklion, Greece
- Mykonos Town, Greece
- Oia, Greece
- Dublin, Ireland
- Killarney, Ireland
- Waterford, Ireland
- Florence, Italy
- Manarola, Italy
- Milan, Italy
- Montecatini Terme, Italy
- Naples, Italy
- Padua, Italy
- Pisa, Italy
- Pompeii, Italy
- Rome, Italy
- San Gimignano, Italy
- Siena, Italy
- Vatican City, Italy
- Venice, Italy
- Verona, Italy
- Bergen, Norway
- Oslo, Norway
- Stockholm, Sweden
- Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Kusadasi, Turkey
- Bath, UK
- Cambridge, UK
- London, UK
- Manchester, UK
- Salisbury, UK
- St. John's, Antigua and Barbuda
- Oranjestad, Aruba
- Bridgetown, Barbados
- St. George's, Grenada
- Seven Mile Beach, Cayman Islands
- Montego Bay, Jamaica
- Ocho Rios, Jamaica
- Cabo San Lucas, Mexico
- Mazatlan, Mexico
- Playa del Carmen, Mexico
- Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
- San Jose del Cabo, Mexico
- Tijuana, Mexico
- Tulum, Mexico
- San Juan, Puerto Rico
- Castries, St. Lucia
- Charlotte Amalie, U.S. Virgin Islands
- Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
- Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
- Quito, Ecuador
- Anchorage, AK, USA
- Juneau, AK, USA
- Ketchikan, AK, USA
- Birmingham, AL, USA
- Gulf Shores, AL, USA
- Mobile, AL, USA
- Orange Beach, AL, USA
- Flagstaff, AZ, USA
- Phoenix, AZ, USA
- Scottsdale, AZ, USA
- Sedona, AZ, USA
- Tucson, AZ, USA
- Carmel, CA, USA
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Monterey, CA, USA
- Napa, CA, USA
- Oakland, CA, USA
- Sacramento, CA, USA
- San Diego, CA, USA
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- San Jose, CA, USA
- Temecula, CA, USA
- Aspen, CO, USA
- Beaver Creek, CO, USA
- Boulder, CO, USA
- Breckenridge, CO, USA
- Colorado Springs, CO, USA
- Denver, CO, USA
- Durango, CO, USA
- Estes Park, CO, USA
- Keystone, CO, USA
- Steamboat Springs, CO, USA
- Vail, CO, USA
- Danbury, CT, USA
- Hartford, CT, USA
- Mystic, CT, USA
- New Haven, CT, USA
- Washington DC, DC, USA
- Cape Canaveral, FL, USA
- Daytona Beach, FL, USA
- Destin, FL, USA
- Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
- Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
- Gainesville, FL, USA
- Jacksonville, FL, USA
- Miami, FL, USA
- Orlando, FL, USA
- Ormond Beach, FL, USA
- Palm Beach, FL, USA
- Panama City, FL, USA
- Panama City Beach, FL, USA
- Pensacola, FL, USA
- Saint Augustine, FL, USA
- Saint Pete Beach, FL, USA
- Tampa, FL, USA
- West Palm Beach, FL, USA
- Atlanta, GA, USA
- Hilo, HI, USA
- Honolulu, HI, USA
- Kailua, HI, USA
- Kailua-Kona, HI, USA
- Kihei, HI, USA
- Lahaina, HI, USA
- Wailea, HI, USA
- Chicago, IL, USA
- Springfield, IL, USA
- Indianapolis, IN, USA
- Nashville, IN, USA
- Wichita, KS, USA
- Bardstown, KY, USA
- Bowling Green, KY, USA
- Lexington, KY, USA
- Louisville, KY, USA
- New Orleans, LA, USA
- Boston, MA, USA
- Cambridge, MA, USA
- Chatham, MA, USA
- Falmouth, MA, USA
- Hyannis, MA, USA
- Provincetown, MA, USA
- Salem, MA, USA
- Annapolis, MD, USA
- Baltimore, MD, USA
- Ocean City, MD, USA
- Kennebunkport, ME, USA
- Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Detroit, MI, USA
- Grand Rapids, MI, USA
- Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Saint Paul, MN, USA
- Branson, MO, USA
- Kansas City, MO, USA
- Saint Louis, MO, USA
- Biloxi, MS, USA
- Natchez, MS, USA
- West Yellowstone, MT, USA
- Asheville, NC, USA
- Charlotte, NC, USA
- Cherokee, NC, USA
- Greensboro, NC, USA
- Wilmington, NC, USA
- Winston Salem, NC, USA
- Omaha, NE, USA
- North Conway, NH, USA
- Albuquerque, NM, USA
- Santa Fe, NM, USA
- Taos, NM, USA
- Savannah, GA, USA
- Henderson, NV, USA
- Las Vegas, NV, USA
- Laughlin, NV, USA
- Reno, NV, USA
- Stateline, NV, USA
- Buffalo, NY, USA
- New York City, NY, USA
- Niagara Falls, NY, USA
- Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Cleveland, OH, USA
- Columbus, OH, USA
- Oklahoma City, OK, USA
- Tulsa, OK, USA
- Portland, OR, USA
- Erie, PA, USA
- Gettysburg, PA, USA
- Harrisburg, PA, USA
- Hershey, PA, USA
- Lancaster, PA, USA
- Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Providence, RI, USA
- Charleston, SC, USA
- Columbia, SC, USA
- Greenville, SC, USA
- Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
- North Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
- Rapid City, SD, USA
- Chattanooga, TN, USA
- Gatlinburg, TN, USA
- Knoxville, TN, USA
- Memphis, TN, USA
- Nashville, TN, USA
- Pigeon Forge, TN, USA
- Sevierville, TN, USA
- Amarillo, TX, USA
- Austin, TX, USA
- El Paso, TX, USA
- Fredericksburg, TX, USA
- Houston, TX, USA
- New Braunfels, TX, USA
- San Antonio, TX, USA
- Salt Lake City, UT, USA
- Alexandria, VA, USA
- Arlington, VA, USA
- Charlottesville, VA, USA
- Harrisonburg, VA, USA
- Norfolk, VA, USA
- Richmond, VA, USA
- Virginia Beach, VA, USA
- Williamsburg, VA, USA
- Burlington, VT, USA
- Killington, VT, USA
- Stowe, VT, USA
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Tacoma, WA, USA
- Madison, WI, USA
- Milwaukee, WI, USA
- Wisconsin Dells, WI, USA
- Williamson, WV, USA
- Jackson, WY, USA
- Teton Village, WY, USA
- Create your own travel map or travel blog
- Top vacation rentals at TripAdvisor
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Patriot's Day, 2011 (April 19, 2011)
Reprinted from The Patriot Post, April 14, 2011
"Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations." --George Washington
A young reader in the Czech Republic contacted me recently with a question. (Yes, The Patriot Post's message of Liberty is global.)
She wrote, "We as a Czech family subscribe to The Patriot Post and read it with great interest. My homeland has been subject to the tyranny of Nationalist and Marxist Socialism. Could you please help me understand the difference between 'patriotism' and 'nationalism'? In Europe, anyone who puts his country first is called a nationalist and this pejorative term is equated with patriotism."
I responded, "Nationalism refers to a blind allegiance to the state, no matter what the nature of the state may be. American Patriotism refers to the steadfast devotion to the fundamental principles of our nation's Founding, individual Liberty as 'endowed by our Creator,' and the extension of that legacy to our posterity. American Patriotic devotion to Liberty will always be in contest with allegiance to the state or its sovereigns, especially when it manifests in some form of Socialism."
It is easy to understand how a Czech student might find it challenging to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism. Sadly most American students, heirs to the great legacy of Liberty bestowed upon them by generations of Patriots gone before, also can't articulate the difference.
In the early morning hours of the first Patriots' Day, April 19th, 1775, farmers and laborers, landowners and statesmen alike, pledged through action what Thomas Jefferson would later frame in words as "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor." Thus began the great campaign to reject the predictable albeit tyrannical order of the state and to embrace the difficult toils of securing individual Liberty. It was this as-yet unwritten pledge by militiamen in the Battles of Lexington and Concord, which would delineate the distinction between Liberty and tyranny in Colonial America.
Why would the first generation of American Patriots forgo, in the inimitable words of Samuel Adams, "the tranquility of servitude" for "the animating contest of freedom"?
The answer to that question defined the spirit of American Patriotism at the dawn of the American Revolution, and to this day and for eternity, that spirit will serve as the first line of defense between Liberty and tyranny.
In the first months of the American Revolution, English author and lexicographer Samuel Johnson, a Tory loyalist, wrote that American Patriots' quest for liberty was nothing more than "the delirious dream of republican fanaticism" which would "put the axe to the roots of all government." Johnson concluded famously, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Unlike King George's partisans, however, American Patriots were unwaveringly loyal to something much larger than a mere man or geo-political institution. They pledged their sacred honor in support of Essential Liberty as "endowed by our Creator" and enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate guidance, our Constitution.
It is this resolute devotion to the natural rights of man, the higher order of Liberty as endowed by God not government, which defines the spirit of American Patriots, and has obliged the animated contest of freedom from Lexington Green to this day.
In all the generations since the Revolution, and loudly again in the present era, the essence of Johnson's denigration of patriotism has been repeated by all statists, who augment their disdain for Patriots with words like "fascist, nationalist and jingoist."
These statists, Democratic Socialists in the current vernacular, would have you believe that they are the "true patriots," and only they deserve to be the arbiters of Liberty. But caveat emptor: As George Washington implored in his Farewell Address, "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."
Liberty, as affirmed through natural law, is an abject affront to Socialists, who can claim dominion over others only if they supplant Rule of Law with their own rule. For such statists, the notion of serving a higher purpose than oneself is enigmatic; consequently, there is a raging ideological battle between Democratic Socialists and Patriots across our nation today.
Our steadfast support for Liberty and limited government is diametrically opposed to the Socialist manifesto of the Democrat Party, as reframed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, and renewed by every Democrat president since.
Regardless of how statists choose to promote Democratic Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, it is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged. Ultimately, it likewise seeks a centrally planned economy directed by a single-party state that controls economic production through regulation and income redistribution.
Mustering in response to the current threat of tyranny, the Tea Party movement is the latest incarnation in the lineage of American Patriots serving a cause much greater than our own self-interest. It is a direct ideological descendant of the Sons of Liberty who, in 1773, boarded three East India Company ships and threw 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor, the first Tea Party.
According to the Democratic Socialists of Barack Obama's ilk, the Tea Party rank and file are an "angry mob" who are "waving their little tea bags" while they "bitterly cling to guns and religion." Indeed, the spirit of American Patriots is anathema to these statists.
In fact, today's Patriots are much like those of previous generations.
We are mothers, fathers and other family members nurturing the next generation of young Patriots. We are farmers, craftsmen, tradesmen and industrial producers. We are small business owners, service providers and professionals in medicine and law. We are employees and employers. We are in ministry at home and missionaries abroad. We are students and professors at colleges and universities, often standing alone for what is good and right.
We are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and public servants standing in harm's way at home and around the world, who are loyal, first and foremost, to our revered oath to "support and defend" our Constitution.
We are consumers and taxpayers. We are voters.
We are not defined by race, creed, ethnicity, religion, wealth, education or political affiliation, but by our devotion to our Creator, and the Liberty He entrusted to us, one and all.
We are Patriot sons and daughters from all walks of life, heirs to the blessings of Liberty bequeathed to us at great personal cost by our Patriot forebears, confirmed in the opinion that it is our duty to God and Country to extend that blessing to our posterity, and avowed upon our sacred honor to that end. We are vigilant, strong, prepared and faithful.
In stark contrast to Samuel Johnson in 1775 and Obama today, John Adams wrote, "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."
To that end, Jefferson wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. ... Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."
In 1964, Ronald Reagan issued a clarion call for Liberty in his most famous speech, "A Time for Choosing." He echoed the commands of Captain John Parker at Lexington Green in 1775: "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." Reagan concluded, "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."
Now, on the eve of Patriots' Day 2011, and nearly five decades later, and much closer to the decline that Reagan predicted, we must choose between prosperity and poverty, between Liberty and tyranny.
Which will it be?
While contemplating that question, we should, in the words of Samuel Adams, "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
"Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations." --George Washington
A young reader in the Czech Republic contacted me recently with a question. (Yes, The Patriot Post's message of Liberty is global.)
She wrote, "We as a Czech family subscribe to The Patriot Post and read it with great interest. My homeland has been subject to the tyranny of Nationalist and Marxist Socialism. Could you please help me understand the difference between 'patriotism' and 'nationalism'? In Europe, anyone who puts his country first is called a nationalist and this pejorative term is equated with patriotism."
I responded, "Nationalism refers to a blind allegiance to the state, no matter what the nature of the state may be. American Patriotism refers to the steadfast devotion to the fundamental principles of our nation's Founding, individual Liberty as 'endowed by our Creator,' and the extension of that legacy to our posterity. American Patriotic devotion to Liberty will always be in contest with allegiance to the state or its sovereigns, especially when it manifests in some form of Socialism."
It is easy to understand how a Czech student might find it challenging to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism. Sadly most American students, heirs to the great legacy of Liberty bestowed upon them by generations of Patriots gone before, also can't articulate the difference.
In the early morning hours of the first Patriots' Day, April 19th, 1775, farmers and laborers, landowners and statesmen alike, pledged through action what Thomas Jefferson would later frame in words as "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor." Thus began the great campaign to reject the predictable albeit tyrannical order of the state and to embrace the difficult toils of securing individual Liberty. It was this as-yet unwritten pledge by militiamen in the Battles of Lexington and Concord, which would delineate the distinction between Liberty and tyranny in Colonial America.
Why would the first generation of American Patriots forgo, in the inimitable words of Samuel Adams, "the tranquility of servitude" for "the animating contest of freedom"?
The answer to that question defined the spirit of American Patriotism at the dawn of the American Revolution, and to this day and for eternity, that spirit will serve as the first line of defense between Liberty and tyranny.
In the first months of the American Revolution, English author and lexicographer Samuel Johnson, a Tory loyalist, wrote that American Patriots' quest for liberty was nothing more than "the delirious dream of republican fanaticism" which would "put the axe to the roots of all government." Johnson concluded famously, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Unlike King George's partisans, however, American Patriots were unwaveringly loyal to something much larger than a mere man or geo-political institution. They pledged their sacred honor in support of Essential Liberty as "endowed by our Creator" and enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate guidance, our Constitution.
It is this resolute devotion to the natural rights of man, the higher order of Liberty as endowed by God not government, which defines the spirit of American Patriots, and has obliged the animated contest of freedom from Lexington Green to this day.
In all the generations since the Revolution, and loudly again in the present era, the essence of Johnson's denigration of patriotism has been repeated by all statists, who augment their disdain for Patriots with words like "fascist, nationalist and jingoist."
These statists, Democratic Socialists in the current vernacular, would have you believe that they are the "true patriots," and only they deserve to be the arbiters of Liberty. But caveat emptor: As George Washington implored in his Farewell Address, "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."
Liberty, as affirmed through natural law, is an abject affront to Socialists, who can claim dominion over others only if they supplant Rule of Law with their own rule. For such statists, the notion of serving a higher purpose than oneself is enigmatic; consequently, there is a raging ideological battle between Democratic Socialists and Patriots across our nation today.
Our steadfast support for Liberty and limited government is diametrically opposed to the Socialist manifesto of the Democrat Party, as reframed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, and renewed by every Democrat president since.
Regardless of how statists choose to promote Democratic Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, it is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged. Ultimately, it likewise seeks a centrally planned economy directed by a single-party state that controls economic production through regulation and income redistribution.
Mustering in response to the current threat of tyranny, the Tea Party movement is the latest incarnation in the lineage of American Patriots serving a cause much greater than our own self-interest. It is a direct ideological descendant of the Sons of Liberty who, in 1773, boarded three East India Company ships and threw 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor, the first Tea Party.
According to the Democratic Socialists of Barack Obama's ilk, the Tea Party rank and file are an "angry mob" who are "waving their little tea bags" while they "bitterly cling to guns and religion." Indeed, the spirit of American Patriots is anathema to these statists.
In fact, today's Patriots are much like those of previous generations.
We are mothers, fathers and other family members nurturing the next generation of young Patriots. We are farmers, craftsmen, tradesmen and industrial producers. We are small business owners, service providers and professionals in medicine and law. We are employees and employers. We are in ministry at home and missionaries abroad. We are students and professors at colleges and universities, often standing alone for what is good and right.
We are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and public servants standing in harm's way at home and around the world, who are loyal, first and foremost, to our revered oath to "support and defend" our Constitution.
We are consumers and taxpayers. We are voters.
We are not defined by race, creed, ethnicity, religion, wealth, education or political affiliation, but by our devotion to our Creator, and the Liberty He entrusted to us, one and all.
We are Patriot sons and daughters from all walks of life, heirs to the blessings of Liberty bequeathed to us at great personal cost by our Patriot forebears, confirmed in the opinion that it is our duty to God and Country to extend that blessing to our posterity, and avowed upon our sacred honor to that end. We are vigilant, strong, prepared and faithful.
In stark contrast to Samuel Johnson in 1775 and Obama today, John Adams wrote, "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."
To that end, Jefferson wrote, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. ... Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."
In 1964, Ronald Reagan issued a clarion call for Liberty in his most famous speech, "A Time for Choosing." He echoed the commands of Captain John Parker at Lexington Green in 1775: "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." Reagan concluded, "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."
Now, on the eve of Patriots' Day 2011, and nearly five decades later, and much closer to the decline that Reagan predicted, we must choose between prosperity and poverty, between Liberty and tyranny.
Which will it be?
While contemplating that question, we should, in the words of Samuel Adams, "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
Thursday, January 20, 2011
From: Patriot Post of Wednesday, January 19, 2011. This would have been the 204th birthday of Confederate General Robert Edward Lee.
Open Thread: Robert E. Lee
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Today we take a moment to remember the birth anniversary of Robert E. Lee (1807-1870), one of the greatest military commanders in American history. He was also a great man of faith who gave his all for the cause of liberty and states' rights, which we at The Patriot Post hold so dear.
There were many honorable men of the Confederate States of America, whose objective was, first and foremost, the protection of states rights, and decidedly not the continuation of abhorrent institution of slavery. For a better understanding on the issues of the day, read this perspective on Abraham Lincoln, which was not included in your grade-school civics class. The honor we give these men has its roots in the founding of this great nation.
Mark Alexander notes in his essay, "Lincoln's Legacy at 200," that "the causal case for states' rights is most aptly demonstrated by the words and actions of Gen. Lee, who detested slavery and opposed secession. In 1860, however, Gen. Lee declined President Abraham Lincoln's request that he take command of the Army of the Potomac, saying that his first allegiance was to his home state of Virginia: 'I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the army, and save in defense of my native state... I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword.' He would, soon thereafter, take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, rallying his officers with these words: 'Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty, and peace shall find him a defender.'"
Comments
Thank you Mark for acknowledging the life of this honorable man, whose character has been often maligned under the pen of the victorious. I encourage readers to take this time to recognize the true meaning of States Rights, and examine the words of men who were willing to give their lives for their home--their State.
The danger of unlimited Federal Government and the issue of States Rights versus the power of the U.S. Government has been lost on most of us for far to long. Now we begin to see the issue become of critical importance as Americans are forced to look to their State governments to protect them from the abuses of the Federal government-i.e. healthcare reform, student loan reform, banking and mortgage industry, salt content of your soup, etc-, as well as neglect of those areas for which the Feds are indeed responsible- defense and border control.
We all look at American history through the prism of two hundred years time, and it is difficult sometimes to understand that at the Founding and for some time after, the strong commitment to one's home State was far more developed than allegiance to the yet unproven concept of a Federal Government.
No where is this more eloquently expressed than by Robert E. Lee as he anguished over the decision to resign his US ARMY commission in order to return to his Home - his state - almost 100 years following the founding of our Federal Government.
“Now we are in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole South is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognize no necessity for this state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native State.”
“With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword. I know you will blame me; but you must think as kindly of me as you can, and believe that I have endeavored to do what I thought right.” Robert E. Lee
I would imagine that most of us consider ourselves to be Americans, but we still consider our "homes" to be the State in which we live. It is the character of our States, that in large part determines the nature of our work and leisure.
Do not mistake the present day calls for recognition of "States Rights" as a revolution against our Nation- but rather as a necessary stand against those who have usurped the Federal authority granted by the Constitution. They have been enabled by unfettered taxation which has enriched the nations coffers beyond comprehension. The huge amount of Federal taxation and confiscated wealth has created the fraudulent system in which we now are forced to send an elected representative to Washington to retrieve a portion of our hard earned wages, which should never have been sent there in the first place. This is not what the Founders intended, rather it is precisely what they warned us against.
Thanks again for recognizing Robert E. Lee as an honorable man.
It does not take long for one to do even a modicum of research to realize the greatness of Robert E. Lee. And his greatness is burnished by his continual resistence to have himself characterized as such. The essence of Lee is in the quote attributed to him: "Duty is the sublimest word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less." Since his passing there have been very, very few men who rise to the stature of Lee. Ronald Reagan comes to mind.
If Robert E. Lee were alive, he would be celebrating his 204th birthday today, January 19, 2011. This date will probably pass without much notice in the North, but many of us in Dixie will mark the day with recollections of just how great a man he was. In this regard, I offer this reprint of his Farwell to the Army of Northern Virginia. If Mr. Obama wants to end the war in Afghanistan now, this would serve as an excellent draft for his farewell speech to the troops:
"After four years of arduous service, marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources.
I need not tell the survivors of so many hard-fought battles who have remained steadfast to the last that I have consented to this result from no distrust of them; but feeling that valor and devotion could accomplish nothing that could compensate for the loss that would have attended the continuance of the contest, I determined to avoid the useless sacrifice of those whose past services have endeared them to their countrymen. By the terms of the agreement, officers and men can return to their homes and remain until exchanged.
You may take with you the satisfaction that proceeds from the consciousness of duty faithfully performed, and I earnestly pray that a merciful God will extend to you his blessing and protection.
With an unceasing admiration of your constancy and devotion to your country, and a grateful remembrance of your kind and generous consideration of myself, I bid you all an affectionate farewell."
I believe that General Lee can be understood as much by the actions of his adversaries as his own. Lee's home in Arlington was confiscated by the Union and the surrounding fields were used for the burial of Union soldiers. It was felt this would forever be an insult to the Confederate General and he would never again live in this home.
He never lived there again, yet his home has become the national shrine, hallowed ground, for America's heroes. All those who tread Arlington National Cemetery sense the strength of America, the nobleness of purpose and duty.
This was the home of General Lee and it is a true reflection of the man; somber, reflective, yet unbowed, dedicated not to self, but to duty.
Open Thread: Robert E. Lee
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Today we take a moment to remember the birth anniversary of Robert E. Lee (1807-1870), one of the greatest military commanders in American history. He was also a great man of faith who gave his all for the cause of liberty and states' rights, which we at The Patriot Post hold so dear.
There were many honorable men of the Confederate States of America, whose objective was, first and foremost, the protection of states rights, and decidedly not the continuation of abhorrent institution of slavery. For a better understanding on the issues of the day, read this perspective on Abraham Lincoln, which was not included in your grade-school civics class. The honor we give these men has its roots in the founding of this great nation.
Mark Alexander notes in his essay, "Lincoln's Legacy at 200," that "the causal case for states' rights is most aptly demonstrated by the words and actions of Gen. Lee, who detested slavery and opposed secession. In 1860, however, Gen. Lee declined President Abraham Lincoln's request that he take command of the Army of the Potomac, saying that his first allegiance was to his home state of Virginia: 'I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the army, and save in defense of my native state... I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword.' He would, soon thereafter, take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, rallying his officers with these words: 'Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty, and peace shall find him a defender.'"
Comments
Thank you Mark for acknowledging the life of this honorable man, whose character has been often maligned under the pen of the victorious. I encourage readers to take this time to recognize the true meaning of States Rights, and examine the words of men who were willing to give their lives for their home--their State.
The danger of unlimited Federal Government and the issue of States Rights versus the power of the U.S. Government has been lost on most of us for far to long. Now we begin to see the issue become of critical importance as Americans are forced to look to their State governments to protect them from the abuses of the Federal government-i.e. healthcare reform, student loan reform, banking and mortgage industry, salt content of your soup, etc-, as well as neglect of those areas for which the Feds are indeed responsible- defense and border control.
We all look at American history through the prism of two hundred years time, and it is difficult sometimes to understand that at the Founding and for some time after, the strong commitment to one's home State was far more developed than allegiance to the yet unproven concept of a Federal Government.
No where is this more eloquently expressed than by Robert E. Lee as he anguished over the decision to resign his US ARMY commission in order to return to his Home - his state - almost 100 years following the founding of our Federal Government.
“Now we are in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole South is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognize no necessity for this state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native State.”
“With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword. I know you will blame me; but you must think as kindly of me as you can, and believe that I have endeavored to do what I thought right.” Robert E. Lee
I would imagine that most of us consider ourselves to be Americans, but we still consider our "homes" to be the State in which we live. It is the character of our States, that in large part determines the nature of our work and leisure.
Do not mistake the present day calls for recognition of "States Rights" as a revolution against our Nation- but rather as a necessary stand against those who have usurped the Federal authority granted by the Constitution. They have been enabled by unfettered taxation which has enriched the nations coffers beyond comprehension. The huge amount of Federal taxation and confiscated wealth has created the fraudulent system in which we now are forced to send an elected representative to Washington to retrieve a portion of our hard earned wages, which should never have been sent there in the first place. This is not what the Founders intended, rather it is precisely what they warned us against.
Thanks again for recognizing Robert E. Lee as an honorable man.
It does not take long for one to do even a modicum of research to realize the greatness of Robert E. Lee. And his greatness is burnished by his continual resistence to have himself characterized as such. The essence of Lee is in the quote attributed to him: "Duty is the sublimest word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less." Since his passing there have been very, very few men who rise to the stature of Lee. Ronald Reagan comes to mind.
If Robert E. Lee were alive, he would be celebrating his 204th birthday today, January 19, 2011. This date will probably pass without much notice in the North, but many of us in Dixie will mark the day with recollections of just how great a man he was. In this regard, I offer this reprint of his Farwell to the Army of Northern Virginia. If Mr. Obama wants to end the war in Afghanistan now, this would serve as an excellent draft for his farewell speech to the troops:
"After four years of arduous service, marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources.
I need not tell the survivors of so many hard-fought battles who have remained steadfast to the last that I have consented to this result from no distrust of them; but feeling that valor and devotion could accomplish nothing that could compensate for the loss that would have attended the continuance of the contest, I determined to avoid the useless sacrifice of those whose past services have endeared them to their countrymen. By the terms of the agreement, officers and men can return to their homes and remain until exchanged.
You may take with you the satisfaction that proceeds from the consciousness of duty faithfully performed, and I earnestly pray that a merciful God will extend to you his blessing and protection.
With an unceasing admiration of your constancy and devotion to your country, and a grateful remembrance of your kind and generous consideration of myself, I bid you all an affectionate farewell."
I believe that General Lee can be understood as much by the actions of his adversaries as his own. Lee's home in Arlington was confiscated by the Union and the surrounding fields were used for the burial of Union soldiers. It was felt this would forever be an insult to the Confederate General and he would never again live in this home.
He never lived there again, yet his home has become the national shrine, hallowed ground, for America's heroes. All those who tread Arlington National Cemetery sense the strength of America, the nobleness of purpose and duty.
This was the home of General Lee and it is a true reflection of the man; somber, reflective, yet unbowed, dedicated not to self, but to duty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)