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?"

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."

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.

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.

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.

Travel

1. Copenhagen, Denmark
2. Athens, Greece
3. Heraklion, Greece
4. Mykonos Town, Greece
5. Oia, Greece
6. Dublin, Ireland
7. Killarney, Ireland
8. Waterford, Ireland
9. Florence, Italy
10. Manarola, Italy
11. Milan, Italy
12. Montecatini Terme, Italy
13. Naples, Italy
14. Padua, Italy
15. Pisa, Italy
16. Pompeii, Italy
17. Rome, Italy
18. San Gimignano, Italy
19. Siena, Italy
20. Vatican City, Italy
21. Venice, Italy
22. Verona, Italy
23. Bergen, Norway
24. Oslo, Norway
25. Stockholm, Sweden
26. Amsterdam, The Netherlands
27. Kusadasi, Turkey
28. Bath, UK
29. Cambridge, UK
30. London, UK
31. Manchester, UK
32. Salisbury, UK
33. St. John's, Antigua and Barbuda
34. Oranjestad, Aruba
35. Bridgetown, Barbados
36. St. George's, Grenada
37. Seven Mile Beach, Cayman Islands
38. Montego Bay, Jamaica
39. Ocho Rios, Jamaica
40. Cabo San Lucas, Mexico
41. Mazatlan, Mexico
42. Playa del Carmen, Mexico
43. Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
44. San Jose del Cabo, Mexico
45. Tijuana, Mexico
46. Tulum, Mexico
47. San Juan, Puerto Rico
48. Castries, St. Lucia
49. Charlotte Amalie, U.S. Virgin Islands
50. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
51. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
52. Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
53. Quito, Ecuador
54. Anchorage, AK, USA
55. Juneau, AK, USA
56. Ketchikan, AK, USA
57. Birmingham, AL, USA
58. Gulf Shores, AL, USA
59. Mobile, AL, USA
60. Orange Beach, AL, USA
61. Flagstaff, AZ, USA
62. Phoenix, AZ, USA
63. Scottsdale, AZ, USA
64. Sedona, AZ, USA
65. Tucson, AZ, USA
66. Carmel, CA, USA
67. Los Angeles, CA, USA
68. Monterey, CA, USA
69. Napa, CA, USA
70. Oakland, CA, USA
71. Sacramento, CA, USA
72. San Diego, CA, USA
73. San Francisco, CA, USA
74. San Jose, CA, USA
75. Temecula, CA, USA
76. Aspen, CO, USA
77. Beaver Creek, CO, USA
78. Boulder, CO, USA
79. Breckenridge, CO, USA
80. Colorado Springs, CO, USA
81. Denver, CO, USA
82. Durango, CO, USA
83. Estes Park, CO, USA
84. Keystone, CO, USA
85. Steamboat Springs, CO, USA
86. Vail, CO, USA
87. Danbury, CT, USA
88. Hartford, CT, USA
89. Mystic, CT, USA
90. New Haven, CT, USA
91. Washington DC, DC, USA
92. Cape Canaveral, FL, USA
93. Daytona Beach, FL, USA
94. Destin, FL, USA
95. Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
96. Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
97. Gainesville, FL, USA
98. Jacksonville, FL, USA
99. Miami, FL, USA
100. Orlando, FL, USA
101. Ormond Beach, FL, USA
102. Palm Beach, FL, USA
103. Panama City, FL, USA
104. Panama City Beach, FL, USA
105. Pensacola, FL, USA
106. Saint Augustine, FL, USA
107. Saint Pete Beach, FL, USA
108. Tampa, FL, USA
109. West Palm Beach, FL, USA
110. Atlanta, GA, USA
111. Hilo, HI, USA
112. Honolulu, HI, USA
113. Kailua, HI, USA
114. Kailua-Kona, HI, USA
115. Kihei, HI, USA
116. Lahaina, HI, USA
117. Wailea, HI, USA
118. Chicago, IL, USA
119. Springfield, IL, USA
120. Indianapolis, IN, USA
121. Nashville, IN, USA
122. Wichita, KS, USA
123. Bardstown, KY, USA
124. Bowling Green, KY, USA
125. Lexington, KY, USA
126. Louisville, KY, USA
127. New Orleans, LA, USA
128. Boston, MA, USA
129. Cambridge, MA, USA
130. Chatham, MA, USA
131. Falmouth, MA, USA
132. Hyannis, MA, USA
133. Provincetown, MA, USA
134. Salem, MA, USA
135. Annapolis, MD, USA
136. Baltimore, MD, USA
137. Ocean City, MD, USA
138. Kennebunkport, ME, USA
139. Ann Arbor, MI, USA
140. Detroit, MI, USA
141. Grand Rapids, MI, USA
142. Minneapolis, MN, USA
143. Saint Paul, MN, USA
144. Branson, MO, USA
145. Kansas City, MO, USA
146. Saint Louis, MO, USA
147. Biloxi, MS, USA
148. Natchez, MS, USA
149. West Yellowstone, MT, USA
150. Asheville, NC, USA
151. Charlotte, NC, USA
152. Cherokee, NC, USA
153. Greensboro, NC, USA
154. Wilmington, NC, USA
155. Winston Salem, NC, USA
156. Omaha, NE, USA
157. North Conway, NH, USA
158. Albuquerque, NM, USA
159. Santa Fe, NM, USA
160. Taos, NM, USA
161. Savannah, GA, USA
162. Henderson, NV, USA
163. Las Vegas, NV, USA
164. Laughlin, NV, USA
165. Reno, NV, USA
166. Stateline, NV, USA
167. Buffalo, NY, USA
168. New York City, NY, USA
169. Niagara Falls, NY, USA
170. Cincinnati, OH, USA
171. Cleveland, OH, USA
172. Columbus, OH, USA
173. Oklahoma City, OK, USA
174. Tulsa, OK, USA
175. Portland, OR, USA
176. Erie, PA, USA
177. Gettysburg, PA, USA
178. Harrisburg, PA, USA
179. Hershey, PA, USA
180. Lancaster, PA, USA
181. Philadelphia, PA, USA
182. Pittsburgh, PA, USA
183. Providence, RI, USA
184. Charleston, SC, USA
185. Columbia, SC, USA
186. Greenville, SC, USA
187. Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
188. North Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
189. Rapid City, SD, USA
190. Chattanooga, TN, USA
191. Gatlinburg, TN, USA
192. Knoxville, TN, USA
193. Memphis, TN, USA
194. Nashville, TN, USA
195. Pigeon Forge, TN, USA
196. Sevierville, TN, USA
197. Amarillo, TX, USA
198. Austin, TX, USA
199. El Paso, TX, USA
200. Fredericksburg, TX, USA
201. Houston, TX, USA
202. New Braunfels, TX, USA
203. San Antonio, TX, USA
204. Salt Lake City, UT, USA
205. Alexandria, VA, USA
206. Arlington, VA, USA
207. Charlottesville, VA, USA
208. Harrisonburg, VA, USA
209. Norfolk, VA, USA
210. Richmond, VA, USA
211. Virginia Beach, VA, USA
212. Williamsburg, VA, USA
213. Burlington, VT, USA
214. Killington, VT, USA
215. Stowe, VT, USA
216. Seattle, WA, USA
217. Tacoma, WA, USA
218. Madison, WI, USA
219. Milwaukee, WI, USA
220. Wisconsin Dells, WI, USA
221. Williamson, WV, USA
222. Jackson, WY, USA
223. Teton Village, WY, USA

• Create your own travel map or travel blog
• Top vacation rentals at TripAdvisor

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!"

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.

Latin Wisdom Phrases

"Veritas vos Liberabit," which translates, "the Truth will set you Free." The origin is John 8:31-32, where Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

"Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis," which translates, "Always Vigilant, Brave, Prepared and Faithful."

Mission trip to Ecuador

Just returned from a week near Quito, Ecuador with 16 young people from our church and about 60-80 from other places. These young people and several adults spread out over the area doing a multitude of service projects, interacting with children and adults through sports, Bible school type activities, work projects, and just casual contacts to demonstrate Christ's love through action and caring. It is remarkable to watch young people give of themselves to people of another culture, often with extreme language barriers, and at the same time seeing them become changed. We were part of an organization called World Changers under the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. Our group worked on projects planned by a local missionary couple in Quito with the support of the groups named. We stayed at a Nazarene Seminary which had the facilities necessary for our lodging and group activities and fanned out over surrounding areas for the projects being worked on. We met some remarkable local people who were so obviously appreciative of the work we were doing. My small group cleaned up and painted a community center and cleaned up an adjacent park. Another group and some local youth painted murals on the building. Some city workers came and removed some accumulated rock and building debris and finished a concrete playground that had been neglected for quite a while only because of the work we were doing and the urging of some neighborhood leaders. The week of work, worship, and travel was tiring, but quite rewarding and inspiring. This is my second trip to Ecuador, and my only regret is that I still haven't been able to get to a place where I can eat guinea pig!

Crazy Editorial & My Reply Re: McDonald vs. City of Chicago

Below is an editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal, June 30, 2010 regarding the Supreme Court decision announced Monday, June 28, 2010 on the Second Amendment case of McDonald vs. City of Chicago in which the court again upheld the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was an individual right which had to be respected by the states. It is incredible to see the outrageous attempts to try to distort historical reality to which these elitists will use to further their attempts to destroy our freedoms. Emphasis below are supplied by myself.

Editorial | Crazy about guns
June 30, 2010

The phantom right of individual gun ownership got another boost Monday from an activist U.S. Supreme Court majority that seems intent on making law out of conservative orthodoxy.

Writing for the majority in a 5-4 ruling that split along familiar philosophical lines, Justice Samuel Alito took a bad ruling of two years ago and gave it even broader impact.
The 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller , resulted in another 5-4 ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns in the District of Columbia, crippling a tough local gun-control ordinance in a city that is largely under federal jurisdiction. In the current case, McDonald v. Chicago , the Court said that the Second Amendment's supposed guarantee of an individual's right to bear arms is binding on state and local governments.
The good news for anyone who seeks a saner American approach to guns is that the Court didn't seem to know exactly what it hoped to accomplish. Indeed, it didn't even strike down the gun-control measures in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., that were at issue in the case. It sent the matter back to lower courts to determine whether those cities' strict ordinances, which basically ban possession of handguns, are allowed under the Second Amendment.
Moreover, Justice Alito again made clear that gun ownership is not an absolute right, though it is unclear what gun limits the Court majority will accept. At a minimum, one hopes that bans on military assault rifles; tougher regulations regarding gun shows, licensing of dealers and background checks, and restrictions on guns in schools, bars, government buildings and other public places remain possible.
The disturbing part of the ruling is that the Court relied on a selective reading of American history and constitutional development to hand the gun lobby a ruling it will use across the nation to challenge even the tamest local gun measures.
It brushed aside that the single sentence of the Second Amendment ties the "right to bear arms" with the need for state militias and the "the security of a free state," while making no mention of individuals (or, for that matter, guns).
It focused on two cherry-picked historical situations -- the young nation's vulnerability after it revolted successfully against British rule and the Civil War and its violent aftermath in the South -- to identify an enduring individual right that may neuter contemporary communities' abilities to respond effectively to epidemic levels of gun violence.
The reality today, as noted in dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer, is that guns cause 60,000 deaths and serious injuries in the United States each year.
Does anyone believe that's what the Founding Fathers or the Civil War's victors had in mind?

MY RESPONSE
Editor:
It is hard to comprehend how supposedly educated and (?) intelligent people can cram so many falsehoods and misrepresentations in a few paragraphs as you managed with your “Crazy about guns” editorial of June 30, 2010. The very first sentence calls our individual Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms a “phantom right”, in spite of the very simple and straightforward wording, used in several locations in the Constitution, defining that right clearly as “the right of the people.” What you call “conservative orthodoxy” is the accurate application of the clear and unequivocal intention of the writers and adopters of the Bill of Rights. You say the court “brushed aside” a sentence which you (inaccurately) claim ties the Right to Bear Arms to “state militias” and (unintentionally on your part) to “the security of a free state.” The clear and obvious intention of the writers of the Second Amendment was to provide for free citizens to have the means to preserve a “free state;” free from the despotic and tyrannical intrusions of an overreaching government supported and encouraged by elitists such as your editorial board, making that Right an essential factor in assuring that we would indeed always have the means to be truly “free.” People who have the Right to Bear Arms denied them are not free citizens, they are subjects.
In addition, you apparently totally deny the reality which has been clearly documented through actual legitimate scientifically designed studies as well as the experience of most of the nation where some reasonable level of access to weapons by honest citizens is preserved, that the presence of guns in the hands of honest citizens is an undeniable factor in a lowering of the incidence of violent crime. Jurisdictions with the most restrictive gun laws, essentially disarming the honest citizens, have, without exception, far higher levels of violent crime, including gun related crime, providing obvious proof that restrictive gun laws, rather than increasing safety and security, have exactly the opposite effect. It is equally obvious that such laws have nothing to do with “communities’ abilities to respond …to gun violence.” Legitimate response to “gun violence” is to prosecute criminals, not demonize an object. Guns do not “cause 60,000 deaths and serious injuries” (a grossly inflated figure, and mostly gang and drug related) annually in the United States. Criminals (and to a trivial extent, carelessness) “cause” those events. Guns are used over 2.5 million times annually to deter or stop criminal threats.
Your description of this decision (McDonald vs. City of Chicago) as coming from an “activist” Court majority is ludicrous. The majority ruled in a way that is absolutely and totally consistent with the language of the Constitution and the well documented intent of the framers of that document. This view of the Second Amendment was so well accepted that no one even thought to challenge it throughout most of the history of our nation. Far from being “activist,” this court ruled very narrowly and entirely consistently with the Constitution as written and understood from its creation. It has only been in the last several decades that the distorted view of the Right to Bear Arms only being related to a militia was even brought forward. The “militia” at the time of the writing consisted of the entire body of “the people.” This ruling (unfortunately) allows local and state jurisdictions to continue to tamper with our rights until further challenges are ruled on. The saddest part of this latest reaffirmation of our Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms is that there are four justices on the Supreme Court who place their personal opinions above the clear language of the Constitution and the obvious and well documented intent of those who wrote, debated, and approved that document. That is a frightening reminder of how fragile our freedoms really are and how crucial it is that we elect persons who take their oath to protect and defend the Constitution seriously enough to only consider candidates for the bench who are equally committed to that oath, placing it above any personal opinion or political pressure.


Sincerely,
Ronald D. Weddle, MD
4004 Mary Jo Blvd.
Bardstown, KY 40004
502-348-0515 (Home)
502-275-6090 (Cell)

Liberal Psychopathology

Excellent essay describing the Narcissistic Personality Disorder so prevalent among those with a leftist or statist ideology. Published long before Barack Obama was a national figure. (Which due to his total lack of qualifications for any significant post, was not very long ago.)

Pathology of the Left
By Mark Alexander · Friday, February 25, 2005

Recently, the American Psychological Association published a study by a few "academicians" from Cal-Berkeley and the University of Maryland. The study, entitled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," purported to have identified some determinants that are common to those holding a "conservative" worldview.

As one reads the report, it becomes readily apparent that their "norm" -- that is, their control group -- was somewhere to the left of Barack Hussein Obama1, Nancy Pelosi and her Ya Ya sisters, Babs Boxer and Di Feinstein -- but then, what are we to expect from Cal-Berkeley and UM, or just about any of our nation's "leading academic institutions"?

The authors received more than 1.2 million of your hard-earned tax dollars from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation in order to, by their own account, "consider evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3) fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt; (5) loss prevention; (6) fear of death; (7) threat arising from social and economic deprivation; and (8) threat to the stability of the social system."

In other words, if you (1) have an opinion; and are (2) humble; (3) assertive; (4) a realist; (5) a conservationist; (6) not suicidal; (7) from modest means; and (8) a constitutional constructionist, or worse, a Christian, then you're probably a wacky conservative.

Actually, what taxpayers got was re-warmed 1950-vintage rhetoric on what the authors call "authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality.'' They assert that "one is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives..." (Is it just us, or is that a rather tendentious juxtaposition of murderous tyrants and conservative icons?) All in all, this research stands as a sterling example of academic twaddle, providing "an integrative, meta-analytic review of research on epistemic, existential, and ideological bases of conservatism." The authors' ultimate finding -- for what it's worth -- is that conservatives tend to "arrive at premature conclusions and impose simplistic cliche's and stereotypes," which, ironically, is precisely what the authors have done.

I waited for conservative behaviorist academicians to respond to this farcical pseudo-scholarly diatribe with a brief essay outlining the pathology of liberalism (contemporary, not classical). However, most conservative behaviorist left the academy a long time ago. That being the case, what follows is a rebuttal to this Leftist invective, in the most general terms -- sans the $1.2 million in confiscated wages and a forest of pulp for reprinting in "scholarly journals."

Now then, what, in the broadest terms, constitutes a contemporary liberal -- and why?

Liberals are uniformly defined by their hypocrisy and dissociation from reality. For example, the wealthiest U.S. senators -- Democrats -- fancy themselves as defenders of the poor and advocate the redistribution of wealth, but they hoard enormous wealth for themselves and have never missed a meal. They have always been far more dedicated to their country clubs than our country.

Liberals speak of unity, but they seed foment, appealing to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into dependent constituencies. What constitutes these liberal constituencies? They support freedom of thought, unless your thoughts don't comport with theirs. They feign tolerance while practicing intolerance. They resist open discussion and debate of their views, yet seek to silence dissenters. They insist that they care more about protecting habitat than those who hunt and fish, and protest for the preservation of natural order while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals, while ardently supporting the killing of the most innocent among us -- children prior to birth. They loathe individual responsibility, and advocate for statism. They eschew private initiative and enterprise while promoting all manner of government control and regulation.

Liberals constantly assert their First Amendment rights, except, of course, when it comes to religion or speech that does not agree with their own. Here, they firmly impose the doctrines of secular atheism on everyone else. They hate the idea of self reliance, and Second Amendment rights cause them much consternation. They believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than marijuana and crack smoke. They believe that one nut accused of bombing an abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than Jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They call 9/11 victims "Hitlerian" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They hate SUVs, unless imported and driven by their soccer mom constituents. They advocate mass transit but commute on private jets. They are earth-worshippers and see themselves as the ultimate arbiters of ["climate change" |http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=520]. They believe trial lawyers save lives and doctors kill people. They believe the solution to racism is to treat people differently on the basis of the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They promote peace but foment division and hate.

Ad infinitum...

Why do liberals believe what they believe -- and act the way they act? Psychopathology dictates, or frames, worldview, and worldview manifests in such things as political affiliation. Liberal pathology is very transparent and, thus, well defined.

Generally, liberals tend to be mentally rigid and closed-minded because they are insecure, the result of low self-esteem and arrested emotional development associated, predominantly, with fatherless households or critically dysfunctional families in which they were not adequately affirmed. They exhibit fear, anger, and aggression -- the behavioral consequences of arrested emotional development associated with childhood trauma (primarily rejection by a significant family member of origin as noted above). They display pessimism, disgust, and contempt for those who are self sufficient for much the same reason. They believe that conforming to a code of non-conformity is a sign of individualism, when it is nothing more than an extreme form of conformism for those who are truly insecure.

Liberals fear loss because most have suffered significant loss. Liberal personality disorders are the result of broken families. They fear death because they have little or no meaningful connection with their Heavenly Father -- often the result of the disconnect with their earthly fathers2. They often come from socially and/or economically deprived homes, the result of fatherless homes, but those who are inheritance-welfare trust-babies3 (see Kennedy, et al.) manifest similar insecurities about being helpless without external sustenance. Liberals reject individual responsibility and social stability because these were not modeled for them as children -- the generational implications of pathology.

Sound familiar? And I suspect the profs at Cal-Berkeley and Maryland attributed their own pathological traits to their opposition. It's called projection -- or, yes indeed, hypocrisy.

While the aforementioned environmental and behavioral factors are not universally causal in the emergence of a liberal worldview, they certainly are predominant. Close examination of the early childhood of most liberals will reveal they were "victims" of many of these circumstances, which is, in part, the basis for their "victim mentality."

Medically speaking, there is a diagnosis for Leftist over-achievers like Bill Clinton, Albert Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, et al. They are pathological case studies of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -- the standard reference used for psychiatric evaluation.

The diagnostic criteria for NPD includes a "pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts," which manifests as "a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);" "a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; and a belief that he or she is 'special' and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)," and the subject "lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others...shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes."

Dr. Henry Miller, a 20-year veteran of the National Institutes of Health, notes, "People who suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder are tough to be around. They make terrible bosses, unbearable in-laws and insufferable neighbors. That's why I don't want Al Gore to be president -- or to live next door to me."

Of course, there are many conservatives who were raised by a single parent or in critically dysfunctional and/or impoverished homes. However, somewhere along the way, they were lifted out of their misery by the grace of God -- often in the form of a significant mentor who modeled individual responsibility and character. As a result, they have the courage to internalize their locus of responsibility, unlike liberals, who externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others (read "conservatives") to blame for their ills, and bestowing upon the state the duty for arbitrating proper conduct -- even proper thought.

And a footnote: It's no coincidence that conservative political bases tend to be suburban or rural, while liberal political bases tend to be urban (see http://FederalistPatriot.US/map.asp). The social, cultural and economic blight in many urban settings are the catalysts for producing generations of liberals. Many urbanites no longer have a connection with "the land" (self-sufficiency) and, thus, tend to be largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance -- "It Takes a Village" after all.
Links

1. http://patriotpost.us/papers/#anchor31
2. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=537
3. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=275