A health care promise to believe in

Because it is the day on which we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, Christmas is a time of great joy which we mark with a special spirit of generosity as we seek to honor with our gifts the generous gift of life represented to the world by the birth of Jesus Christ. It is a time when we strive with more than usual intensity to follow the advice of the apostle, to put off all

"…anger, wrath, malice, slander and foul talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices; and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts. (Colossians 3:8-15)

In this good counsel we see epitomized all that our gifts and ornaments, our special Christmas acts of charity, forgiveness and love are meant to express. We see the Christ in Christmas.

Of course, "the rest of the story" of Christmas includes the account of a very different spirit, one that momentous political events during this Christmas season inevitably bring to mind. In the aftermath of Christ's birth, wise men came in search of him, asking "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" Fearing that this portended both the end of his kingly reign and the removal of the succession from his descendants, Herod, the king of Judaea, sent for these men and "sent them to Bethlehem, saying, 'Go and search diligently for the child and when you have found him bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.'" But after they found the Christ child and honored him with gifts and worship, "warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way."

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem, and in all that region, who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were no more."(Matthew 2:16-18)

Though the birth of Christ inspires our goodwill to unite in forgiveness and love, it has a very different effect on those preoccupied with consolidating human power. They know that Christ's birth represents a threat to their vaulting ambition. They respond to that threat with an effort to slay all innocence in order to put down the hope of innocent life Christ offers to all humanity.

In recent weeks America's elected leaders in Congress have been debating what is supposed to be a bill to reform the nation's health care sector. Its proponents pretend that their intent is better to serve life by extending health services to people in need. But their true intent has been revealed by the sly maneuvers and corrupt practices they have used to enforce their insistence that, come what may, the supposed health reform act must include U.S. government funding for child murder. Though, like Herod, they cloak their real intent, this insistence reveals their true priority. Their chief aim is not to assure all America access to health services. It is to make all Americans complicit in the slaughter of the innocents. Though their deceptive slogan speaks of choice, in the moral realm they are insisting that Americans who reject the absurd notion of a right to murder our posterity shall have no choice but to see the fruits of their labor used to reward a practice they rightly regard as an abomination.

This Christmastide I am praying that the true spirit of Christmas will prevail in the counsels of our nation. I am praying that, despite the bribes and threats of those who give top priority to murder, the heart of Christ will truly be born again in the hearts of enough representatives in Congress to put a halt to the charade of evil which claims to serve our nation's health but aims in fact to destroy its healthy conscience and goodwill. With such courage, they will offer their nation a gift truly in keeping with the gift of God we celebrate: the birth of the one whose triumph over death renews, despite all evil human willing, God's offer of more abundant life for all. That's a health care promise to believe in.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Why the elite wants Christianity out of politics

As I wrote my most recent article for WND.com (the subject of my previous posting) I found myself thinking about Christianity's unique effect on our understanding of the justice (and injustice) of human action. The last point made in the article is about the connection between arrogant elitism and the self-inflation the Pharisee derives from comparing himself with other people. In light of this connection we can better understand why the elitist forces that strenuously promote the specious doctrine of the separation of church and state are so often guilty of favoritism. They invoke the doctrine to repress Christian institutions and practices, while treating those of other religions as protected artifacts of "cultural diversity." I think this discrimination has to do with the fact that the words and example of Christ convey an understanding of human authority that supports the sovereignty of the people even as it undermines the assertion of elite predominance (the sovereignty of the wealthy, more intelligent, more talented few.)

However we may characterize it ideologically, the ultimate effect of the present push to overturn the principal of consent as the lawful basis for government is to reestablish the rule of the few, whose assumption of power derives from their Pharisaical claim to be superior to the rest. On the convenient excuse of whatever problem or crisis happens to be handy (the jobs crisis, the health crisis, the environmental crisis, the crises of poverty, hunger, homelessness etc.) they assert the urgent need for approaches that concentrate control of more and more resources and decision-making in the hands of professional and bureaucratic elites. Against the preponderance of evidence and logical reasoning, they pretend that centralized government institutions will deal with the critical challenges we face more effectively than those that respect individual liberty. Of course, as they advocate this view they are not as open as the Pharisee about their assumption of moral superiority. They cloak their assertion of superior righteousness with a fabricated perception of scientific knowledge, global catastrophe and compassionate egalitarian intention. But once the smoke and mirrors of crisis and compassion have served their purpose, we will be left with the reconstructed edifice of unchecked elite domination. The elite promise is that people will enjoy the comfortable dependency of well cared for household pets. But once elite control is consolidated, some will suffer the brutalization and casual destruction of lab rats or noisome vermin while most experience the commingled care and misery once bestowed on work horses or pack animals, valued mainly for the work they perform for their betters.

A discussed in "The Publican's Prayer" Christ's insistence on the perfect standard of God's will ("Be ye therefore perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48) undermines the claim of intrinsic superiority that gives some appearance of justice to this elite consolidation of power. But more radical still is what he says even to the Pharisees: that "the Kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21) In his kingdom, the word of the king is the law. Those who have direct access to the sovereign are therefore privileged to hear at first hand the content of the law. When they pass it on to others they speak with an authority derived from their direct access to the king, and their words cannot be definitively contradicted except by others with the same access. What Christ says to every person is that they have direct and exclusive access to the King of all Creation, the author whose name is the root of authority in every sense. Though common to all, this access is, even so, radically exclusive because it involves the inner being of the individual, to which only that individual has direct access. All the subjects of human kings are thus vessels of God's authority. Made in His image, they have within themselves a model or likeness that accords with His will. The knowledge they derive from this model appears in the natural promptings of conscience, whereby they judge what they do to others in light of their own reaction to what others do to them. ("Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12)

When discussing personal morality, it is common enough in Christian parlance to speak of every individual as a temple of God, i.e., a venue in which the will of God resides. Christ's reference to the Kingdom of God within us also has implications for the just exercise of sovereign power, implications that bear directly on our understanding of lawful government. As a direct and exclusive form of access to the sovereign is available to all individuals, no one person or group of persons can by themselves have an unchallengeable claim to speak with sovereign authority over all the rest. Every other individual is a potential check on their claims, and may in his or her own right claim to be consulted as to the authenticity, content and meaning of the sovereign's will. The understanding of God's rule achieved through Christ thus becomes the basis for limiting the just claims of human rule to governments that respect the individual's right to be consulted, i.e., those "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This suggests that the political premise of the American Declaration of Independence draws upon and reflects the most basic Christian understanding of the meaning and political consequences of human moral equality (that is, the equality of all people before God.) Christ's American followers face increasing pressure from elitists who seek to drive their exercise of faith from politics, and indeed from all the arenas affected by law and public policy. In dealing with this pressure, we would do well to think through the vital connection between our faith and the principle of government by consent. Christ's teaching does not conflict with the requirements of Constitutional self-government. In truth, government by consent is based on an insight into the nature of political authority that would not have been achieved except through Christ. As Christ's followers are driven, as such, out of the political life of our country, what will become of this insight? It has dim prospects. For some people, that's the whole point; isn't it?

Being an American-what makes the difference?

Not long ago I received an email that struck me as a thought provoking comment on what it means to be an American. It also goes to the heart of what Obama faction media puppets like Chris Matthews really hate about the American military- i.e., their moral allegiance to liberty and the Constitution meant to incorporate it.

I asked Gary Hallmark, the retired Naval Officer who sent me the email, for permission to share it with the readers of this blog, which he has given. As you read it ask yourself, Is this nation still made up of individuals who, like so many of our fellow citizens in uniform, not only swear allegiance to a "piece of paper", but are willing to die for the moral ideas it represents? I don't know the answer to that question. But soon and very soon we will find out.

Dear Mr. Keyes,
>
> As a retired Naval Officer, one of my assignments while serving on
> active duty was serving as a Military Observer with the United Nations
> in the Middle East. While serving in Egypt in such a capacity, I found
> myself in a conversation one day with a Danish Army Officer who also
> was serving as a Military Observer. The topic of the conversation was
> the United States of America and my loyalty to it. During the
> conversation, the Danish Army Officer stated to me that the rest of
> the world did not understand the United States. When I asked why, he
> explained that the United States was different. He stated that as a
> people we wanted to be liked, and since people in the rest of the
> world knew this, then the rest of the world was not going to like us;
> he stated that the rest of the world would respect us, yes, but “we
> will never like you.” When I asked him why he believed that, he asked
> me, “Gary, who did you swear an oath to?” I told him, “I did not swear
> an oath to anybody, but as a Officer in the United States Military, I
> had sworn an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America.”
>
> The Danish Army Officer replied that was the problem, that was what
> the world did not understand, how an individual or individuals could
> swear an oath to a piece of paper. He went on to explain that as a
> Danish Army Officer he had sworn an oath to his country and his
> countrymen. He went on to say other nations swear an oath to their
> king or to their nation, but “you swore an oath to a piece of paper.”
>
> I replied that the Constitution of the United States of America was
> not a piece of paper, but it was a representation of an ideal that
> incorporates the fundamental principles upon which our nation and its
> government were founded for the people, by the people, and of the
> people and that every military officer I knew was prepared to give
> their lives to defend it and the American people’s right of self-rule.
>
> The Danish Army Office then told me that was the point; that this
> nation is made up of individuals who not only swear to this “piece of
> paper,” but who are willing to die for that ideal; and it is an ideal
> that people leave their home countries for, and those that don’t, are
> envious of those who do so. He went on further and explained that as a
> Dane he could relate to other Danes because of their culture, language,
> heritage, but he said, “Americans are different.” I replied to him,
> “Yes, we are because we are united in freedom. Freedom of self-rule
> and freedom of self-determination, both of which are guaranteed by the
> Constitution of the United States.” His response, I will never forget,
> “And that is what we don’t understand and that is why the rest of the
> world envies the United States.”
>
> Mr. Keyes, during my tour with the United Nations, I was subjected to
> the type of conversation I described above more than once. The one
> above stands out in my memory because it was the first such
> conversation and it was the first time in all my travels that a
> non-citizen of the United States had admitted an envy of our great
> country and the ideal by which we live, an ideal embodied in the
> Constitution of the United States of America. Yes, certain people in
> this country have little to no respect for the Constitution of the
> United States, but the military does. I was a young officer in the
> military when Nixon resigned as President. I remember very well the
> steps the military took to ensure that no one attempted to use the
> military to interfere in what was taking place. Why? Because those
> military individuals then, just as the military individuals now, had
> sworn an oath /to support and defend the Constitution of the United
> States against all enemies, foreign and domestic./ May that always be
> the case.
>
> Respectfully,
> Richard G. Hallmark
>

Sarah Palin-Personally pro-life, but...?

As I expected, my last post disturbed many who are desperately looking for some reason for hope among the Republicans being built up in the propaganda media as supposed representatives of the intense conservative disaffection that promises to be the decisive force in the 2010 midterm elections.  I suspect that the propagandist are hyping these personalities to serve as "heat sinks" for the vehement tide of anger and dismay against the betrayal of America's moral heart and its constitutional liberty; a betrayal sponsored or tolerated by the leadership in both branches of the sham "two party" system.

Here follows a comment on the article I came across on my Facebook profile page.  I think it typifies the reaction of many goodhearted people who are reluctant to look past the propaganda about her personal views and history to think clearly about Sarah Palin's official actions and public statements on the issue of justice, law and public policy involved in the fight to secure the unalienable right to life of our posterity.     

Anthony Davar Finding enemies in our prolife camp and splitting among strong prolife leaders will only cost us the most important fact: the life of another child. How many abortions were there in United States prior to 1973 vs after? One abortion is too many obviously. Sarah Palin is obviously a strong prolife leader, and with her own life example, has shown without a doubt, where she stands for life! However, as a matter of practical steps to victory, she is smart to go for one step at a time.If the country was on its knees repenting of the evil of abortion, she would be there with us praying for God to turn our hearts to the defense of our children. 

Alan Keyes Anthony Davar: On what grounds do you hold that Sarah Palin is "a strong pro-life leader"? I review both her statements and her actions, and find them in contradiction with the necessary moral logic without which the pro-life position is simply a matter of emotional feeling. Based on this review I conclude that she is not in fact espousing the pro-life public policy position. Without at all addressing the facts and moral reasoning I present, you assert that she is pro-life. Beyond emotional conviction, on what do you base your assertion?
It is obviously not right by law to impose our personal feelings on others, however strongly we feel. This is especially so when dealing with a decision that has deeply personal emotional and other consequences for the individual concerned. So if we reduce the pro-life cause to reliance on personal emotional conviction, we surrender the rational basis for the fight to achieve legal protection for the unalienable right to life of the unborn child.
Sarah Palin's statements and actions are rationally inconsistent with the moral logic of unalienable right which, if true, binds all levels of government and all US public officials to the goal of securing the unalienable rights with which God has endowed our humanity. If we accept her as a pro-life leader we abandon the rational moral basis for the pro-life position. I cannot do this without betraying the principles of liberty, and the will of the Creator God whose authority establishes them as the basis for human justice.
Your rhetoric simply fails to address the facts and reasoning I present. It amounts to saying that she is personally against abortion (about which I have no doubt). But many pro-"abortion rights" politicians say that. The issue before the nation is about law and justice, not personal conviction. Nothing Sarah Palin has said or done supports the view that she is pro-life as a matter of justice, law and public policy. So far as I can tell, she is just a pro-choice politician who turned a laudable personal choice into a seductive, but false pro-life public image. All the choices and statements she has made in her public capacity support this conclusion. If I'm wrong, show me the facts and statements that indicate something beyond the "I'm personally pro-life" position so common among the so-called "pro-choice" promoters of "abortion rights".

Unless Sarah Palin fundamentally alters the views she has enunciated and acted on up to now, I predict that she will disappoint the hope so many sincerely pro-life people are mistakenly investing in her supposed pro-life stand.  I am sure I will pay a price for saying now what others will only realize when it may be too late. I was excoriated starting in 2004 for calling Obama a hard line Marxist bent on destroying America.  That view is not at all so contemned today as it was when facts and reasoning first convinced me of its truth.  Similarly on account of facts and reasoning I and others insist that Obama cease to withhold evidence bearing on whether or not he satisfies the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Office of President of the United States.  For this we are vilified and ridiculed, though many of our fellow Americans now join in this demand.

My view of Sarah Palin's supposed pro-life stance, and the danger involved in following her leadership,  is similarly based on facts and reasoning.  I will hold to it until one or the other clearly compels me to do otherwise.  Experience has taught me that even among those whose pro-life hearts espouse the self-evident truths that make us free, when it  comes to politics the factual standard of truth often gives way to personal feelings and expedient calculation.  Given the crisis we are in, I can only pray that at some point they will realize that this neglect of the requirements of truth is the very reason America's liberty has reached the crisis point.  Before a people finds leaders willing to act in truth, they must become a people willing to submit their own judgments and decisions to its demands.

Obama's Real Bow

Obama apparently doesn't realize that the occupant of the office he lays claim to is supposed to represent the sovereign people of the United States.  At newsmax.com the following picture accompanied a story reporting his clearly deliberate bow to the Japanese Emperor Akihito.

Given the decidedly outraged reaction to his bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, there's no way this new affront is anything but a deliberate repudiation of respect for the republican form of government (of, by and for the people) established by the Constitution of the United States.  Given the cult of personality Obama worshippers have tried to promote since he won the 2008 election, we can be forgiven for suspecting that the Narcissist in Chief shows such respect for monarchs because he aspires to be what George Washington wisely refused to become- King of the United States.  Unlike Washington, of course, he has done nothing that remotely suggests he is worthy of such preferment.  But also unlike Washington he appears to believe that ambition for power is the only qualification required.  In this he resembles both Caesar and Napoleon, two historical figures who succeeded at the task Obama has undertaken- the destruction of a republican form of government in their respective countries.

As a matter of pure political calculation, however, one has to wonder at the outward appearance of stupidity involved in this latest insult to the people he's supposed to represent.  Even someone as blinded by his own self-image as Obama has to realize that his critics will pounce on this obviously deliberate reiteration of humiliated sovereignty. 

I think he not only realizes this, he means to provoke it.  Obama's bow to the Saudi King was a reflexive expression of homage to a figure he revered on account of deeply inculcated religious feeling.  It therefore  revealed Obama's allegiance to Islam.  From his insane waste of American lives in Afghanistan to his literally fishy reaction to the Ft. Hood episode; from his shutdown of Guantanamo to his decision to offer terrorists the propaganda platform of a civilian trial in the very city they assaulted; from his surrender of U.S. economic sovereignty to his determined and obvious efforts to drive the U.S. to utter bankruptcy; Obama's policies and actions are leading more and more Americans to question whether his true allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States and to the the people whose will and nationhood it represents.

This substantive issue of allegiance inevitably came to mind as people thought about the implications of his bow to the Saudi King.  Given Saudi Arabia's role in supporting the brand of Islamic fundamentalism that promotes the recruitment of Islamic terrorists like Major Hasan, these implications are intensely troubling.  The bow to the Japanese Emperor is a deliberate ploy intended to take the focus away from the issue of religious and political allegiance and put it on formalities instead.  The appearance of stupidity in the bow to Emperor Akihito covers the shrewdness of Obama's real bow, which is in fact to the requirements of the continuing deception that hides his deep betrayal of his oath and of America's trust.

NY 23- Has the majority ruled?

Word in from NY 23 that Conservative Doug Hoffman now trails by just 3000 votes as the official  tabulation process continues. "The new vote totals mean the race will be decided by absentee ballots, of which about 10,200 were distributed."  Among the absentee ballots that remain uncounted are "military and overseas ballots received by this coming Monday (and postmarked by Nov. 2)..."
But Bill Owens "was quickly sworn into office on Friday, a day before the rare weekend vote in the House of Representatives.  His support sealed his party's narrow victory on the health care legislation."
By what right does anyone declare and act on an election outcome before all the votes are counted?  Whatever candidates do to declare or concede victory, elections are decided by what the people do with their votes, not what the candidates do with their speeches.  Or at least that's the way its supposed to be when government of, by and for the people still functions.
Sad on this day after veterans day, to reflect on the fact that among the votes still uncounted when Owens was being sworn in are many cast by people who are right now risking their lives in service to their country.  Yet we let ambitious political parties hijack the electoral process in a fashion that sends the clear signal- your votes don't matter.
By such carelessness does a free people discard the respect for their sovereignty that is the essence of liberty.  I assume that if the vote turns out to favor Doug Hoffman, Owens will have to give up the seat he would thus prematurely have assumed.  But maybe not.  After all, once the candidates and the Parties agree to an election outcome,  why should the voters matter?
It's ironic that when it comes to ignoring the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, the politicos want us to accept the notion that all that matters is the electoral majority.  Now when it comes to deciding who's sworn in after an election, the people's votes remain uncounted, and all that matters is the candidates' declarations of victory or concession.  For those willing to understand, this little episode reveals the truth.  Once respect for the Constitution and its principles has been discarded, we'll quickly discover that the notion of majority rule has been thrown away as well.  The American people will find themselves cast down, to languish as other peoples have historically done, under the boot heel of arrogant elites who will resume their accustomed place as the dictators of human destiny.

To honor veterans join the battle for liberty at cpnlive.com

This is a day for remembering the men and women through all the generations who answered the call to defend liberty.  If we respect their sense of duty, we must work to restore and preserve it.
Because the crisis of liberty has come to a head, it is today being assaulted up and down the line.  A pervasive element of the assault is the abuse of the news and information media as a propaganda weapon to deceive and manipulate people so that they surrender government of, by and for the people without a fight.
From 3 PM until 11 PM today I will be joining Stan Solomon and others at cpnlive.com to promote the new alternative media- of, by and for the people- through which they can develop and share accurate news and information that aids in the exercise of liberty, rather than being part of its destruction.
Please stop by.  Use the live call-in or chat room features to join in the discussion.  The Conservative Political Network is a place where people loyal to liberty can gather their strength for its defense on the battlegrounds of opinion and debate that are deciding its fate today as surely as ever it was decided on the battlefields of conventional war.  Will you volunteer for service?
I'll be among those recruiting folks to the cause today starting at 3 PM at cpnlive.com.  Come by to say hello and have your say.   

Why Obama's Ft. Hood reaction seems so strange

There are times when even Obama's critics seem to have difficulty putting into words their reaction to his strange behavior. I think that's because they refuse to consider the simple premise that makes sense of it all: He feels no love for the USA. He seems in fact to feel himself to be no part of this country.

The occupant of the office he lays claim to is supposed to represent the body politic. People expect that his reactions will reflect its joys and pains i.e., the joys and pains of the American people as a whole. They expected him to react to the shocking events at Ft. Hood the way a person reacts to a grievous and unexpected wound to his body. Even a minor blow (like stubbing his toe) gets a pained reaction from the whole body. But the Ft. Hood attack is like a razor sharp knife that slips from its proper use to cut off a finger. It can only seem like a minor wound to someone whose gut isn't writhing with pain.

It was obvious to all that Obama's gut wasn't writhing. He spoke like a spectator taking notice of a scuffle on the sidelines. 'We shouldn't react until we know all the facts,' he says, as if the gut waits for a doctor's report rather than twisting with pain as a part of the body falls away.
With due regard to Bill Clinton, the simple fact is this. Obama doesn't feel our pain. To be sure, once it becomes clear that appearing to do so will serve his agenda of power, he will study the part and summon the right appearance when the script calls for it. But only fools will forget that this aspect of the role doesn't come naturally for him. His instinct isn't to feel for the country. It is to protect our assailants from any overreaction by Americans. He apparently assumes that we are prone to spiteful nastiness.

Nothing about this nation's reaction after the gut wrenching events of 9-11 justifies his fearful and insulting instincts. In many other countries (including the Islamic nations whose praises he sings so readily) there would have been violent street riots that claimed the lives of scores of innocent people, victimized because they professed the same religion as the terrorist assailants. In America we cried out in grief and anger, but we acted out first of all by falling to our knees in prayer to Almighty God. We rose again to seek justice, but even then we didn't lash out in prejudiced anger. We aimed our first blows at the beast that struck us, not even at others who, like some of the Palestinians, danced in their streets for joy as we mourned our dead.

Obama's reaction did not represent the American people. It came from years of associating with, studying, and even worshiping with people who hate us and everything we stand for in the world. In his heart of hearts I wager he even despises the decent motivation of many who voted for him. Many did so precisely because they naively believed that their action would lay to rest once and for all the stigma of institutionalized bigotry and hatred that mars all too many pages of our history as a nation. But there is a kind of relentless hating that sees in repentance only the admission of guilt. Though such people thought Obama's victory would stand for hope, every day it becomes more apparent that he brings only judgment.

What manner of man is this who now claims to preside over the affairs of the nation?

"The sojourner who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, and you shall not lend to him. He shall be the head, and you shall be the tail." (Deuteronomy 28:31, cf. Lamentations 5:8, Ezekiel 11:9)

Better they had sought for hope following God's example and looking "for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it..." (Ezekiel 22:30).

The moral-political nexus

I'm still working on my next post, but this morning a friend sent me the following quote in an email that I think is well worth pondering. Fulton Sheen succinctly summarizes the connection between moral understanding and politics that is pretty much the basis for everything I do in public life. He is also right about the consequences of neglecting it, as we are proving all too clearly these days.

"What men do not see is that the fracturing of the spiritual community means the loss of inclusive and unifying moral sanctions over the whole of man's activities... The modern world has no cement to bind together personal morals and the morals of political and economic life.' If a time ever comes when the religious Jews, Protestants and Catholics have to suffer under a totalitarian state denying them the right to worship God according to the light of their conscience, it will be because for years they thought it made no difference what kind of people represented them in Congress, and because they never opposed the spiritual truth to the materialist lie'." [pg 125]

Fulton Sheen Communism and the Conscience of the West

NY 23- Orgy of self-seeking reveals GOP void of statesmanship

With the withdrawal of Dede Scozzafava from contention in the special election in NY's 23rd Congressional District, we see a clear result of implementing Michael Steele's infamous 80/20 approach to candidate selection. Grassroots conservatives still hampered by their allegiance to the Republican Party need to consider the lessons to be drawn from the Republican party's disappearance from that race. Scozzafava was a candidate typical of the predilections of GOP Party bosses and the majority of its big money fundraisers. They believe that the Party's formula for political victory requires people who oppose or just give lip service to conservative stands on the issues of moral principle, like respect for the unalienable right to life and defense of the natural family, but embrace conservative positions on other fronts, especially when it comes to money issues.

But the problem with candidates like Scozzafava is the priorities they represent. Her eager endorsement of the Obama faction Democrat in the race points to the truth. In principal, politicians like her are in tune with the moral and intellectual culture of the leftist Democrats. Their election stands on money issues are a matter of cynical political calculation. In this respect they are exactly what the left has always accused Republicans of being- people willing to sacrifice issues of human life and dignity to win power. They put money ahead of every other consideration. Then in order to prove that they aren't just promoters of heartless greed and selfishness, they pander to politically correct notions of "tolerance" and "sensitivity" with their stands on issues that involve respect for human nature and moral responsibility.

Newt Gingrich cited her stands on the money issues in the statement reported in an article at politico.com "warning conservative activists that their support for a third-party candidate in a key upcoming New York Special election is a "mistake."
The former Georgia congressman then rattled off a list of Scozzafava's conservative credentials.

"She has signed a no tax increase pledge. She is endorsed by the National Rifle Association. She has come out against cap and trade…She is opposed to the Obama health care plan. She will vote for John Boehner instead of Nancy Pelosi," Gingrich said. "All of those things together make her – it seems to me – a legitimate, authentic, Republican nominee."

Former U.S. House speaker Gingrich wants to make it crystal clear that conservative stands on issues of moral principle are not an essential part of the Republican identity. So long as a candidate is right on the issues of money and power, that's all that matters. In a CNN interview the present Minority Leader in the House, John Boehner, took pains to make a similar point. "Clearly she would be on the left side of our party," said Boehner, who had financially supported the campaign of the New York assemblywoman. "...We accept moderates in our party and we want moderates in our party." He then went on to reject the notion that Scozzafava's failure had anything to do with "pressure by the conservative "Tea Party" movement, citing his participation at rallies in Bakersfield, Calif., and Ohio…. I've work with these people, and what they're concerned about is the growing size of government. They want someone who's really going to actively reduce spending and reduce control here in Washington."

Even as their nominee falls prey to the revulsion caused by her denial of the moral principles of liberty, these GOP leaders want to pretend that the angry uprising caused by the Obama faction's betrayal of American values has nothing to do with moral concerns. They desperately want the votes and power that angry uprising may deliver. But they don't want to represent Americans who know in their hearts that the Obama threat isn't just about money or the usual Washington power grab. It represents a profound destruction of the whole American way of life, destruction rooted in Obama's rejection of the moral idea of God-given individual rights, and constitutional government based on the consent of the people.

The battle with the Obama faction is in the end a struggle to determine whether this moral concept of humanity will continue to be the basis for American government, or whether it will be replaced by a moral vision that discards the whole idea of a distinctive human nature so that human beings can be treated simply as objects for manipulation by an all powerful administrative state. At the grassroots many Americans, regardless of political labels, instinctively grasp what is at stake. They long for leaders who also understand, and will rise to defend the moral idea of America, from which so many have gained inspiration and hope, and for which so many have risked or given their lives.

An appreciation for this longing has been a hallmark of American statesmanship when leaders arose in response to the crises of the past. The Republican Party's founding President, Abraham Lincoln, understood and spoke to it as he represented and articulated the moral causes of the American Civil War. But GOP leaders today not only lack the depth for such statesmanship, they appear utterly devoid of any sense of the compassionate concern for humanity from which it arises. Their preference for so-called "moderates" proves the point. What is moderate about rejecting the natural right of human family life in order to accept a paradigm of human sexuality freed from the responsible discipline of human procreation? What is moderate about rejecting the idea of natural, and therefore inherent, human rights in order to accept a so-called "right" to murder our offspring?

This disregard for the natural obligation that binds one generation to the next is precisely what leads to the disgusting orgy of self-seeking that is piling a Mount Everest of debt onto the backs of our posterity with no regard for the national servitude it represents. Why should we expect people who claim the right to avoid their present responsibilities by killing their living offspring to care about the harm they do to the generations yet unborn? Why should we expect people encouraged to justify such murder with arguments about the inferior "quality" of the life they destroy to stop at similarly discarding the elderly when age takes the shine from their physical existence? If the idea of humanity doesn't prevent murder in the womb, all the more reason it should not prevail against the murder of those whose life declines toward death.

The idea of "moderation" touted by the GOP leadership orphans the very idea of humanity, and with it the fellow feeling (compassion) that should stay the hand from murder and neglect, especially when the victims include our offspring or the parents who engendered our lives. It rejects the disciplined understanding of liberty that made successful constitutional self-government possible in the United States.By accepting an idea of right that limited and disciplined our choice, we became a people capable of doing what the scoffing philosophers thought impossible- establishing a government of, by and for the people that promotes order and prosperous decency rather than licentious self-destruction. This is true moderation. Real moderates, therefore, will not support people like Scozzafava, or the covert Scozzafavas the cynical, self-seeking GOP leadership insists on foisting off as "conservatives." They will instead seek out representatives who work to conserve the American idea of right. This is the heart and soul of the conservative cause, which in the end is just the cause of lasting liberty.

Congress Denying People's Right to Petition?

There was a time when what the people in this video experienced would have had liberty loving Americans manning the ramparts. Have the Congressional leaders of the Obama faction decided to deny "the right of the people...to petition the government for a redress of grievances"? Obama promised "change", and as I predicted what we are getting is a regime change- from a free society to a totalitarian government dictatorship. The Constitution is being systematically shredded. At first it took a bit of thinking and discernment to notice it. Now they are openly behaving like the apparatchiks of a totalitarian government. Apparently they expect the people of this country to sit back and take it, as folks elsewhere have done.

On November 11 we will once again commemorate the brave souls who fought, risking and giving their lives, so that some hope for liberty would survive in Europe and elsewhere in the world. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather die as they did than live in a country that has shamed and degraded their sacrifice by surrendering Constitutional liberty here at home. Are we really that anxious to be slaves on the national socialist plantation? Are we so pathetically desperate for the illusory benefits to be derived from government dictated lives? If so, I guess there are already no real Americans left?

[In my posting on September 15 I suggested making November 11 a day for declaring our freedom from the deceitful manipulators in the so-called main stream media. My friend Stan Solomon suggested that I spend Veterans Day with him on a web streamed program talking to people about the information crisis, and the new media that is developing in response to it.

But the crisis is clearly about more than how we inform our minds. It's quickly becoming a question of where we have put our American hearts, with the courage required to keep our nation truly free. With thoughts of the veterans who fought and died for it on our hearts, we must look for and find the resolve to imitate their courage now, in all that we do as citizens.

That's what I'll be talking about with Stan and other folks who visit with us on November 11. Join us at teapartylive.tv. And please help spread the word using your network of contacts. Programming will go from 9am to 10pm. We'll invite your participation through chat rooms and live call-ins.] I visit with Stan at teapartylive.tv every Tuesday at 7:30 pm. Tune in this week as we discuss the details of this special event.]

Sorry for the Hiatus!

Just a note to assure everyone that I'm still here and will be resuming new posts shortly. For the past two weeks I've been on the road doing meetings, speeches and events that left little time for writing and reflection. I try not to post anything that isn't carefully thought through and substantiated, so I couldn't bring myself to share hastily slapped up offerings. A new post will be up later today or tomorrow morning. My thanks to all the good folks who have been visiting in the interim and leaving comments on my archived posts.

Does elite refuse to clear Obama eligibility doubts so as to exploit "affirmative action" resentment?

Last night I posted as the 'featured link' on this site a link to what purports to be a 2004 article, from the online archives of a Kenyan newspaper, about the withdrawal of Obama's original Republican opponent in the 2004 race for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. What is of interest for present purposes is that both the headline and body of the article refer to Obama as Kenyan born.

Given the sophisticated possibilities for fabrication in both the virtual and real world these days, it would be foolish to assume that by itself this 'proves' anything about Obama's birthplace. Even if the article is authentic, it would simply indicate that some people in Kenya thought (perhaps mistakenly) that he was born there. Kenyan newspaper stories from 2004 (online or otherwise) are no more definitive proof of Obama's birthplace than uninformative birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers from 1961.

This episode simply illustrates the need for what I and many others have sought:

• a Constitutionally authoritative investigation of the facts;
  
• a similarly authoritative evaluation of its results;
  
• And, based on that evaluation, a Constitutionally authoritative judgment of law and fact as to whether Obama satisfies the Constitution's clear eligibility requirements for the Office of President of the United States.
  

I have received, or read here and there in online exchanges, comments from people critical of those (like my lawyer in the case before Judge Carter, Orly Taitz) who publicized purported birth certificates that have been declared fabricated or fraudulent by unofficial experts. These critics apparently miss the point. The Constitution of the United States is not "unofficially" the Supreme Law of the land. Obama does not "unofficially" claim to be President of the United States. But those who voted in the 2008 general election, whether they voted for or against him, had occasion to do so thanks to his oath or affirmation that he satisfies the Constitution's requirements. Such voters are actually being deprived of the substantive assurance that we have not "unofficially" (i.e., without due process of law) been deprived of the right and privilege of a Constitutionally valid choice at the ballot box. Without this assurance, the electoral process the Constitution establishes, and the scheme of representative (i.e., republican) government it is supposed to implement, will be permanently impaired by the suspicion of lying and fraud perpetrated at the highest possible levels of government.

The establishment of fact required for a credible, Constitutionally authoritative and substantive judgment cannot be supplied by unofficial evaluations of purported evidence, or casual internet discussions of the provisions of law that are relevant to a judgment based upon that evidence. Whatever may be the doubts with respect to any particular testimony or documentary claims, Obama's own actions have surely become the main source of the cloud of uncertainty and suspicion with respect to his Constitutional eligibility. As with any other job applicant, the issue of credentials once raised is rightly dealt with as a matter of course. Applicants who refuse to comply with requests that they produce their qualifying credentials foment doubts, by their own behavior, where doubts would otherwise not exist. Add to this the concerted and unaccountably scurrilous media dismissal of the common sense demand that the issue be authoritatively resolved, and it's not hard to explain the increasingly widespread presumption in the minds of many that something of important relevance to the Constitutional issue is being withheld from public scrutiny.

Seeking to blame and persecute those who are asking public officials to abide by their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution further aggravates the impression of malfeasance. Some continue to insist that this request indicates hostility to Obama. The real hostility (and perhaps even invidious discrimination) is shown by the unwillingness to accord him the same opportunity for resolution of all doubt that John McCain enjoyed. Do some of the power elite think they gain advantage, from perpetuating the impression that only fear of some adverse reaction based on race, rather than undisputed Constitutional authority, accounts for Obama's continued presence in the White House? Like the workplace whispers that resentfully ascribe advancement to "affirmative action", rather than proven qualifications and performance, the ongoing refusal to allow Constitutionally authoritative closure in this matter smacks of more ill will than the honest desire to clear the air of doubt.

America seeks liberty and justice for all, not “ascendancy” over them

As I was working on what became the two most recent postings on this site I came across a Charles Krauthammer offering, Decline is a choice: The new liberalism and the end of American ascendancy. In it he offers a cogent critique of the Obama faction's calculated surrender of America's position of leadership in the world. He also suggests an opposing alternative which begins with the notion that we should "accept our role as hegemon" for the simple reason that "we are as benign a hegemon as the world has ever seen." "…resistance to decline," he declares "begins with moral self-confidence."

Mr. Krauthammer accurately summarizes the moral view that undergirds the Obama faction's determination to abdicate America's leadership position.

But the liberal internationalism of today is different. It is not center-left, but left-liberal. And the new left-liberal internationalism goes far beyond its earlier Clintonian incarnation in its distrust of and distaste for American dominance. For what might be called the New Liberalism, the renunciation of power is rooted not in the fear that we are essentially good but subject to the corruptions of power--the old Clintonian view--but rooted in the conviction that America is so intrinsically flawed, so inherently and congenitally sinful that it cannot be trusted with, and does not merit, the possession of overarching world power.

For the New Liberalism, it is not just that power corrupts. It is that America itself is corrupt--in the sense of being deeply flawed, and with the history to prove it. An imperfect union, the theme of Obama's famous Philadelphia race speech, has been carried to and amplified in his every major foreign-policy address, particularly those delivered on foreign soil. (Not surprisingly, since it earns greater applause over there.)

And because we remain so imperfect a nation, we are in no position to dictate our professed values to others around the world. Demonstrators are shot in the streets of Tehran seeking nothing but freedom, but our president holds his tongue because, he says openly, of our own alleged transgressions towards Iran (presumably involvement in the 1953 coup). Our shortcomings are so grave, and our offenses both domestic and international so serious, that we lack the moral ground on which to justify hegemony.

He then proceeds to give an excellent summary of the policies― dangerous and perhaps even fatal to American survival― that arise from Obama's self-righteous degradation of America's moral standing. But while proposing that the reassertion of moral self-confidence is the first step toward correcting these destructive policies, Mr. Krauthammer offers no account of the alternative understanding of America's actions and history that provides the basis for it. He does not address the obvious questions. What moral understanding produced what he describes as America's benign "hegemony"? What morality therefore provides a reasonable basis for the reassertion of moral self-confidence?

In the absence of such an account, Mr. Krauthammer's prescription risks being mistaken for nothing more than a proposal that we cling to American ascendancy for its own sake. Perhaps he believes (understandably so, given the real peril involved) that the mere fact that the alternative is so dangerous makes further moral reasoning superfluous. We may seem to be like the ancient Athenians, whose almost inadvertent establishment of an empire in the wake of the Persian Wars appeared to bring them to a point where they faced an inescapable choice: embrace their imperial vocation or see their way of life destroyed.

Sadly, Thucydides' sobering depiction of Athens' tragic fate in The Peloponnesian War suggests that this was a false appearance that resulted from the failure of statesmanship that in the natural course of things afflicted the Athenians, as it now unnaturally afflicts the United States. The policy consonant with the way of life Pericles so eloquently epitomizes in his famous funeral oration precisely eschewed the ambition of empire, even while acknowledging and relying upon the strength Athens derived from its commerce with the cities that had come together under her leadership to forestall the threat from Persia's perennial imperialism. Thucydides relates that after Pericles' death, shortsighted panderers for power misled the Athenians into "allowing private ambitions and private interests…to lead them into projects unjust both to themselves and to their allies―projects whose success would only conduce to the honor and advantage of private persons, and whose failures entailed certain disaster on the country…"

It has always been tempting to look for parallels between the situation of ancient Athens and that of the United States during the twentieth century. Ironically, that temptation may in part account for the susceptibility of America's educated elite to the Obama faction's sordid view of America's actions in the decades since the Second World War. (A view largely parroted by some who supposedly stand at the opposite end of the political spectrum, as I mentioned in the article The USA- a special nation with special responsibilities.)

But the United States is not Athens. Its moral understanding differs from that of the ancient polity precisely with respect to the fact that greatness and the prideful sense of honor that results from it do not essentially define or shape the American character. This difference is eminently clear when we compare Pericles' funeral oration with the archetypal American oration for soldiers who met death in battle. Lincoln's Gettysburg address deals not with the habits or achievements of the American people, but with their common allegiance to certain principles of right. The nobility of their war dead does not shine in the light of merely national pride. It rises in light of God's goodwill toward creation, and the lustrous hope of all humanity for liberty, dignity and justice.

It does potentially fatal injustice to this nobility to use the benignity of American "hegemony" as moral cover for a reassertion of American leadership based on little more than an expedient hunger for preeminence. To attempt to restore America's moral confidence by discarding (or is it benignly neglecting?) the morality that justifies it is a project that can only reproduce in foreign and national security policy the fruitless futility and ultimate failure characteristic of the barren, 'hollow Republican' betrayal of our political process and institutions.

After WWII America did in fact show a degree of restraint in the use of its preeminent position of power in the world that is without precedent in human history. The use of unaccustomed power inevitably entails some abuses, just as people who grow into great physical strength or stature sometimes hurt others before they "know their own strength." But had America behaved as every other preeminent power in history behaved, we would not today be living in a world filled with nations robust and confidently independent enough to applaud and ruthlessly exploit Obama's dangerous policies of national derogation and appeasement. Japan would not only have endured the awful experience of the first demonstration of nuclear war making power, it would still languish in subjection because of it; so too would others who only witnessed it, like Germany and even the the countries that once made up the Soviet Union. A whole host of nations, including most of those in the Middle East who now are willing incubators of the terrorist threat against us, would never have tasted anything but perpetual colonial subjection and oppression.

Mr. Krauthammer inadvertently discredits this historically unique American repudiation of power enforced global supremacy with the use of terms like "hegemon" and "hegemony" which imply a Caesar-like dismissal of what is actually coveted and enjoyed. (He even tacitly assumes moral equivalency by using the term "co-hegemon" to refer to the U.S. post-war position in relation to the Soviet Union.) Whatever may have been, and may now be, the arrogant caesarism of America's power elites, most of the good and decent Americans, from all walks and stations of life, laid to rest near now quiet battlefields of wartime sacrifice and courage did not thirst for power, or glory or fame. They simply did their moral duty. Whether they lived or died they did so longing for no possession but the safety of their own home and life and liberty, and to restore to humanity a decent share of hope that all might in peace enjoy the same.

America did not rise to world leadership in the twentieth century because the American people thirsted for domination and preeminence. Neither will we strive to hold on to leadership for such reasons, no matter how often Mr. Krauthammer or others obliquely flatter us with good assurances of what a good master we proved to be. Real American common sense acknowledges the simple truth that people who genuinely reject being slaves to others reject with equal fervor the claim to be their masters. Human nature is as much degraded by the one as the other.

Mr. Krauthammer is right, though, about the benign intention that distinguished and ought still to distinguish America's leadership among nations. But by neglecting to recount the connection between that intention and the self-evident truths from which it arose, he is led to neglect the wise symmetry of the self-evident truths that make this distinction possible. We assert liberty on the basis of moral ideas that constrain power within the confines of justice. It was no accident that in our use of supreme power, we were mindful of that constraint. Being all too human, we were and are from time to time misled, as were the ancients, by people serving only their own power, wealth and pride. But time and again, we withdrew our confidence from such people, sometimes even when expediency would have said it was not wise to do so. I have no doubt that Mr. Krauthammer and others like him are sincerely seeking to oppose the unwisdom of just such a withdrawal from our special responsibility for 'the last best hope' of earth. But there can be no success for such opposition until the false hope of surrender and abdication again faces the true hope grounded in the faithful commitment that defines our identity both as Americans and as human beings. It is not a willful commitment to maintain the hollow ascendancy of power, but rather a reverent determination to keep faith with the principles of liberty, and with the will of the Creator God whose justice makes us free.

Hollow Republicans won’t fight for truth even when they win

[This is the follow-on to my previous post and must be read in context with it.]

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without color,
Paralyzed force, gesture without motion;

T. S. Eliot, The Hollow Men

The failure to articulate the connection between moral concerns and limited government has allowed the emergence of a sham approach to moral issues. On issues like abortion or the defense of the God-ordained natural family, leaders give lip-service or take isolated stands while actually implementing policies that preferentially employ and promote the spirit killing use of government power as the way to deal with our economic and social challenges. This is how the Huckabee/Palin fold (of the three-fold Republican political scenario discussed in my previous post) manifests the deficiency of substantive logic that so often makes the Bush league's version of a Republican conservative such a 'hollow man (or woman, as the case may be)'.

Education is the area where this deficiency becomes most apparent. The "No Child Left behind" policies of the Bush years were predicated on the development and use of centralized government power and control as the motivating engine for improvements in the standards and quality of American education. Bush policies also worked comfortably with an understanding of education as primarily aimed at workforce preparation. They did little to challenge the leftist, NEA strategy of abusing education to impose a globalist ('world citizen', i.e., citizen as the subject/worker in the global economy) as opposed to American ('sovereign citizen', i.e., the citizen as a member of the sovereign body of the people) identity on our children. Mike Huckabee "called No Child Left Behind "the greatest education reform effort by the federal government in my lifetime," (Washington Times 03/01/05)". Sarah Palin has superficially criticized its implementation. Her approach to education has generally emphasized funding, teacher salaries and workforce preparation, (typical NEA compatible boilerplate). She allows for school choice and teaching about creation in schools, but has apparently never coherently thought through and articulated the understanding that connects them with the essential goal of preparing young Americans for their historically unique participation as sovereign citizens in the constitutional processes of deliberation and choice that are supposed to govern their nation.

For true conservatives this aspect of education isn't just one issue among many because it is a key prerequisite for the survival of liberty. The Constitutional oath required of all our government officials obliges them first and foremost to preserve Constitutional government (the republican form of government- of, by and for the people- required by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.). Except we make preparation for citizenship the core and guiding concept of education in our society, this form of government must fail. But the assertion and sustenance of citizen sovereignty depends on respect for the basic moral understanding that undergirds the just requirement that government be based on the consent of the governed. As summarized in the Declaration of Independence, this moral understanding holds that human beings are created equal, their nature endowed with God-ordained unalienable rights. Though simply stated, the reasoning involved in this moral understanding must be shared with each new generation so that they can act with reasonable conviction as to its truth. Their education must therefore introduce them to the facts that account for its emergence in human history. And it must prepare them to follow and appreciate the thinking that reveals its intellectual and spiritual roots.

These education tasks rely on a reference to the Author of all creation as the ultimate source for the authority of the people. Yet the politicians of our time have surrendered control of education for many of our children to a government run system, that by incompetence or design they permit to be constrained by a doctrine that excludes all reference to God and His creation from the curriculum. The forces that promote this doctrine go beyond the exclusion of God's authority. They take measures that can only be intended to shame and intimidate students raised to reverence God's authority in their homes. Though often portrayed as if this is just hostility to "religion" it is in fact hostility toward the ideas of justice and liberty that are the basis for our institutions of constitutional self-government. If, from generation to generation, the American people surrender the warrant of sovereignty they derive from the divine Ruler of all possible worlds, they must inevitably expose themselves to the logic that has, throughout human history, subjected people in this world to the arbitrary rule of elite human masters deriving their warrant from the successful impositions of fear, force and falsehood.

Of course the power hungry elites in our time claim to derive their warrant for mastery from 'scientific truth'. But when people pretend that modern science offers any proven knowledge about the substance and premises of moral truth, their claim has no more basis than any other superstition. It is the logic of human experience, not scientific experiment that must decide the truth of moral ideas. That logic takes account of facts the instruments of science cannot perceive or measure, like the sense of inner worth that sparks the heart of every human being to cherish the love our nature beckons us to show toward one another, even when it sears our pride or other selfish interest. Such are the self-evident truths on which the American founders based the human claim to liberty. Republican leaders from the Palin/Huckabee fold seek the support and vote of those whose faith and natural wisdom lead them to hold fast to these truths. Whether through insincerity or incompetence, however, these leaders have shown no ability or even inclination to represent and articulate the reasoning that approves this wisdom and justifies this faith. Meanwhile, efforts to do what they can or will not do have been starved, stifled and systematically driven from the most visible platforms of public discussion and debate.

This failure of reasonable articulation tacitly cedes the high ground of moral discussion to those who assault the premises of liberty. It feeds and almost guarantees the outcome we have seen from the Bush era of Republican leadership. You can't beat something with nothing. Though confronted only by the straw man of socialist materialism and false compassion, the hollow men of contemporary Republican 'conservatism' lose because they will not fight, and because they fight for nothing even when they win. Who still deludes themselves that another empty victory won by such an empty leadership will restore the strength of the American people, and renew their faith in the better human destiny their liberty is supposed to illustrate to all mankind? The tragedy is, however, that except they are stirred by such renewal, there will be no victory of freedom, even a hollow one. And like the elderly exiled from care by the elitists' banal scheme for health care savings, this once free people will be pushed by falsehood and hollow betrayal, gently whimpering with inarticulate regret, into the long, dark night of tyranny come again. Have we become people with souls so dead we can still believe this is the lesser evil?

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow…

T. S. Eliot, The Hollow Men

‘Schwarzenegger Scenario’'s CA flop nixes nationwide debut

I recently read a newsmax.com article (California Becomes Fiscal Basket Case) summarizing California's fiscal woes that included an observation from USC professor Kevin Starr that "California is on the verge of becoming the first failed state in America."

Recounting the history of California's current woes, the article notes that "Had California lived within the limitation imposed under the 1979 Gann Amendment, which limited the growth of spending to the rate of economic growth, some analysts say the state would be in a far better fiscal situation today. But former Gov. George Deukmejian allowed exemptions to budget items, such as education, before leaving office in 1991, which began the state's current fiscal trend." With this permission from a Governor wearing the label that supposedly represents fiscal discipline, "California' spending increased 180.9 percent between 1991 and 2001, and the state budget ballooned from $51.4 billion in 1991 to $144.5 billion during the past fiscal year, according to the Reason foundation."

In recent months California pols have belatedly and desperately tried to medicate the state's economic ills with a dose of spending restraint. "Under the budget deal Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic-controlled Legislature cut this summer to close California's $26.3 billion dollar budget deficit, billions were slashed from the education budget, and 60,000 state employees were slated to be sacked."

Asked about all this, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, chimed in with the silver lining: "The one thing that comes out of this is that California can be an example of what not to do for the rest of the country." Sadly I wonder if Mr. Norquist would include in his list of things to be avoided, the election of a pro-abortion, pro-gay "rights" governor touting the Republican brand name, who wooed support from conservatives with half-hearted promises to implement fiscally responsible spending policies.

Like a lot of principled conservatives around the country, I supported then California state Sen. Tom McClintock, not Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the special election to replace Gov. Gray Davis back in Oct. 2003. At the time, McClintock combined proven and experienced fiscal conservatism with an equally proven commitment to carry out the moral understanding that demands respect for God-ordained natural rights (including first of all the unalienable right to life) and the prerogatives of the God-ordained natural family. On the other hand, somewhat successful comedic actor Arnold Schwarzenegger (his other movies delivered action, not acting) combined a proven record in the profession of physical narcissism with an equally proven commitment to Hollywood's profoundly superficial but politically correct ethical code, which combines the profitable stupefaction of sex and violence with occasional bouts of self-congratulatory altruism.

The circumstances of the 2003 special election eerily foreshadow what may be the national political situation in 2012. A Republican's (Deukmejian) surrender of conservative principle unleashes a Democrat imposed era of unsustainable growth in the size and expense and outstanding debts of government. The inevitable shortcomings of this era offer Republicans an opportunity to reclaim political leadership. Will they choose an alternative that offers proven fiscal conservatism combined with moral principle (McClintock) or the half-hearted promise of fiscal conservatism combined with moral surrender (Schwarzenegger)?

Right after the general election last year Donald Kent Douglas offered an excellent analysis of electoral realities which suggest that when it comes to a truly conservative political choice Grover Norquist is exactly right: California provides a good example of what not to do. In his article Douglas points to "a useful three-fold scenario" offered by "political scientist Marvin King in the Clarion-Ledger. He thinks the Republicans might focus on a 'Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee' path to power; they might seek a path in a 'Grover Norquist/Club for Growth' agenda; or they might seek a route that 'goes west' - that is, a moves in the direction of Arnold Schwarzenegger." In the electoral analysis that follows, Douglas rightly rejects the Schwarzenegger model. But he limits his analysis to political facts (which groups of voters might vote for which of the alternatives). He therefore neglects to consider whether any of these three alternatives has a substantive logic true and persuasive enough to shape voters' convictions. To produce a political result that will actually restore the integrity and strength of American liberty, Americans need to rediscover the deeply reasonable convictions that were the foundation for the integrity and strength of American liberty. Without this restoration of freedom's creed, the 2012 election will just decide which bunch of self-serving politicos presides over its final interment.

Each of the three alternatives falls short of what is needed, and for the same reason. The logic is missing. The Grover Norquist/Club for growth "fold" most perfectly represents this deficiency. They rightly champion fiscal restraint, low taxes and in general the idea of limited government that has been the key to implementing the constitutional sovereignty of the people. But while pretending to deal with the practical requirements of successful limited government, they neglect a simple, very practical truth often reiterated by those who framed, and then argued for, the adoption of the U.S. Constitution: There can logically be "no limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation." (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #31)

James Madison later (Federalist 51) alludes to the general purpose of all government when he first asks "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" and then observes "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Government owes its existence to a purpose imposed by the human tendency toward behavior that selfishly violates right and justice. Without restraint, this tendency leads to perpetual conflict and disorder. Given this purpose, unrestrained human viciousness implies unlimited government power.

But restraint may be internal or external. Madison alludes to angels as the archetype of perfect internal restraint. That presumably puts devils at the opposite extreme, with human beings somewhere in between. If as Madison suggests, angels require no government then devils require the maximum application of government's restraining power. But if Hamilton is right, this means that limited government makes no sense when dealing with devils. It is only necessary and appropriate when dealing with human beings. Humans have a tendency to behave like devils, but oftentimes have the will and desire to behave like angels as well. (Rather like the bad boys and girls who go off to Hollywood. There they play at being destructive, self-indulgent devils, all the while longing to be the angelic saviors of the world.)

The difference between men and angels is not that angels are good and men are not. It is that angels are perfectly good, while men can only strive to be. For human beings, perfection (whether of good or evil) is always a work in progress; a question of acting according to a model or standard of perfection, rather than fully attaining that standard. (The wisdom of Christ suggests this duality. We strive to be perfect even as our heavenly Father is perfect. But we pray as those who always miss the mark (sin) and must beg the Lord's forgiveness.) Limited government depends on the extent to which people, in their overall behavior, approximate the standard without having to be constrained by government force. The more they act out their unruly passions, the more untenable limited government becomes.

What is it that keeps some people who profess to be proponents of limited government from accepting this simple, practical fact? Their alliance with those who seek to defend the God ordained standards of right conduct should not be a matter of electoral calculation. It is a natural and logical necessity. Someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot be a consistent champion of limited government (and therefore of conservative fiscal policies) because his acceptance of 'political correct' moral anarchy contradicts the practical prerequisite of limited government. The more people lie, cheat steal and kill, the more pervasive and heavy handed the police powers of government must become. The more people seek sexual pleasures without regard to the responsibilities of procreation (childbearing and rearing) the more intrusive the caretaker role of government must become. The more people seek and indulge in stupefying pleasures (drugs, sex and rock n' roll) the more government dictation (in health care as well as other economic sectors) must compensate for their indolent, selfish and counter-productive habits (like sloth and overeating for example.)

It is a self-evident and self-defeating sham to champion limited government, feign moral indifference, then give real support to moral licentiousness and collapse. Inevitably, the rhetoric of limited government must surrender to insistent and ever increasing demands for government action, until the possibility of just government is swallowed up in a maelstrom of economic/social bankruptcy and confusion. As part of the United States California may for a time postpone the worst effects of the maelstrom. But like Gov. Deukmejian, President G.W. Bush abandoned conservative principles, pushing the bank bailout that opened the door to Obama's debt financed spending frenzy. So the U.S. now stands at the edge of a national version of California's ills. Electing a national version of Schwarzenegger's deadly 'moderation' will no more allay the coming storm in the U.S. than it did in California. Tragically for all of us, the storm probably portends the reemergence of age old tyranny, albeit armed with new technology for repression. This the Obama faction eagerly prepares to impose.

Does the proffered Palin/Huckabee fold of the "three-fold scenario" promise a really different result? I'll be thinking about that in my next posting.

Judge Confirms Eligibility Trial to Proceed

I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has release a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.

By design or incompetence Obama creates Afghanistan quagmire

"Where there is no vision, the people cast off restraint." (Proverbs 29:18)

"…abandonment of strategic vision leads to policy decisions that damage the national security of the country." (The USA- a special nation with special responsibilities)

The headline at newsmax.com says "Obama Moves to Muzzle Top Military Commanders." The words call to mind the passage in the Plato's Republic where Socrates compares the warriors who keep watch over the city to guard dogs. The image of America's armed forces as guard dogs wearing muzzles can only give comfort to our enemies.

"The Administration's primary target: top Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whose speech in London last week apparently caught administration officials off guard….In his speech McChrystal defended his request for 40.000 more soldiers to wage a counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan, warning "a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a shortsighted strategy….McChrystal said the vice-president's proposal to scale back the objectives for the war would lead to "chaos-istan."

Shallow pundits focus attention on Obama's failure to win Chicago the Olympic committee's nod as the location of the 2016 Olympic Games. Meanwhile, here's evidence that he's losing something far more crucial to the survival of the nation- the respect of the U.S. military. In the position he presently claims, he is supposed to represent civilian control of the military on behalf of the American people. Failure to do so competently raises the specter of chaos far closer to home than Afghanistan, as the United States enters the jungle of military disgust with civilian authority that has swallowed the governments and constitutions of many a "banana republic" in our neighborhood to the south.

So far, we can be thankful that U.S. military personnel do not treat their oath to uphold the Constitution with the same contempt Obama exemplifies. His casual disregard for its requirements begins with withholding the best evidence that he meets the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the office he claims, and includes, just for starters, the exercise of executive power through so-called "czars" intended to circumvent Congressional oversight; efforts to usurp control of the decennial census in order to subvert the independence of the legislative branch; the abuse of public monies for openly partisan political pay-offs; unconstitutional disregard for the property rights of individuals and private enterprises; and disregard for the rights of conscience medical workers derive from the first amendment.

But his abandonment of the Constitution goes well beyond mere disregard of its provisions. He has abandoned as well the vision of liberty, founded upon respect for unalienable human rights, in light of which its provisions were made. Its correspondence with the requirements of just government casts the anchor of allegiance to the Constitution in the deep waters of the American heart, assuring a loyalty that transcends the vicissitudes of personalities and power politics. Respect for this anchoring vision has been a hallmark of the honorable tradition of Constitutional loyalty that has distinguished the U.S. military's service to the American people.

In exchange for this allegiance to the vision of justice that undergirds America's freedom, civilian leaders of the U.S. government owe it to our military personnel to accept their proffered dedication and sacrifice in the context of a strategic vision based on the goal of securing liberty that our military personnel have in common with the whole people they serve. When the U.S. took military action in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there could be little doubt that this was the strategic context. Terrorism substitutes a de facto regime of violence and fear for legitimate government based on the consent of the governed. Those who attacked the U.S. acted with the support of an infrastructure of terrorist groups and states whose concerted actions posed a comprehensive challenge to the American way of life, and in particular the lives and sovereign liberty of the American people. That comprehensive challenge required and justified a comprehensive response to restore and defend the national security of the United States. The military action in Afghanistan was one element of that response.

Obama has explicitly abandoned the concept of strategic action against terrorism (the so-called war on terrorism.) Pursuant to this change, he has curtailed U.S. efforts to attack and weaken the infrastructure of terror, including signals of dead-lined U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, the cessation of extraordinary pressure against terrorist cadre (signaled by the closure of the Guantanamo detention facility) and the possible pursuit of vindictive prosecutions against U.S. intelligence personnel directly responsible for implementing that extraordinary pressure.

Yet despite the collapse of the strategic vision that alone could make sense of it, Obama emphasized the intention to continue U.S. military action in Afghanistan. Isolated from any connection with the comprehensive goal of forestalling successful terrorist assaults against the territory or people of the United States, this intention has no justification except a vague and open ended commitment to "nation-building."

As a side benefit of actions that serve and strengthen the security of the United States, efforts to stabilize strategically relevant countries, and help their people develop and maintain just institutions of government can make sense. But military action sustained for the sole purpose of such nation-building serves neither the security of American liberty, nor the development of constitutional government elsewhere. The assertion of a people's liberty must sometimes be defended by the sword, but military force can never be the source or mainstay of that assertion. Government by force and government based upon consent are self-evidently in contradiction.

It is also self-defeating to remove pressure from the regional and even global infrastructure that supports our enemy so that he may freely concentrate all his resources on defeating our forces on the one front that remains open. This actually creates conditions ideally suited to achieve his victory, and substantially raise the death toll among our troops along the way, especially if our rear areas remain vulnerable to his assaults. (Given Obama's intensified neglect of America's border security, this vulnerability has been heightened rather than reduced by his abandonment of the strategic concept of the war on terrorism.) By design or incompetence Obama appears to be intent on creating a quagmire in which to dissipate America's military strength and resources. Most Americans have no objection to seeing their loved ones in the military risk and give their lives to fulfill the oaths that preserve the liberty of our people. It is deeply wrong to ask that they do so when the strategy that makes moral and military sense of their sacrifice has been cast side.

Finally it makes no sense to articulate an understanding of our global position that discredits the motives of our military actions, apologizes for the defense of our interests and friends and generally undermines confidence in our good faith, our good intentions and our moral capacity to sustain the difficulties involved in the course we undertake.

At best, Obama's actions smack of egregious incompetence. At worst, they foster the suspicion that he regards the ultimate goal the Constitution sets for the U.S. government―to "secure the blessing of liberty"― with the same contempt he has shown for its provisions regarding the prerequisites for the office he purports to occupy by its authority. If this is not the case, why has he abandoned the strategy that reflects the simple truth that a de facto regime of global terror and our national regime of liberty cannot peacefully coexist?

Guaranteeing republican government- a little dialogue

[Once in a while an exchange of comments occurs in response to one of my posts that is so instructive that I believe it should be shared with everyone. Such is the following exchange arising in response to my last post, The saving grace of the republican imperative. )If you have not read it, I suggest doing so before you continue.) I hope this will encourage readers to click more often on the comments button; to leave their own, or just read what's in progress. It's often worth the time.]

chiu_chunling said:

Dr. Keyes, you are apparently making an accusation...but I fail to see the substance or even the sense of it.

My point (and I did not see any others being made), was that you appear to disparage the one tactic for restoring a moral consensus and legal system in opposition to abortion which has any hope of being successful, which also happens to be the one most in line with the particular wording and intent of the Constitution.

If, as you seem to imply, there is some definite agenda expressed on the part of the Pauls to fix the 'peculiar institution' of abortion as an inviolable states' right for all time, I would appreciate it if you would address such statements. As I mentioned earlier, I don't have enough interest in the Pauls to follow their statements in any great detail.

On the other hand, if they have made no such statements of nefarious intent to use the mantra of states' rights to perpetuate the practice of abortion against all attempts to restrict it, then I don't see how their choice of the Constitutional strategy to remove control over abortion law from the province of the national government should be counted as support of abortion.

I once mentioned that even the hopeless battles must be contested sharply. I do not believe this implies that one must deliberately fight all one's battles on the worst possible ground. A hopeless battle is only worth fighting when the alternative is not fighting at all, when the alternative is an advantageous battle, one must wonder at the decision to fix one's standard in ground that cannot be defended.

Especially as I simply do not see the guiding principle that would give such a decision 'moral' merit. Restricting the power of the national government to purely Federal issues (as the Constitution provides) would seem to be the more 'principled' way to address this issue, as well as being more likely to provide success.

If you were to answer the following questions I might better understand your position.

Do you really believe that reversing Roe v. Wade would not be a substantial victory for pro-life activists?

Have those who express a desire to precisely reverse the Roe v. Wade decision made explicit statements that they foresee such a reversal being a fundamental victory for pro-abortion activists?

Is there some essential flaw in the design of the Federal system described in the Constitution, such that it should be considered unacceptable to leave the states with any significant role in making laws?

I would not ordinarily think to ask you these questions, but this last post leaves me in considerable doubt as to what your answers to them could possibly be.

Alan Keyes said:

The Pauls take the position that the states may abrogate their responsibility to secure the unalienable right to life of posterity. Along with McCain, Sarah Palin, etc. they have repeatedly said that laws permitting abortion are legitimate at the state level.

But the goal of republican government is to secure unalienable rights. This is not optional. It is a positive obligation of justice.

If a state abrogates responsibility for the security of the right to life (by declaring open season on posterity via so called abortion rights) it departs from the substance of republican government. The Constitution mandates that the Federal government guarantee adherence to the republican form of government. It is therefore constitutionally obliged to act to remedy the state's breach of republicanism.

This by no means implies taking away the state's right to make laws. Rather it enforces the state's obligation to make provision in the law for the security of unalienable rights, in this case the right to life.

By the way, on account of the constitutional requirement that all persons be accorded equal protection of the laws, the selective abrogation of the state's responsibility for the security of the unalienable rights of nascent posterity is not only a substantive formal dereliction of republican government, it is also a violation of a specific constitutional provision. (By the way, the Pauls, McCain, etc. do not hold to the view that nascent human offspring are not persons. They allow that they are persons, but claim that states can legitimately confer a right to kill them anyway. In this respect, their contradiction of republican constitutional justice is more egregious than is the case with those who hold that nascent posterity are not human beings.)

chiu_chunling said:

I am disinclined to put too much moral weight on the issue of legitimacy of laws. It is nothing more than which laws will actually be treated as law, when you get right down to it. In that sense, it is nothing more than a pragmatic judgment. And in just this sense, those who say that the states have the more legitimate authority to make such legislation have a very strong case.

If we are to hope for a reversal of Roe v. Wade by persuasion of the electorate rather than overthrow of democracy, then stating the principle of that reversal in terms of preserving the guarantee of self-government is prudent. In order for it to be moral, such statements should represent a real willingness to let the issue of abortion be settled by state laws. This in no way implies a abdication of the moral responsibility to advocate good laws, only to keep that fight at the level of the state legislatures.

I have mentioned before that a complete ban on abortion is unenforcible. While I'm willing to withhold the explicit details which would turn that argument into a de facto instruction in how to perform one, I will not let the point slide. Legitimacy of abortion laws may be a matter of pragmatism, but in the case of a law that can so easily be circumvented, it is not unimportant.

To put it very bluntly, where abortion is not regarded as wrong in and of itself, laws restricting it are likely to be ineffective. They will not be obeyed, and are likely to be difficult to enforce as well. A commitment to pursuing such laws through the democratic process at the state level implies persuasion of the majority in each state that abortion is wrong and should be eliminated by law. This persuasive process is precisely what is needed to actually eliminate (rather than unenforceably outlaw) abortion.

A declaration of absolute commitment to achieve some objective which rejects the methods by which it has any possibility of actually being achieved is...not prudent. If one understands that one is undermining the potential for success, then such a statement would be downright deceptive. Fortunately for my opinion of your honor (though it perhaps is something you wish to mend), you do have a notable tendency to lose sight of political realities in your pursuit of ideals.

To argue that the states have the authority to regulate abortion through their democratically elected legislatures is to imply that they may decline to do so. I'm afraid that one cannot disparage this reality of limited government...where an explicit law cannot be enacted through the legislative process, the law is silent. I favor limited government for a number of reasons, not least because it provides for laws to be explicit and regular rather than corresponding only to the whim of those in power. Regardless of whether or not it serves any given social or political end at some moment, limited government is one of the chief principles of the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence, where--if you'll recall--the whimsical and arbitrary nature of the King's rule was the essential focus of most of the complaints).

In my life-time, there have been a number of different state laws which denied my right to exist or live because of my racial or religious background. I do not hold that any of these laws were good laws, but it never occurred to me that there was any point in disputing the authority of the various states to make them. The point was to fight to get them reversed (a fight in which I never had much interest, to be honest). States may make bad laws, or fail to make good laws. But if you have any love of the principles of limited government then you have to grant someone the authority to make laws, and the Constitution grants the authority over all but a few laws to the states.

Alan Keyes said:

The question of legitimacy is not a "pragmatic" issue unless one assumes that there is no standard of right and wrong apart from human will and imposition. The doctrine of unalienable rights invokes a higher standard, a higher law, the will of the Creator God. Human actions and legislation that contravene the Creator's provision for human nature are unlawful.

The people of the United States, and of each state respectively, base their claim to be the ultimate arbiters of authority for law and government on this provision. When, through their representatives, they make laws they cannot contradict the provisions of the higher law without vitiating their right to govern themselves.

If, without regard to the provisions made for human nature by the Creator, we accept as lawful whatever the people decides to be such, there would then be no difference between constitutional government and the arbitrary rule of despots and tyrants. However, the Constitution does not establish or sanction a tyranny of any kind, including tyranny of the majority.

To be sure, some Americans now wish to overthrow constitutional government, and to replace it with a socialist tyranny claiming to act on behalf of the people. They deny the existence of God, of any higher law and of any standard for human affairs except "history" (i.e., what happens determines what's right.) Put simply, this returns us to a world in which might makes right and success justifies everything.

The majority of Americans don't want to live in such a world. Since our tactical aim is to build a majority, the right tactical goal is to make sure people realize that whether or not we live in such a world is what is really at stake in all our present discussions. Because this is most directly clear when dealing with respect for unalienable rights (like the right to life,) emphasizing this aspect of every issue is the most salient and effective way of achieving the tactical goal.

By the way, the moral consensus we seek to achieve is not just about abortion, it is about justice and liberty. Making clear the unlawfulness of abortion serves and must be seen in the context of this overall purpose. Reducing abortions without restoring respect for God's provision of justice for humanity does not achieve the purpose, though all too many people presently regarded as pro-life leaders mistakenly think that it does.)

chiu_chunling said

The precise point of disagreement is whether directly reversing the national government's arrogation of the authority to decide the legality of abortion would 'vitiate' the principles on which America is based.

My argument (I don't know the details of the Pauls' position) is that the several states, while not individually necessarily any better stewards of this authority, are collectively better because they face competition and work under Federal limitations rather than acting as totally sovereign governments. Whether or not this argument is persuasive, you have advanced nothing in opposition to the argument itself.

I have no vested interest in holding this position, given that I believe that the Federal government is irreversibly delegitimized. I am perfectly willing to be persuaded...but you must make an argument that I can follow from premises I accept.

Alan Keyes said:

Where respect for the republican form of government is concerned, the Constitution clearly states that the U.S. government has responsibility for guaranteeing that it is maintained. This is a positive Constitutional duty. If a state respects the premises of republican government, no U.S. government action is needed. But if it departs from that respect (as it does with legislation that violates the unalienable right to life, for instance) the U.S. government has a Constitutional duty and obligation to act.

Those of us who work under the banner of the Constitution cannot treat its terms as optional. According to those terms, the states must adhere to the republican form of government.

Finally, though we act at a time when strong forces are working to abuse the power of the U.S. government, it has not been "irreversibly delegitimized". Its legitimacy depends on proper respect for Constitutional limits and duties, and will be restored along with that respect. Such is the aim of the work I and others are doing.

chiu_chunling said:

See, the leap you make between "Republican form of Government" and "advocating direct reversal of Roe v. Wade is pro-abortion" is the place you're losing me.

I realize you're connecting them. I just don't see the logic of that connection. Maybe you need to go through it a little slower or something.

For myself, I think the word "form" is in there for a reason. The Founding Fathers may well have realized that it would simply not be possible for the Federal government to actually guarantee that each state would be an ideal Republic. So they might have meant "Republican form of Government" quite literally, since it is easier to enforce forms than ideals. Just thinking...they paid a lot of attention to what might actually be possible in their design for the United States.

I believe in miracles. My existence cannot otherwise be explained, after all. And yet...I also believe in prudence. I don't actually practice it, but I do believe in it.

Alan Keyes said:

In matters of perception the word "form" refers to an object's distinctive appearance in perception. Our sense of its meaning must obviously take account of the faculties through which perception takes place. Reference to the 'form' of a tree calls to mind something different than referring to the 'form' of a piece of music, or of a dancer in action.

The 'form' of government is rather more like the dancer, in that it cannot be perceived except in action. Unlike the dancer, however, its 'body' appears mainly as an object of intellectual rather than material perception. Its form thus corresponds to a certain body of ideas (understood as a logically coherent arrangement of premises and conclusions to be carried into action.) In this respect it is more like the dance than the dancer, in that its form at any given moment is determined by choreography, which exists prior to action as an object of intellectual judgment and perception, an object of thought.

As an object of thought the republican form of government is a body of ideas that starts from the basic premise that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". Just as a ballet dancer must respect the rules that govern the body's carriage during movement (appropriate flexure of the feet, rectitude of the spine, correct alignment of the shoulders, neck and head, etc.) a republican government must respect this basic premise (and its consequences) in all its arrangements and actions. If and when it departs from it (as legislation violating the unalienable right to life does) it is no longer maintaining the republican (i.e., just and legitimate) form of government.

I believe this clarifies the connection between ending "legalized" abortion and maintaining the republican form of government. The latter involves implementing a certain understanding of justice, so that its 'form' and its 'substance' (from the Latin sub stare, meaning to stand under) are inseparable.

The American founders had nothing but contempt for the idea of letting the U.S. Constitution become an arrangement of insubstantial "parchment provisions." A constitution is justice in action. That's why the oath of all government officials in the U.S. (including officials at the state level) binds them to carry it out (respect it in their actions.)